[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18404-18409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    GETTING BACK TO OUR CONSTITUTION

  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, I have so much respect and abiding love and 
appreciation for my dear friend from Arizona, as well as my friend from 
Colorado and my friend who was here earlier from Iowa, my dear friend 
Steve King. Congressman King and I were down in Guantanamo together, 
and I heard him earlier talking about pulling back the privileges and 
punishing assaults at Guantanamo Bay against our own servicemembers.

                              {time}  2150

  I did recall something that he may not have recalled. There is 
another severe form of punishment when such an assault is committed on 
our guards at Guantanamo, which apparently is pretty customary down 
there, of throwing urine or feces on our guards. They have to come up 
with creative ways to do that, and do so.
  One of the other ways--and it's the only other way in addition to 
taking some of their outdoor exercise time down to 2 hours. The other 
thing that they have been known to do in order to really punish them, 
to actually torture them, is to take away some of their movie-watching 
time during the day. It's just devastating, you know, to the Guantanamo 
detainees to have some of their movie-watching privileges taken away 
because they threw feces or urine on one of our gallant servicemen or -
women. You've got to take away some of their movie-watching. It really 
teaches them a lesson. It just shows them we're not going to be messed 
with. If you mess with us, you won't get to watch as many movies today 
as you would have otherwise. We'll show 'em.
  I was also hearing on the news today that Uyghurs, Chinese Muslims 
who have been transferred out of Guantanamo, had given interviews, 
indicating, actually, they were a lot better treated in Guantanamo than 
they were at home in China. So, despite the way some people have tried 
to characterize the prison in Guantanamo, it is not quite as bad--in 
fact, not by a long shot. It provides better living conditions than 
many of these people have ever had in their lives.
  Then again, some of them wanted to blow themselves up, and they 
haven't had that opportunity down there. So, if their version of a 
great, abundant life is to blow themselves up and to kill a lot of 
innocent people, then, yes, they have not had that kind of abundant 
life of blowing themselves up and killing innocent people in Guantanamo 
Bay.
  But the messages that are coming out of this administration are 
particularly worrisome. When our own enemies perceive weakness in the 
President of this country or his administration, it propels them into 
action. It propels them into actions that harm the United States that 
they would otherwise be afraid to move forward with. In fact, when one 
thinks about President Bush, with support from Democrats and 
Republicans alike, going into Iraq, one of the things that came out of 
that was a country teetering once again on the edge of nuclear 
proliferation, a nuclear program going forward.
  When President Bush ordered our troops into Iraq, the potential 
terrorist-harboring state of Libya realized, uh-oh, this President is 
quite serious. He is willing to commit American troops into harm's way 
to take out a ruthless leader who at least says he supports terrorism 
and supports threatening the United States. ``Maybe I'd better cancel 
our nuclear program and make peace with the United States.''
  One of the byproducts of the invasion of Iraq was a message that, at 
that time at least, there was a President who would step up and who was 
not afraid to take action when someone continued to try to threaten the 
United States.

[[Page 18405]]

  A friend who publishes in the Jerusalem Post--and I've had the 
opportunity, honor and privilege to read some of Caroline Glick's 
writing here on the House floor before--has great insight so often into 
areas of foreign policy, not only with regard to Israel but with regard 
to the United States and our place in international stability when we 
do show that we can and will be strong. There was an article that was 
published in the Jerusalem Post, written by Caroline Glick on November 
26, 2010. Caroline's perspective and the things she has to say, I 
think, are important enough to read into our Record, Mr. Speaker, for 
anyone who may not otherwise have been privy to her observations. This 
is her article.
  It begins, ``Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the 
leader of the free world is making things worse.'' I'm quoting from 
Caroline Glick.
  ``On the Korean Peninsula, North Korea just upended 8 years of State 
Department obfuscation by showing a team of U.S. nuclear scientists its 
collection of thousands of state-of-the-art centrifuges installed in 
its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.
  ``And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, U.S. President 
Barack Obama's point man on North Korea, was busily arguing that this 
revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery 
barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that, actually, it is a crisis.
  ``But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday, Defense 
Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart, Kim Tae-
young, for showing `restraint.'
  ``On Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint.
  ``The U.S. has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea's 
aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try 
to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks 
that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. 
Contrary to what Obama and his advisers claim, China does not share the 
U.S.'s interest in denuclearizing North Korea. Consequently, Beijing 
will not lift a finger to achieve that goal.
  ``Then there is Iran. The now inarguable fact that Pyongyang is 
developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but 
certain that the hyperactive proliferators in Pyongyang are involved in 
Iran's uranium-based nuclear weapons program. Obviously, the North 
Koreans don't care that the U.N. Security Council placed sanctions on 
Iran. And their presumptive role in Iran's nuclear weapons program 
exposes the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block Iran's 
path to a nuclear arsenal.
  ``Every day, as the regime in Pyongyang and Teheran escalate their 
aggression and confrontational stances, it becomes more and more clear 
that the only way to neutralize the threats they pose to international 
security is to overthrow them. At least in the case of Iran, it is also 
clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better.
  ``Iran's regime is in trouble. Since the fraudulent Presidential 
elections 17 months ago, the regime has moved ferociously against its 
domestic foes.
  ``But dissent has only grown. And as popular resentment towards the 
regime has grown, the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme 
dictator Ali Khamenei and their Revolutionary Guards have become 
terrified of their own people. They have imprisoned rappers and 
outlawed Western music. They have purged their schoolbooks of Persian 
history. Everything that smacks of anything non-Islamic is viewed as a 
threat.
  ``Members of the regime are so frightened by the public that, this 
week, several members of parliament tried to begin impeachment 
proceedings against Ahmadinejad. Apparently, they hope that ousting him 
will be sufficient to end the public's call for revolutionary change.

                              {time}  2200

  ``But Khamenei is standing by his man, and the impeachment 
proceedings have ended as quickly as they began. The policy 
implications of all this are clear.
  ``The U.S. should destroy Iran's nuclear installations and help the 
Iranian people overthrow the regime, but the Obama administration will 
have none of it.
  ``Earlier this month, Gates said, `If it's military solution, as far 
as I'm concerned, it will bring together a divided nation.'
  ``So in his view, the Iranian people, who risk death to defy the 
regime every day, the Iranian people who revile Ahmadinejad as `the 
chimpanzee' and call for Khamenei's death from their rooftops every 
evening, will rally around the chimp and the dictator if the U.S. or 
Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations.''
  Continuing with Caroline Glick's article, she says, ``Due to this 
thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the U.S. 
should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed 
attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs.
  ``As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this 
boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever, is what passes 
for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear 
project. And this U.S. refusal to understand the policy implications of 
popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise 
men and women to the conclusion that the U.S. has no dog in this fight. 
As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told The Wall Street Journal 
this week, the Parliament's bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more 
than the product of `rivalries within the Iranian Government.'
  ``Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad's visit last month, it is 
obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its 
authority over the country through its Hizbullah proxy.
  ``Hizbullah's open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri's 
government if Hizbullah's role in assassinating his father in 2005 is 
officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. 
And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls 
Lebanon.
  ``A month after Ahmadinejad's visit, Obama convinced the lame duck 
Congress to lift its hold on $100 million in U.S. military assistance 
to the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese military. And the U.S. convinced 
Israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town of Ghajar to 
U.N. forces despite the fact that the U.N. forces are at Hizbullah's 
mercy.
  ``In the midst of all these crises, Obama has maintained faith with 
his two central foreign policy goals: forcing Israel to withdraw to the 
indefensible 1949 armistice lines and scaling back the U.S. nuclear 
arsenal with an eye towards unilateral disarmament. That is, as the 
forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, Obama's 
central goals remain weakening the U.S.'s most powerful regional ally 
in the Middle East and rendering the U.S. incompetent to deter or 
defeat rapidly proliferating rogue states that are at war with the U.S. 
and its allies.
  ``Having said that, the truth is that in advancing these goals, Obama 
is not out of step with his predecessors. George H.W. Bush and Bill 
Clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the U.S. conventional and 
nonconventional arsenals. Clinton and George W. Bush adopted 
appeasement policies towards North Korea. Indeed, Pyongyang owes its 
nuclear arsenal to both Presidents' desire to be deceived and do 
nothing.
  ``Moreover, North Korea's ability to proliferate nuclear weapons to 
the likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela owes in large part to then-
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's insistence that Israel say 
nothing about North Korea's nuclear ties to Iran and Syria in the wake 
of Israel's destruction of the North Korean-built and Iranian-financed 
nuclear reactor in Syria in September 2007.
  ``As for Iran, Obama's attempt to appease the regime is a little 
different from his predecessors' policies. The Bush administration 
refused to confront the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are 
to a large degree Iranian proxy wars.

[[Page 18406]]

  ``The Bush administration refused to acknowledge that Syria and 
Hizbullah are run by Teheran and that the 2006 war against Israel was 
nothing more than an expansion of the proxy wars Iran is running in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  ``Obama's failed `reset' policy towards Russia is also little 
different from his predecessors' policies.
  ``Bush did nothing but squawk after Russia invaded U.S. ally Georgia. 
The Clinton administration set the stage for Vladimir Putin's KGB state 
by squandering the U.S.'s massive influence over post-Soviet Russia and 
allowing Boris Yeltsin and his cronies to transform the country into an 
impoverished kleptocracy.
  ``Finally, Obama's obsession with Israel land giveaways to the PLO 
were shared by Clinton and by the younger Bush, particularly after 
2006. Rice, who compared Israel to the Jim Crow South, was arguably as 
hostile toward Israel as Obama.
  ``So is Obama really worse than everyone else or is he just the 
latest in the line of U.S. Presidents who have no idea how to run an 
effective foreign policy? The short answer is that he is far worse than 
his predecessors.
  ``A U.S. President's maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very 
small. The foreign policy establishment in Washington is entrenched and 
uniformly opposed to bending to the will of elected leaders. The elites 
in the State Department and the CIA and their cronies in academia and 
policy circles in Washington are also consistently unmoved by reality, 
which as a rule exposes their policies as ruinous.
  ``The President has two ways to shift the ship of state. First, he 
can use his bully pulpit. Second, he can appoint people to key 
positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy.
  ``Since entering office, Obama has used both these powers to ill 
effect. He has traveled across the world condemning and apologizing for 
U.S. world leadership. In so doing, he has convinced ally and adversary 
alike that he is not a credible leader; that no one can depend on U.S. 
security guarantees during his watch; and that it is possible to attack 
the U.S., its allies and interests with impunity.
  ``Obama's call for a nuclear-free world combined with his aggressive 
stance toward Israel's purported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the 
U.S. nuclear arsenal, and his ineffective response to North Korea's 
nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's nuclear project have served to 
convince nations from the Persian Gulf to South America to the Pacific 
Rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. By calling for 
nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear 
armament in history.
  ``Given his own convictions, it is no surprise that all his key 
foreign policy appointments share his dangerous views. The State 
Department's legal advisor, Harold Koh, believes the U.S. should 
subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of 
international law. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michele 
Flournoy, believes terrorists become radicalized because they are poor. 
She is advised by leftist extremist Rosa Brooks. Attorney General Eric 
Holder has decided to open criminal investigations against CIA 
operatives who interrogated terrorists and to try illegal enemy 
combatants in civilian courts.
  ``In all these cases and countless others, Obama's senior appointees 
are implementing policies that are even more radical and dangerous than 
the radical and dangerous policies of the Washington policy 
establishment.

                              {time}  2210

  ``Not only are they weakening the U.S. and its allies, they are 
demoralizing public servants who are dedicated to defending their 
country by signaling clearly that the Obama administration will leave 
them high and dry in a crisis.
  ``When a Republican occupies the White House, his foreign policies 
are routinely criticized and constrained by the liberal media. Radical 
Democratic Presidents like Woodrow Wilson have seen their foreign 
policies reined in by Republican congresses.
  ``Given the threats Obama's radical policies are provoking, it can 
only be hoped that through hearings and other means, the Republicans in 
the Senate and the House of Representatives will take an active role in 
curbing his policies. If they are successful, the American people and 
the international community will owe them a debt of gratitude.''
  That was as published in the Jerusalem Post posted November 26, 2010. 
Interesting.
  It is quite disconcerting when we realized that this administration 
is sending out signals we won't stand by our friends and thinking that 
if we send a message out that we will embrace those who want to destroy 
our way of life, destroy our country and have pledged to do so; if we 
just show that we're willing to be compassionate, they'll be deeply 
moved and they'll come around to our side. Hardly.
  History teaches us very clearly that when people who despise another 
nation get messages that that nation they despise is weak or will not 
defend itself, then they are provoked to action to destroy it, to take 
it over. Now, hopefully we're a long way from that happening because 
there are enough people here in Washington that believe that strength 
and a showing of strength and a showing of willingness to do what it 
takes to keep our oath to provide for the common defense of this 
country, that that is what keeps us at peace, that is what helps 
prevent wars. I believe it was Reagan who used to talk about no one was 
ever attacked because people believed they were too strong. They attack 
because they think there is a weakness they can take advantage of.
  That's why after we pulled out of Vietnam and that footage remains 
being shown to Muslims in an attempt to radicalize them, see, America 
flees in the face of danger. See what happened in 1983 after the Marine 
barracks was blown up and nearly 300 Marines were killed? They left 
Beirut. See what happened back in 1979 when an act of international 
law, what international law would say was an act of war, American soil 
was attacked when our embassy was attacked, hostages taken. We did 
nothing but beg for Tehran to let them go for over a year. That was 
another sign of weakness.
  When another act of war on the USS Cole was committed, we responded 
by lobbing some rockets doing virtually no damage to people who were at 
war with us.
  So what are our enemies who want to see the United States destroyed, 
who have sworn to destroy this country and our way of life, what are 
they to think when repeatedly we show weakness and we show that those 
who have nothing but hate, disdain, and contempt for this country will 
be met with a warm embrace? What are they to think but to have more 
contempt for this country?
  Now Caroline Glick mentions international law and that this President 
is advised by people who believe the U.S. should subordinate its laws 
to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. I 
took a course in international law at Baylor Law School under a 
visiting professor from Japan. I did a research paper. Got an A on it 
by the dean of a Japanese law school who was visiting Baylor for that 
year.
  And in having a conversation with him after the course was over, I 
said, For all of the reading we've done, all of the studying, the 
discussion, the debate, I come back to the conclusion that basically in 
short international law is whatever the strongest nation around says it 
is. And he says in essence, you have learned from this course well. 
That's exactly right. International law is whatever the strongest 
nation around says it is.
  And yet in response to attacks, threatened attacks, threatened 
efforts to destroy our way of life, what we have seen is an effort to 
bow before those who want to destroy us, those who are not our friends.
  I filed in the three Congresses that I have been in office here, and 
I will file in the fourth one next year, the U.N. Voting Accountability 
Act that says a nation that votes against us more than half the time in 
the U.N.--they're sovereign nations; they can do what they

[[Page 18407]]

want to. We're not going to tell them how they have to vote, but any 
nation that votes against our position more than half the time will not 
get a dime of financial assistance from this country for the following 
year. As I said, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do 
it for free. And it's still true.
  America, the United States of America is truly the greatest nation in 
the history of mankind. There are more liberties and more freedoms in 
this country than have ever been observed by the citizens of any 
country. As great as Solomon's Israel was, it didn't have the liberties 
for the people that this Nation has.
  This is a nation that is supposed to be governed by the people who, 
on Election Day, go out and actually hire people to do their bidding 
for the subsequent years. For too long, not enough people have come on 
hiring day to make sure that the best people got hired. For too long 
people have not studied the applications, the resumes, done the 
interviews of those who are seeking to be hired as the servants to go 
do their bidding as the people are the government.
  And so as the old adage goes, democracy ensures people are governed 
no better than they deserve. So we've gotten what we've deserved 
whether anyone likes it or not; whether anyone likes the prior 
President, the Nation got what we deserved; whether anyone likes this 
President or not, the Nation got what we deserved.
  And absolutely a truism that you can take to the bank, Madam Speaker, 
is that in 2012's elections, we will have a President elected or 
reelected who's no better than the Nation deserves.
  Now, there is one area of tremendous ignorance in this country. And 
there is nothing wrong with ignorance in an area of someone's knowledge 
unless they persist in that ignorance and refuse to learn and fill that 
void.
  We are told by our President that this is not a Christian nation, and 
I will not debate that. Maybe we're not. But I know how the Nation was 
founded, and I know enough history. And there are so many wonderful 
books. This is another one by William Federer, America's God and 
Country. And I have read all of the things that I am about to enter 
into here in different areas as I studied history, was a history hanger 
major at Texas A&M. But Federer has put these together succinctly to 
help illuminate how we got started.
  So in going back to July of 1776--hopefully most people in America 
would know July of 1776 is when the Declaration of Independence was 
signed, made public.

                              {time}  2220

  But in July of 1776, Benjamin Franklin was appointed part of a 
committee to draft a seal for the newly United States which would 
characterize the spirit of the Nation. Now, this was not adopted, but 
this was Benjamin Franklin's proposal. He proposed, and this is a 
quote, ``Moses lifting up his wand and dividing the Red Sea, and 
Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: 
`Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.''' That was Benjamin 
Franklin's proposal for our national seal.
  Of course what we ultimately had, going back to 1776, the Great Seal, 
two-sided seal, is reflected on the back of every dollar bill. On the 
one side the eagle with the ribbon through his mouth with the Latin 
words E Pluribus Unum, meaning out of many, one. We come from all over 
the world, immigrants loving immigration, immigrants coming from all 
over the world, come here to the United States and become one. One in 
language, one in tradition, one in our history, one strong American 
people. The intent was, back then as they came from all areas of the 
world, that there would be no hyphenated Americans.
  When you came here, whether it was Europe, Africa, Asia, you came 
here, you were no longer African, European, Asian, South American, you 
were American. You were brothers and sisters together in this land. And 
although you celebrate traditions of your rich culture from wherever 
your immigrant ancestors had come from, still you would be here and 
become one people.
  Well, in a letter that Ben Franklin wrote in March of 1778, Ben 
Franklin is attributed with this writing. ``Whoever shall introduce 
into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will 
change the face of the world.''
  Another quote from Benjamin Franklin was, ``A Bible and a newspaper 
in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and 
appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, 
morality, and civil liberty.''
  In Ben Franklin's pamphlet entitled ``Information to Those Who Would 
Remove to America,'' which was written to Europeans who were 
considering the move to America, or intending to send their young 
people to seek their fortune in this land of opportunity, Ben Franklin 
wrote the following: ``Hence, bad examples to youth are more rare in 
America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this 
may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various 
denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.'' 
Ben Franklin went on to say, ``Atheism is unknown there,'' talking 
about America, ``infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live 
to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by 
meeting with either an atheist or an infidel.'' Further with Ben 
Franklin's quote, ``And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his 
approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the 
different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with 
which he has been pleased to favor the whole country,'' unquote from 
Ben Franklin. He was talking about the sects, s-e-c-t-s, and 
denominations. These were Christian denominations he was talking about.
  In a letter to Robert R. Livingston, 1784, Ben Franklin wrote this: 
``I am now entering on my 78th year. If I live to see this peace 
concluded, I shall beg leave to remind the Congress of their promise, 
then to dismiss me. I shall be happy to sing with old Simeon, `Now 
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy 
salvation.''' In another letter that Ben Franklin wrote, April 17, 
1787, he said, ``Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As 
nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.''
  Then on June 28, 1787, Ben Franklin delivered a powerful speech to 
the Constitutional Convention, which was embroiled in a bitter debate 
over how each State was to be represented in the new government. The 
hostile feelings created by the smaller States being pitted against the 
larger States was so bitter that some delegates actually left the 
convention. Ben Franklin, being the president (governor) of 
Pennsylvania, hosted the rest of the 55 delegates attending the 
convention. Being the senior member of the convention at 81 years of 
age, he commanded the respect of all present. And as recorded in James 
Madison's detailed records, he rose to speak in this moment of crisis.
  This is from Federer's book. But this speech that Ben Franklin gave 
in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention truly was given at a moment of 
crisis. They had been going for nearly 5 weeks, and nothing but anger 
and bitterness had persisted in the convention. They were nowhere close 
to coming to any kind of agreement on anything, much less a 
Constitution.
  Now, I was taught in school that Benjamin Franklin was a deist, that 
he believed some deity, some power, some something created the 
universe, created the nature that we have come to know, and then steps 
back and never intercedes, never lifts a finger, never does anything to 
interfere with the ways of man. Yet when you read his own words, you 
read letters he wrote, things he said, it's quite clear a deist he was 
not. Here he was about 2 years away from meeting his maker. He was 
suffering from gout at the time. He had, as the senior delegate, 
governor, president, whatever you wish to call him from Pennsylvania at 
the convention and considered the host, he still had to be helped in. 
He was not doing well physically. But mentally he was sharp as ever. 
His wit was amazing as ever.

[[Page 18408]]

  And this is the speech that Ben Franklin gave up in this time of 
critical crisis in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He was 
addressing the president of the Constitutional Convention, President 
Washington--not President of the country yet because there was no 
Constitution, so there was no President under that--but the president 
of the convention was addressed. And he said, ``Mr. President, the 
small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks close attendance and 
continual reasonings with each other--our different sentiments on 
almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as 
ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human 
understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, 
since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to 
ancient history for models of government, and examined the different 
forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of 
their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we viewed modern States 
all around Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our 
circumstances.

                              {time}  2230

  ``In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark 
to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when 
presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto 
once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate 
our understanding?
  ``In the beginning of this Contest with Great Britain, when we were 
sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine 
protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously 
answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed 
frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.
  ``To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting 
in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And 
have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no 
longer need His assistance.''
  Ben Franklin goes on and says, ``I have lived, Sir, a long time, and 
the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that 
God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the 
ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise 
without His aid?
  ``We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that, `except the 
Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.'''
  Franklin then says, ``I firmly believe this, and I also believe that 
without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building 
no better than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our 
partial local interests, our projects will be confounded, and we, 
ourselves, shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages.
  ``And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate 
instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave 
it to chance, war and conquest.
  ``I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring 
the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be 
held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and 
that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate 
in that service.''
  Franklin sat down. Federer notes, ``The response of the convention to 
this speech by Benjamin Franklin was reported by Jonathan Dayton, the 
delegate from New Jersey.''
  Delegate Jonathan Dayton from New Jersey wrote these words. When he 
says ``the Doctor,'' he is talking about Benjamin Franklin, as some 
affectionately called him.
  Dayton said, ```The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a 
countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of 
Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the 
convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin 
fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we 
may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate.'
  ``Following Franklin's historical address, James Madison moved, 
seconded by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, that Dr. Franklin's appeal 
for prayer be enacted. Edmund Jennings Randolph of Virginia further 
moved:
  ```That a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 
4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, and thenceforward prayers 
be used in ye Convention every morning.'
  ``The clergy of Philadelphia responded to this request and effected a 
profound change in the convention when they reconvened on July 2, 1787, 
and Jonathan Dayton again records these words:
  ```We assembled again, and every unfriendly feeling had been 
expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.'
  ``On July 4th, the entire Convention assembled in the Reformed 
Calvinistic Church, according to the proposal by Edmund Jennings 
Randolph of Virginia, and heard a sermon by Rev. William Rogers. His 
prayer reflected the hearts of the delegates following Franklin's 
admonition:
  ```We fervently recommend to the fatherly notice . . . our Federal 
convention . . . Favor them, from day to day, with thy inspiring 
presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such 
measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and 
prove the good of the great whole . . . that the United States of 
America may form one example of a free and virtuous government . . . 
May we . . . continue, under the influence of republican virtue''--and 
that's with a little ``r,'' not this Republican Party--``to partake of 
all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society.'''
  With that prayer, Rev. William Jennings concluded, as requested, by 
the gentleman from Virginia, Edmund Jennings Randolph. And as a result 
of Franklin's speech, as a result of following through on Franklin's 
request to begin with prayer, as followed by Randolph's request for a 
sermon, and ending with a powerful prayer, we got a Constitution, 
although it's certainly ignored around this town so often.
  And even by the Supreme Court, as they did when they ignored the 
bankruptcy law and the Constitution to allow the travesty of the GM and 
Chrysler debacle to become law, as unconstitutional and illegal as it 
was, we still have a Constitution that we have got to get back to.
  We still have a situation that Franklin noted, that so many in our 
early days noted, can sustain us if we continue with the prayer, as 
Franklin sought, if we continue to hold to those values in which this 
Nation was founded.
  But a Nation in which you destroy the family, destroy the nuclear 
family, you've destroyed the building block for any great, truly great 
society. That has been broken down. You enslave people, basically, or 
make them indentured servants, by doling out money from Washington, 
luring young people into ruts from which they can never rise. It's 
disgraceful. It's immoral.
  This Congress, this city, this government should be propelling young 
people, encouraging, invigorating, incentivizing people to reach their 
God-given potential, for heaven's sake, not luring them into ruts from 
which they can never rise, not luring them into ruts from which they 
can only clamor and beg for more help from Washington.

                              {time}  2240

  They are to be empowered, empowered with opportunity, not with 
handouts but with opportunity to reach their own God-given potential. A 
mother eagle does not continue to feed her babies indefinitely. The 
little hatchlings are not fed for the rest of their lives. They are 
nurtured, they are taught, and then they are given the opportunity to 
spread their wings and fly.
  It drove me from the bench as a judge to have seen repeatedly what 
this Congress' laws had done to lure people into holes and give them no 
way out. That was never the intention of the Founders. That should 
never be the intention of a moral society. You help those who truly 
cannot help themselves. But for those that can, you don't keep telling 
them to get in the wagon and continue

[[Page 18409]]

to make fewer and fewer people pull the wagon until they can no longer 
bear the load and the whole system collapses of its own weight. You 
can't keep doing that.
  We have done so much damage to this Nation, 1 trillion 5, $1.6 
trillion deficit last year, $1.3 trillion projected for this year, $3 
trillion in 2 years? Incredible. Do people not know even modern 
history? The Soviet Union didn't even spend that kind of equivalent, 
but they spent quickly enough trying to keep up with our defensive 
posture through the defense system, and with their own socialistic 
programs, they could not get anyone to loan them more money. Gee, does 
that sound familiar? We are having to buy our own debt. We are not 
having to, we just won't quit spending. It's immoral. It's just so 
irresponsible.
  And I hear people saying, but it's just so hard to make these 
difficult cuts. It isn't. As a freshman here in 2005, in 2006, standing 
on this side of the aisle, I heard people rightfully on the other side 
of the aisle saying, you guys are running a deficit budget, between 100 
and $200 billion, that's irresponsible. And the Democrats who said that 
were right. We should not have been running a deficit budget in 2005 
and 2006. It was irresponsible. It needed to stop. Friends on that side 
of the aisle said, you put us in the majority, we'll end this crazy 
spending in such a deficit form. And yet, when the gavel was handed to 
Speaker Pelosi in January of 2007, what we began to experience was 
spending like this Nation has never known, until January of 2009, when 
the spending went on steroids, and instead of having a $100 to $200 
billion deficit, in 1 year, we went to having nearly between a $1 and 
$2 trillion deficit in 1 year.
  How long before we face the same consequence that the Soviet Union 
faced when countries around the world said, look, we have been warning 
you that if you didn't get your spending under control we wouldn't loan 
you any more money? We won't. We're done. You're on your own. And then 
the Nation realizes, you can't print enough money to pay your way out 
of the debt the Soviet Union had created and the very kind of debt we 
are creating now. So they had to announce, we're out of business. The 
States are on their own.
  It can happen here. It has got to stop. And it's not that hard. All 
we have to do is go back to the budget of 2006 or even 2007, the 
Republican Congress created, and say, do you know what? We as Democrats 
condemned the Republicans for spending too much in the 2006, 2007 
budget, and so let's go back to that budget. We condemn them for 
spending too much in 2006 and 2007, let's go back to that budget. Let's 
use that budget. And let's stop these automatic increases every year. 
I've been filing that bill every Congress. It's time it passed.
  I brought it to the attention of our leaders in 2006, in January, 
February, 2006, yet no action was taken by the Republican Congress, and 
obviously the last two Democratic Congresses haven't, a zero baseline 
budget bill, no automatic increases. Go back to 2006, 2007, no 
automatic increases, we get the spending under control, we get 
credibility around the world, we took care of our indebtedness. And we 
are still strong and even stronger. That's where we need to go. And 
then we send a message loud and clear, and I hope that Speaker Boehner 
will do as I have encouraged to be done, invite Prime Minister 
Netanyahu to come stand at that podium, address a joint session so the 
world can see both sides of this aisle standing and applauding the 
leader of our great friend and ally in the Middle East, Israel. Let the 
nations see that, and then that symbolism be followed by action where 
we don't reward our enemies and the enemies of our dear friend, Israel, 
and we don't punish our dear friends and dear allies. If you're our 
friend and ally, we work with you. If you're not, good luck. You're on 
your own. We're not going to keep propping up countries that hate us. 
It's irresponsible as well.
  There are so many lessons to be learned from history, both ancient, 
both our own Nation and foreign and current history. And may God have 
mercy on us if we do not learn those lessons.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________