[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12973-12977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             BRITISH PETROLEUM AND OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Halvorson). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is always an honor and privilege to 
speak on the floor of the House of Representatives where so much 
history has been made. There are a number of things we need to cover.
  I had some interesting things going on in the Natural Resources 
Committee today because we are taking up legislation as a result of the 
oil spill. Those pesky words keep resurfacing, ``never let a crisis go 
to waste,'' and it appears that is what is happening here.
  We had 11 people lose their lives in the Deepwater Horizon explosion. 
Many thousands may lose their livelihood. We know that it is the worst 
environmental accident we have had in the United States.
  It has been amazing that so little had been done to try to assist 
from the Federal Government. Eventually the Coast Guard came on board, 
but three days after this terrible accident, it is nations like the 
Netherlands that have extraordinary expertise in building barrier 
islands, in actually taking in water and separating out the oil, people 
that had all these wonderful inventions and ideas and things that would 
help capture the oil, should have all been utilized because so many of 
them have merit, and yet the Coast Guard kept turning them away. Kevin 
Costner had spent $10 million of his own money to see this thing 
developed that would separate oil and water and do so in large numbers, 
but didn't get a lot of attention.
  So I know there were a lot of pressing things to do. There were golf 
courses to be played, there were things that had to be done, parties 
that had to be attended. All the while the oil kept coming up and the 
environment kept suffering, wildlife kept suffering.
  And then when we eventually find out, well, actually there was a 
reason. British Petroleum thought they were bulletproof. They thought 
they could have more safety violations, hundreds of times more safety 
violations than other oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
be immune from having the administration come down on it.
  It is understandable now, once we got into it. They were supportive 
of the administration's crap-and-trade bill. In fact, as the Deepwater 
Horizon rig was sinking, Senator Kerry down the hall was making 
negotiations making sure BP was still on board with the crap-and-trade 
bill. The White House counted them as being supportive of the bill. And 
they, of course, have so many lobbyists. Their best lobbyists are all 
from Democratic administrations. They felt like they were bulletproof.
  So then it begins to explain why it took so long to finally get on to 
BP and fuss at them, because America had had enough. They had seen the 
kind of poor safety record BP had.

                              {time}  1850

  So BP got thrown under the bus, much to their apparent surprise, 
after all their support. They've given heavily to the President's 
campaign. So I'm sure they were surprised when they ultimately were 
thrown under the bus.
  But as a result of that terrible tragedy there are some laws that are 
being voted out of committee. We had debate on them for several hours 
today. And that's as it should be. A bill shouldn't come to the floor 
that is so sweeping unless it goes through proper committee channels. 
Didn't go through subcommittee, but we had a long hearing on it today. 
And it will be voted on in the morning. All the votes were rolled so 
that they'll take place in the morning. It's just hard to believe that 
out of a crisis like the gulf oil spill, that people would take 
advantage of that and want to pork up the bill. Shocking. Shocking.
  One of the things that economists have proposed across the country 
that would help get us on track is that--financially, that is, on 
track--is that is we have got to get out of the mentality of constantly 
buying more and more and more and more land. The Federal Government 
seems to want to take over the country, or at least those States that 
often vote heavily Republican. The colleagues across the aisle want to 
buy more and more of the land.
  So I had a chart here of what the West looks like, the Western part 
of the United States, how much of it we have in red that is owned by 
the United States. That is, by the United States Government. So you get 
an idea. Here is the Western United States. The red parts are those 
that are owned by our Federal Government. And the Federal Government 
wants more. We have had information on the amount of money that our 
Federal Government has been spending in the past on buying land, and 
it's been rather shocking to see the numbers. Here we have the amount 
of money that was allocated in 2008 for the Federal Government to spend 
on buying more land in the United States for the Federal Government to 
take over. It's important to understand that when the Federal 
Government takes over land, it means the schools in that vicinity, the 
local governments in that vicinity get nothing. Because all of the 
land, when the Federal Government takes it, is removed from the tax 
rolls. It cannot be taxed. Schools, cities, counties, States cannot tax 
the Federal Government once it takes over the land.
  So it makes sense that you want to be cautious in having the Federal 
Government take over more and more land in this country. In fact, 
that's what economists have said. You have got to get out of the 
mentality of continuing to buy land. Start selling some. Let's get on 
track to get rid of our deficit. Quit buying land. And it turns out 
that right now we're $3.7 billion behind in the projects that are 
needed to keep up the existing Federal land and Federal parks that we 
have right now. Our parks are going to squalor in many places. Places 
that people used to love to visit are just being let go because the 
money is not there to take care of it. Why? Because we keep spending 
money on buying more and more land and locking that land up so it 
cannot be used for any purpose.
  That's one of the problems we've got down with the border between 
Arizona--a U.S. border--and Mexico. Thirty-two miles of that border are 
wilderness, national park, which means the

[[Page 12974]]

Border Patrol are the only ones that can't take--or U.S. Federal agents 
are the only ones that can't take vehicles in there. It's against the 
law. They commit a crime if they do that. But it doesn't stop the drug 
smugglers, the illegal alien smugglers from taking vehicles across 
there. And so that's what happens. They can have mechanical 
instruments. But even if you need to bring a helicopter in to lift out 
somebody that's been shot, like a Border Patrol Agent, which has 
happened, the helicopter can't land. Illegal aliens, drug smugglers, 
they can drive right by them, but our Border Patrol cannot go in there 
because it's a national park wilderness area. That's why I've got a 
bill to try to do something about that, but apparently it's not going 
to see the light of day.
  So here we have in 2008, the last year of the Bush Presidency. But 
since all appropriations originate in the House of Representatives, no 
matter what the President wants to do, it originates here, and if you 
check back in 2004, 2005, 2006, it was a fraction of a hundred million 
dollars. Well, in 2008 it was a little over a hundred million dollars. 
In 2009, it was still about $150 million or so, according to the chart. 
And then in 2010, this year, from last year's appropriation, it shot up 
to nearly $300 million. And for next year it's already--what is being 
laid out for next year's land acquisitions is nearly $400 million.
  So here we are, in the worst budget crunch we have ever had, and what 
happens? For the first time since 1974, Congress is not going to have a 
budget. Apparently, it was considered too politically difficult for 
people to come in and vote for a budget that would expand costs as 
apparently the desire is to have done. So here you have a tragedy in 
the Gulf of Mexico, still ongoing. Hopefully, the cap is going to hold. 
But that remains to be seen. There's still so much damage.
  And since we're dealing with a time when those in control do not want 
to let a good crisis go to waste without taking advantage of it, in the 
legislation that we debated today and that will apparently pass in the 
morning around 9:15, we're going to stick in $900 million for land 
acquisition. That's in the committee, July, 2010. That's what is 
apparently going to happen because the majority will have the votes. 
They're going to appropriate in an authorization bill $9 million to buy 
more land, as if our parks are not in enough trouble because all of 
this money keeps going for more and more land acquisition. We're going 
to not cut spending on land acquisition and just even have a moratorium 
just for a little while. Let this country catch its breath.
  We're looking at a $1.5 trillion deficit for 1 year. My first year 
here, I kept hearing people across the aisle talking about how $100 
billion, $200 billion was an outrage for a deficit in 1 year. And, you 
know what? They were right. There shouldn't have been $100 billion and 
$200 billion deficit for 1 year. And that's why people voted them into 
the majority in November 2006.

                              {time}  1900

  Yet here we go this year. The same people have no problem with a $1.5 
trillion deficit in 1 year because of all the jobs that it apparently, 
they think, is creating. Well, it did. For June, 431,000 jobs were 
created. Unfortunately, 411,000 of them were temporary census jobs.
  So here's our chart. This is what will pass tomorrow because me and 
my friends simply do not have enough votes to keep it from passing. 
They're going to pork up this bill to deal with the gulf oil crisis by 
sticking $900 million of pork in there to buy more land for the Federal 
Government to own, to put local governments, local schools, State 
governments in a difficult situation because they'll never be able to 
generate any tax dollars or revenue from that land once the Federal 
Government takes it over.
  And so with that in mind, we look back at the chart again, the map, 
that shows the western part of the United States with that in red, 
representing areas that the Federal Government already owns. But 
apparently to those in charge right now, it's not enough. It's not 
enough to own nearly all of Nevada. It's not enough to own 70 percent 
of Utah. It's not enough to own most of Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming. So 
tomorrow, $900 million will be appropriated in this bill about the gulf 
oil crisis to buy more Federal land that will hurt more local 
governments and more local schools. It's just hard to fathom. It is 
hard to believe that this is going to happen tomorrow, but we simply do 
not have enough votes in our minority to keep that kind of pork from 
being added to a bill emanating from a crisis.
  You know, we've already heard from people, families of victims who 
were killed on Deepwater Horizon, out begging, Please do not have a 
moratorium, because they knew their friends would be out of work, other 
family members would be out of work. I don't have a problem if you want 
to shut down every one of BP's offshore rigs until we can be sure that 
they are safe. But when, as we heard in the hearing today, BP had had 
800 safety violations to, in some cases, none for other oil companies 
in the same period, one for other oil companies in the same period, 
they had 800, so what did this administration do? They gave them an 
award for safety. That's right. They didn't fine them. They gave them 
an award for safety.
  But when you understand they were embracing a tax, a gas tax, they 
were embracing so many of the bills this administration was pushing 
forward that most in the country didn't support, they didn't want to 
lose their good friend BP, and that's why it took them so long to throw 
them under the bus. Well, that's one area in which we're throwing away 
a lot of money. It's pretty amazing, pretty outrageous.
  Another area is in our foreign assistance programs. Now, this is my 
third term here. In each of my three terms, I have filed a bill. This 
is no exception. It's H.R. 4636. I have now filed for a discharge 
petition. So hopefully we can get enough folks that will sign on to the 
discharge petition to force this bill to the floor for an up-or-down 
vote, because we haven't been able to get one. This is a very simple 
bill. In essence, it says--well, it's entitled the United Nations 
Voting Accountability Act. It is very simple. Any nation that votes 
against the United States' position more than half the time on 
contested votes in the United Nations will receive no Federal 
assistance from our government to theirs. Very simple. And as I have 
said before, you don't want to have to pay people to hate you. They'll 
do it for free. Why pay them to hate you when they'll do it for free?
  So we pulled the report for this year--because each year a report 
comes out; it has to come out by March 31 of each year--of all of the 
votes, the contested votes from the year before so that we could get 
some idea of who is voting with us, how often, who we're paying to hate 
us.
  For example, in 2008, there was $105 million given to Bangladesh. 
They voted against the U.S. position 82.4 percent of the time in 2008 
and 80 percent of the time in 2009.
  We gave millions to Belarus, a former state in the Soviet Union, and 
they voted against us in 2008 84.6 percent of the time, and this past 
year voted 75 percent of the time against the U.S. interests and 
position.
  You've got Bolivia down in South America. We've given them over $100 
million. That was in 2008. As I understand, it was a great deal more 
than that in 2009. They were our great ally and were only voting 
against us 85.2 percent of the time in 2008. And it got a little better 
in 2009. Only 70 percent of the time they voted against the country 
that provided them over $100 million in aid. We're paying them to hate 
us.
  Brazil. Of course we've heard recently about the $2 billion that 
we're loaning to Brazil to develop their deepwater territories, their 
deepwater offshore drilling program. And lo and behold, it turns out 
apparently George Soros' biggest personal investment is in a company 
that does that drilling, so we provided $2 billion to help our dear 
friend George Soros make that much more money from his biggest 
investment, personally. And so Brazil, we loaned them millions--I'm 
sorry. We loaned them billions, give them millions, and they voted 
against us in 2008

[[Page 12975]]

70.7 percent of the time and against us last year in 2009 62.5 percent 
of the time.
  You've got Cambodia, where lots of Americans lost their lives 
fighting for freedom for the people. We let them out from under all the 
murderous regimes that have followed. But with tens of millions of 
dollars, they voted against us 84 percent of the time in 2008 and 62.5 
percent of the time in 2009. We are still just pouring money into them.
  Now, I have been talking to them about this ever since I came on into 
Congress in 2005, and it makes me think that maybe we're doing some 
good, because of all the hundreds of millions we've given to Colombia, 
in 2008, they voted against the U.S. position 80 percent of the time. 
Last year, it was 40 percent of the time. So they would not be 
adversely affected by this bill because they have found their way clear 
to support us.
  Most people think with the embargo sanctions against Cuba, that's 
taken care of. Not true. In 2008 alone, we gave $45 million in aid to 
Cuba when they voted against us in the U.N. 87.8 percent of the time. 
And in 2009, they got even higher, up to 90 percent of the time.
  Now, the Republic of the Congo in 2008 got $103 million, $104 
million, and for some reason, that same year they only voted against us 
7 percent of the time. This year, I was under the impression they got 
even more money, but they voted against us 71 percent of the time. So 
from 7 percent to a 71.5 percent turnaround there.

                              {time}  1910

  You've got Dominican Republic. Give them tens of millions of dollars. 
They voted against us 80.5 percent of the time in '08, 60 percent of 
the time in '09.
  Egypt gets a couple of billion dollars, in essence, but they voted 
against us in the U.N. against our position 93.3 percent of the time in 
'08, and in '09, 81.8 percent of the time.
  Got Ethiopia. We gave $455 million in '08. They voted against us to 
show their gratitude 82.9 percent of the time in the U.N. in '08, and 
83.3 percent in '09.
  Again, you don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do it for 
free.
  India, $99 million that we gave away as Federal assistance to India 
in 2008. They voted against us 76.3 percent of the time. That number, I 
think, may have risen and now so has their opposition to anything we 
hold dear. They're now up to 88.9 percent of the time in 2009, voting 
against us.
  India is benefiting from our high corporate taxes. They're benefiting 
from the threat of the crap-and-trade bill passing. They're benefiting 
from the health care bill that just got passed because employers, big 
manufacturers are saying, we've got to go where the country doesn't 
hate us being there so much. We're going to India, we're going to 
China, we're going to South America.
  So a lot of these countries we're pouring money into that we don't 
have, that we're having to borrow from China, all the while they're 
opposing us every step of the way.
  You've got Indonesia, 189, basically $190 million simply in foreign 
aid, not counting the other benefits we've given them. And yet they 
opposed us 84.9 percent of the time in the U.N. in '08, and 80 percent 
of the time in '09.
  Pouring money into these countries that we don't have, that we're 
having to borrow, while people are out of work, hurting, searching for 
jobs, hoping for the economy to turn around, and something besides 
temporary census jobs to become available, and this is what they find 
out.
  Jordan, in 2008 got $687 million, simply in aid, and they voted 
against us 91.7 percent of the time in '08 and 60 percent of the time 
in '09.
  Now, Mexico, this shows $50 million in foreign aid in '08. But also, 
of course, we had, I believe, $500 million that we provided them to 
assist them in their defense effort. And as a result, we have the 
President of Mexico come in here and chastise us for having immigration 
laws that he says promote racism; laws like that passed in Arizona that 
simply are begging to have our laws enforced.
  Well, Mexico voted against us 75.9 percent of the time in '08. But in 
'09 that dropped to 36.4 percent of the time, so apparently we're 
buying some love and affection there.
  Nicaragua, they've got tens of millions of dollars each year, yet 
they voted against us in '08, 84.7 percent of the time, and against our 
positions 80 percent of the time in '09.
  You've got Nigeria, $486 million they received in 2008, simply in 
foreign aid, not counting other types of aid; '08 they voted against us 
that same year 82.7 percent of the time in the U.N., and against our 
position 63.6 percent of the time in 2009.
  Pakistan, that we keep hoping is going to make a turn for the better, 
well, in 2008, simply in foreign aid, we gave them $737 million. They 
voted against our position 81.1 percent of the time in '08; 87.5 
percent of the time in '09.
  Got the Philippines. They wanted to be completely shed of the United 
States, didn't want anything to do with us. Well, almost nothing to do 
with us. They did want our hundred-plus million dollars that we will 
give them, as we did in 2008, while they voted against our position in 
the U.N. 81.2 percent of the time in '08; 62.5 percent of the time in 
'09.
  Philippines have people there, many of whom are very dear to the 
United States. But as a separate independent nation, they're free to 
make their own decisions, love us or hate us. But we shouldn't have to 
pay people to hate us when they're willing to do it for free.
  Russia, hard to believe, but we gave them $81 million in foreign aid 
in 2008, and they voted against us 82.9 percent of the time in '08. Did 
a little better, 66.7 percent of the time they were against our 
position in '09.
  South Africa, $574 million in '08 we gave, only in foreign aid, not 
counting other types of aid. They voted against us, our positions, 84.5 
percent of the time in 2008, and against our position 66.7 percent of 
the time in 2009.
  Sudan, gave them $337 million in 2008, they voted against us to show 
their gratitude 91.9 percent of the time in 2008, and a clear 90 
percent of the time in 2009.
  You've got Uganda. We gave them $350 million, simply in foreign aid, 
not counting all the other types of assistance in 2008. They showed 
their gratitude by voting against our position 82.3 percent of the time 
in '08; 62.5 percent in '09.
  Venezuela. I bet most people didn't know we were giving Venezuela 
foreign aid, but we did. This majority voted to give them around $10 
million in 2008. Regardless who is in the White House, the Congress is 
the one that votes appropriations. Venezuela got basically $10 million, 
simply in foreign aid, and of course they showed their love and 
affection for the United States by voting against us in opposition, 
86.1 percent of the time in '08 and 81.8 percent of the time in '09.
  You've got Vietnam. Vietnam, we've gotten so friendly with, they got 
over $100 million of U.S. taxpayer money. Actually, I'm sure it's 
borrowed money from China that our grandchildren will pay the interest 
on, and pay the principal as well, unless they have to declare 
bankruptcy as a nation because of our gluttony. But Vietnam, we gave 
away over $100 million to them, and their gratitude was expressed by 
voting against the things we believe in 94.5 percent of the time in 
'08, and 75 percent of the time in '09.

                              {time}  1920

  Yemen. Yemen. Now, this was just giveaway money here. It's $16 
million, $17 million just as foreign aid to Yemen in 2008. Showed their 
appreciation by voting against our position 92.8 percent of the time in 
2008, 71.4 percent in 2009.
  But Yemen, not only did they get millions and millions of dollars 
simply in foreign aid from the United States, New England gave them a 
real boon. New England, just found out in the last few weeks, this year 
New England gave them a contract to provide liquid natural gas for the 
next 20 years to Yemen.
  Now, in order for Yemen to get that contract we had to snub our nose 
at countries who have been very supportive and have been friends, 
including some in the Caribbean. We snubbed

[[Page 12976]]

our nose at our friends, and New England gives what will result in 
incredible amounts of money to Yemen for liquid natural gas.
  At the same time, we were having hearings, been having hearings in 
the Natural Resources Committee to try to hamper hydraulic fracking. By 
the use of hydraulic fracking, we have been able to secure over 100 
years' reserves of natural gas that we could be using, our own natural 
gas. Dan Boren across the aisle has a wonderful bill that would 
encourage making cars that run on natural gas more widespread, more 
easy to get, and trying to move some of our country over to natural gas 
vehicles because we have so much of it. Of course if we eliminate 
hydraulic fracking, which by the way has never been shown to have 
polluted drinking water--we have had hearings on that--there is no need 
for the Federal Government to get in and try to oppose hydraulic 
fracking. Many States that have it regulate it themselves, and they 
have done a good job in controlling that, and will continue for the 
future.
  As one of the Members of Congress from Louisiana said today, if you 
were to eliminate hydraulic fracking, you would do more damage to 
Louisiana and its economy and people's livelihoods than this 
environmental disaster will do. Yet Yemen got this massive contract to 
provide liquefied natural gas to New England.
  That means big, huge ships carrying massive amounts of liquefied 
natural gas. In other words, a rather large bomb will be floating in 
routinely to Boston Harbor. And I found a quote from the Coast Guard 
where they indicate, gee, one of their biggest concerns, since Yemen 
has proved to be home of so many terrorists that want to destroy our 
way of life, one of their biggest jobs is going to try to make sure 
there is not one stowaway somewhere on that Yemen tanker that may set 
the thing off and wipe out much of Boston in the process. I wonder if 
the people of Boston knew that that was going on, that not only were we 
giving away so many millions to Yemen--of course, some may remember 
that just recently people were allowed to leave Guantanamo Bay, went to 
Yemen, and Yemen of course ended up seeing them take off and we don't 
know where they are anymore. Heck, they may be back here coming across 
our Mexican border, since we haven't secured that.
  So, going back to my bill, 4636, I am going to keep bringing it up, 
and we will have a discharge petition and give people on both sides of 
the aisle an opportunity to sign that and bring that to the floor for a 
vote. That will end up cutting off foreign aid to countries that so 
strongly oppose the things that we hold dear, the things for which we 
have sacrificed, in John Adams' words, toil and blood and treasure to 
secure. And yet we just keep giving money to those who are opposing us 
in almost every turn.
  They are sovereign nations. We shouldn't get into nation building. 
They are big folks. They can make their own decisions. But if they want 
to oppose us at every turn, they can't expect us to continue to pay 
them to oppose us at every turn. Are so it just is hard to believe that 
that's something we are still dealing with, but it is.
  And I have to mention this. Regarding the gulf oil spill and this 
legislative markup, as it's called; it's of course voting a bill out of 
committee. It's the emergency response to the gulf oil bill that 
includes $900 million a year for the next 30, 40 years simply to buy 
more land. Think about the James Bond title ``The World Is Not 
Enough.'' Well, owning most of the West doesn't seem to be enough.
  My friend Rob Bishop from Utah indicated how about a friendly 
amendment to just say the Federal Government will only buy land in 
States in which the Federal Government does not already own up to 20 
percent of the State? But my friends across the aisle from those States 
in the East that love continuing to purchase land in the West, forcing 
schools to lay off teachers, shut down schools, inability to provide 
tax revenue--they love that because they're not going to have land 
bought in their States. The friendly amendment that Mr. Bishop offered, 
since the Federal Government already owns 70 percent of his State, was 
not accepted. So the intent appears clear: They want to keep buying 
more land in the West. They don't want it purchased up in the East for 
the most part.
  So in addition to that, during the hearings regarding the gulf 
crisis, when I was questioning Director Birnbaum, brought out the facts 
that we learned that there was only one entity, one group within MMS, 
Minerals Management Service, that was allowed to unionize, and that was 
the offshore inspectors. The offshore inspectors, the people that stand 
between disaster and our beloved homeland. And they are unionized.
  So I offered a simple amendment today, because those offshore 
inspectors that go out to make sure things are done properly to protect 
us from disaster on our homeland, they are like people in the Army. You 
know, I never went into warfare. I was commissioned based on an Army 
scholarship I had at Texas A&M. I had an Army scholarship there. I owed 
the Army 4 years, but I wasn't commissioned until a year after Vietnam. 
When I took the scholarship, I anticipated I would end up in Vietnam, 
but the war ended.
  And we were taught, though, in training--and I had been a sentry 
before, put out on a perimeter to sit guard during the night. And I was 
out there to stand guard to make sure nothing happened to my friends 
who were getting some sleep at night. I was their protection. So I 
wasn't about to fall asleep when as dark as it was out on perimeter 
because I had to warn them if someone was coming in. And sure, you 
know, it was drills, it was practice if some want to call it that. But 
during drills you take it very seriously. But I came to appreciate the 
role of someone who is a forward observer, someone who is a sentry, 
someone who is out there on the perimeter sitting, standing guard to 
make sure that they are protected back in the main group.
  Well, that's the way the role of an offshore inspector struck me. 
They are out there protecting us. Can you imagine someone on guard duty 
out protecting your perimeter calling in and saying, guess what, I am 
going on strike?

                              {time}  1930

  I don't like my contract. I'm going on strike. So you're no longer 
protected out here. Things could go completely awry. I'm not 
inspecting. I'm on strike. That should not be allowed to happen in the 
military. It shouldn't be allowed to happen on offshore rigs.
  So I had a simple amendment that said offshore inspectors are not 
allowed to strike or threaten to strike from doing their jobs. Votes 
were rolled. So we will have a recorded vote on that in the morning and 
we'll find out how serious people on both sides of the aisle are about 
protecting our homeland, or are they going to have to kowtow and cater 
to unions as we've seen on so many votes. This, we're talking about our 
homeland. We're talking about prevention of environmental disaster.
  So, Madam Speaker, I hope that people will let their Members of 
Congress know that are on the Natural Resources Committee, Don't vote 
for the unions; vote for the homeland. Don't vote to allow our 
soldiers, our offshore inspectors out there on our shore, on our 
offshore rigs, to go on strike because, wow, what leverage.
  It would be like an air traffic controller saying, All of those 
planes are in the air, and I don't care if they land or crash. We're 
walking away. They're on their own. You can't let them do that.
  You have to provide for our country's security. You can't let people 
in the position with the leverage over lives and livelihoods to walk 
away on strike at the worst possible time. So we'll find out tomorrow 
who's voting for our Nation's homeland, our homeland, all we love and 
hold dear--the environment, the animals, the plants that can't do 
anything about the oil coming ashore. We'll see whether the vote will 
be for the unions so that offshore inspectors can continue to have the 
threat to strike if they so feel like it or not. That's tomorrow.

[[Page 12977]]

  One other thing I want to get to, because I know our President said 
this year that we're not a Christian nation, and I want to debate that 
because I don't know if we are or not anymore. But I know how we got 
started, and it's easy to see in the writings, the things that were 
said, the proclamations. It's easy to see.
  For example, George Washington, May 2, 1778, gave this order to his 
troops, May 2, 1778, to the troops at Valley Forge. Here it is, and I'm 
quoting from George Washington's order. ``The Commander-in-Chief 
directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock, in 
each Brigade which has a Chaplain. Those Brigades which have none will 
attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that 
officers of all ranks will, by their attendance, set an example for 
their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good 
citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the 
higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, 
it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished Character 
of,'' and this is Washington's words, ``Christian.''
  That was his order to the Continental Army, May 2, 1778. Again, I 
won't debate whether or not we're a Christian nation now. But it is 
important that people in this body know, and people across America 
know, that we, at one time were--the Judiciary Committee of the Senate 
made that proclamation at one time in one of their votes. They said 
point blank, We are a Christian nation. That was in the 1800s.
  Abraham Lincoln, July 7, 1864, said this in his proclamation. Abraham 
Lincoln said, ``I do hereby further invite and request the heads of the 
Executive Departments of this Government, together with all 
legislatures, all judges and magistrates, and all other persons 
exercising authority in the land, whether civil, military, or naval, 
and all soldiers, seamen, and marines in the national service, and all 
of the other law-abiding people of the United States, to assemble in 
their preferred places of public worship on that day, and there and 
then to render to the Almighty and merciful Ruler of the Universe such 
homages and such confessions to offer to Him such supplications, as the 
Congress of the United States have in their aforesaid resolution so 
solemnly, so earnestly, and so reverently recommended.'' That was for 
the day July 7, 1864.
  September 5 of 1864, Abraham Lincoln addressed a committee, and 
according to the historic document of Colored People from Baltimore--
that's according to the historic document. Now, that would be African 
Americans, I'm sure, but back in 1864, apparently Lincoln didn't know 
better. So acknowledging a gift of a Bible from those wonderful people, 
he said, this is Lincoln's words, ``In regard to this Great Book, I 
have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to 
man. All the good Saviour,'' that's Lincoln's words, ``All the good 
Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for 
this Book we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable 
for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in 
it.'' In the Bible. How about that. Those are Lincoln's words.
  You'll look at his second inaugural address. Interestingly enough, he 
said these words. These are carved in the north wall of the Lincoln 
Memorial. In the middle of his second inaugural address, he's talking 
about both the North and the South. He said, ``Both read the same 
Bible, and pray to the same God. The prayers of both could not be 
answered. That of neither has been fully answered. The Almighty has His 
own purposes.'' Then he quotes the Bible, ``Woe unto the world because 
of offenses.''
  ``Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by 
the bondsman 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, 
`the judgements of the Lord, are true and righteous.''' Those were 
Lincoln's words in the second inaugural address.
  So I won't debate whether or not we're a Christian nation. But that's 
how we got our start. Despite the efforts of those even in the early 
1800s up to the present day who disregard the facts, they disregard so 
many of our Founders' own words. Call Benjamin Franklin a deist, even 
though at 80 years of age at the Constitutional Convention he's the one 
that says, ``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the 
more convincing proofs I see of this truth--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 writing, that unless the Lord build the 
House, they labour in vain that build it.''

                              {time}  1940

  He went on to urge those other members at the Constitutional 
Convention--his words, not mine--he said, ``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.'' So much for 
him being a deist.
  Regardless of where we are now, this Nation started as a Christian 
Nation. All of the indications from the official sources, from our 
Presidents, indicated as much. So, regardless of where we are now, 
that's where we started. We need to get history right if we're going to 
have a future.

                          ____________________