[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4732-4736]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT LIBYA?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, always an honor to come to this floor in 
these hallowed Halls and address the issues of the day.
  My colleague from across the aisle was discussing jobs. That is so 
important to most Americans, and there is one way we could do a great 
deal toward immediately putting Americans back to work, and that would 
be if we started utilizing more of our own energy resources, which is 
what this Nation has been so blessed with. When you consider all of the 
natural resources that are natural energy sources--coal, natural gas, 
oil, we do have wind, places where solar works--but all of the carbon-
based energy resources that are so valuable around the world, the ones 
for which we keep paying trillions of dollars to other nations that 
could be utilized here in the United States and could be utilized to 
create jobs right here at home, it does not make sense to keep sending 
hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars to countries that don't 
like us. We're doing that through the purchase of energy.
  I've listened to all the explanations about why we've gone into Libya 
that have been made in the press. Those press conferences, all kinds of 
releases by this administration, and you still come back to trying to 
figure out why Libya was so much more important than Tunisia or so many 
of the others, Iran.
  I mean, the people of Iran have attempted rebellions against madman 
Ahmadinejad, and this administration didn't seem to lend a helping 
hand, and that's a nation whose leader has sworn to see that the United 
States, Ahmadinejad said, will soon no longer be a Nation. As 
Ahmadinejad had said, we'll soon be able to experience a world without 
the United States and Zionism. So he says he's going to eliminate the 
United States; we're going to eliminate Israel. That ought to cause 
concern.
  Have we lifted anything other than trying to prevent people from 
buying goods from Iran? Not really. Oh, yes, and those sanctions are 
going to work, and probably in another 15, 20 years they've got a real 
chance of working. The trouble is, in 15 or 20 years--and, actually, 
the possibility exists in a whole lot less than 5--if we continue to 
persist in sanctions and nothing more with Iran, they will get nuclear 
weapons, and then they will give us a choice: either remove the 
sanctions or count on a nuclear blast coming in your country. That's 
why we have to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. But we use 
them, and they will certainly threaten to use them so that they can get 
what they want. In fact, they may get more by threatening the use once 
they have them than they would to actually use them.
  But Ahmadinejad has made clear in a number of settings he expects the 
12th Imam, the Mahdi, to be coming, and he believes he can hasten the 
return of the Mahdi, have a global caliphate where all of us fall on 
our knees supposedly or die. Well, we could prevent that, could have 
stopped it long before now, but we haven't.
  So what makes Libya so special? It's really interesting, and it's 
hard to put our finger on it. Libya does produce oil. China, I 
understand, may be the biggest purchaser of Libyan oil but not the 
United States. So why should we go rushing to spend hundreds of 
millions or billions of dollars in Libya? Europe, England are big 
customers of Libyan oil. So why would we be running to help Europe and 
England with their Libyan oil? Well, the President's made clear, it's 
because they asked us to. You know, we've got a number--and Secretary 
Clinton has also said, she's

[[Page 4733]]

made the rounds of the news programs, the Arab States asked us to, the 
U.N. asked us to, Europe and England's asked us to, so why would we 
ever need to come to Congress.
  It's been made very clear, you know. The public has heard those 
comments. You don't have to come to Congress when the U.N. has said 
that's something that needs to be done.
  It's interesting, though, I don't recall any of the Cabinet members 
or the President raising their right hand and taking an oath to defend 
the United Nations. I was thinking their oath had to do with our 
Constitution and our country.
  And it's also been made clear that Libya was not a threat to our 
national security, not a threat to our vital interests; yet we're 
willing to put our treasure and our American lives on the line for 
something that's not in our vital interests. That does not make sense.

                              {time}  1850

  But then again, as you continue to piece together the Obama 
doctrine--we get it, that apparently intervening, risking American 
lives, and spending American treasure that this administration didn't 
earn but they are taking away from taxpayers and then borrowing from 
others, that's okay if it kind of feels like it ought to be something 
we do, you know?
  If it feels like we ought to go to Libya and risk American lives and 
spend all that American treasure, then let's go because, after all, 
people asked us to do that. Why would we not go when people around the 
world ask us to do that? Could it possibly be that a reason for not 
doing it is because an oath was taken to this country--not to the U.N., 
not to the Chinese or the European constitutions or the European Union, 
but to this country? This is where the oath was taken. These are the 
people in America for whom and to whom the oath was made.
  But then we look at energy again and we look at spending treasure; 
and as more people are finding out, in the last couple of years this 
administration has said, You know what, we're shutting down drilling on 
the gulf coast. We're not just going to stop the one company that had 
around 800 safety violations while others had one or two during the 
same period because, see, that's British Petroleum.
  And British Petroleum, as we found out, was poised to come public and 
be the administration and the Democratic Party's one big energy company 
that rode in on a white horse and said, we support the cap-and-trade 
bill. We're going to make money like crazy for BP on the side trading 
in carbon. These stupid Americans. They don't get it. It's a transfer 
of wealth like nothing anybody has ever seen before. The American 
people lose. Companies like BP and General Electric, they'll all win 
big. But the American people lose.
  They wouldn't go after BP. It took so long to go after them. And when 
you know that BP was going to be their big energy company to embrace 
and endorse the cap-and-trade bill, then it makes a lot more sense as 
to why it took the administration so long to respond. Then of course we 
will recall the President sat down with the BP exec and said, Okay, 
let's tell the American public that you are going to put up $20 
billion. They did. Well, that saved some feelings, but there was never 
$20 billion put up.
  So isn't it amazing. We don't know what all was discussed. We don't 
know what all quid pro quo was promised for BP coming in and offering 
large sums of money. Obviously, there were a lot of people on the coast 
that were devastated and continue to be devastated who were not 
compensated by any money from BP. But nonetheless, it took the heat off 
of BP for a while.
  So perhaps the administration thought that after having the 
moratorium and putting tens of thousands of families out of work, 
putting tens of thousands of families onto unemployment insurance, 
devastating tens of thousands of families, perhaps the administration 
thought that nobody would notice that the first permit that was 
extended after this moratorium, to hurt the Southern States--it 
actually hurt the whole country--but the first permit, I believe, went 
to Noble Energy Company.
  But the major investor was a company called British Petroleum. Now, 
was that a quid pro quo? Okay, BP, we are not going to be able to take 
you out into the Rose Garden, have you announce that you support the 
cap-and-trade bill because, you know, you are just not well thought of 
right now. It wouldn't work right now. But there will be pie in the sky 
by and by if you will just play along with us for a while. Who knows 
what conversation occurred there.
  But isn't it interesting that BP was the largest investor in the 
company that got the first permit after the drilling moratorium.
  Now, understand, there haven't just been a glut of permits come 
rushing forward. There are still tens of thousands of families that 
were made destitute by this administration because they chose to punish 
the entire South and even the country, rather than allowing energy jobs 
to go forward in the gulf coast area.
  So imagine the surprise of some of those destitute folks that have 
just been traumatized by this administration when they find out that 
our President has just been down in South America, telling the 
Brazilians that we think so much of their drilling that we're going to 
loan them $2 billion to drill off their coast and that, when they 
strike this oil off their coast, the President tells them, We're going 
to be your best customer.
  Why couldn't we be our own best customer? Why couldn't we be drilling 
off our own coast? Why couldn't we be drilling in ANWR? Why couldn't we 
be drilling in the North Slope area where there's no drilling allowed 
yet? We would be our own best customer. We would create millions of 
jobs not just in the oil industry but all kinds of jobs if the 
President were not wanting to punish this area.
  I mean, it's as if we're wanting to punish free enterprise. Actually, 
we've had a very cold winter where I live. Yet the EPA, under this 
administration, doesn't care, and they don't care that the new 
regulations they are coming out with would not have maybe one-billionth 
of 1 percent effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
  Yet as a result of this administration and their war against jobs--
the war on jobs--you've got the EPA out there trying to put people out 
of business, keeping people from hiring, when the truth is, when those 
jobs leave here, they go to South America. They go to China, India, 
different places. Then they pollute a minimum of four times more than 
the pollution in this country from the same industry because we do a 
good job of policing industries.
  When the economy is going well, that is when you have the best chance 
of really cleaning the environment because when an economy is 
struggling--and China knows about a struggling economy, trying to 
employ people, keep them from getting upset and revolting. When an 
economy is struggling, people don't care so much about the environment. 
They are more interested in just feeding themselves, having a roof over 
their heads, and surviving. So if you want to help the environment, if 
that is the true purpose, then what you do is allow the economy to 
thrive.
  This President has had a war on jobs, and that continues--oh, I'm 
sorry. I should qualify that--a war on jobs in America. Because 
obviously we're helping create jobs in Brazil. We're helping the 
Democratic largest contributor, Mr. Soros, with his single largest 
investment for drilling down in South America or Brazil. So the 
Democrats' largest investor is going to make a tremendous amount of 
money because we're loaning $2 billion to pay him for his investment 
down there to do the drilling that we won't allow in this country.
  Why is it that our global President is more interested in creating 
jobs in Brazil than in the United States? I guess, whenever we find out 
that reason, it may help us understand why we expend American treasure 
and risk American lives in a country that is of no vital interest to 
this country.
  It is interesting. When you look at the history of Muammar Qadhafi, 
this

[[Page 4734]]

is not a nice man. This is not a man that should have avoided prison 
and perhaps even capital punishment, depending on the charges, the 
evidence, and proving the charges.

                              {time}  1900

  Yet you have to look at what will replace Qadhafi when he's gone.
  Now, first we hear from the administration, no, there's no al Qaeda 
there rebelling, and then we find out, yes, there is. They're involved. 
The Muslim Brotherhood is involved in the rebellion in Egypt.
  Now, Mubarak was a dictator. We're not big fans of dictatorship in 
this country. But when you have to look at the national vital interest 
here and you have a man who is in charge in Egypt who is not a threat 
to the United States and was living as best one could with the status 
quo next to Israel and yet there is an effort to throw Mubarak out of 
office and any kind of decent intel would indicate you've got the 
Muslim Brotherhood that in all likelihood will replace Mubarak, then 
why did we call for Mubarak to leave and allow himself to be replaced 
by a group that wants us all to bow the knee in one giant global 
caliphate to religion when some of us believe in our own, my case, 
Christian beliefs, heart and soul, which I had hoped to get through 
this life without having to die for?
  But there are people who are trying to take over Egypt who we've 
given great encouragement to. There are people in Libya that are 
wanting to take over that country and its powerful military who would 
like us to either convert from Christianity or to lose our heads. Why 
would we be helping them? That's a difficult question. So if it weren't 
so serious, it would be an amusing game to try to figure out what this 
administration is attempting to do.
  What is the Obama doctrine? When it comes to the budget, the 
President gave a wonderful speech. He read it impeccably well, about 
how we have got to cut spending. He gave that speech right before he 
released his budget. And that budget was projecting around a $3.75 
trillion expenditure when we were only going to take in around $2.1 
trillion. So he gave a speech about cutting spending, and he's been 
doing that the last 2 years, and it turns out the first year we had a 
$1 trillion deficit. The next year we had more than that. And this year 
the President's proposed a budget and spending that will be a $1.65 
trillion deficit. That makes no sense. Why would you give speeches 
saying you're going to cut spending, and yet every year it goes up and 
up dramatically? That doesn't make sense.
  Yet we know the results of the election in November indicated very 
clearly the American people want the spending cut. We can't continue to 
live in a country that is running up trillion dollar deficits. People 
will quit buying our bonds. We're dangerously close to having our bonds 
downgraded, our rating lowered, and if that happens, interest rates go 
up. And if the interest rates go up like that, that will give fodder to 
those who are demanding that something besides the dollar be used to 
buy oil. I mean, it could put this country in a terrible financial 
spiral downward from which it might be impossible to pull out.
  I was in a plane once when I was told the baffles were taken out. It 
was aerobatically qualified, and I was being allowed to sit in the 
copilot's seat. It was a crop dusting plane, and it was kind of fun 
flying the plane with the joystick.
  I said through the radio system in the plane to the pilot, This thing 
is aerobatic qualified, isn't it? You know, we could do loops and go in 
and out of spins. And he said, It would be, but we removed the baffles 
from inside the wings where the gasoline for the fuel is stored; so if 
we go into a spin, then the fuel all runs to one end of one wing and we 
go into a spin we can't get out of, and we'll crash and both of us die.
  Well, that's kind of where we're heading with this thing. If we don't 
get the spending under control, one thing leads to another and we're in 
big trouble. And it's got to stop.
  At the same time, we're supposed to be helping Americans with better 
health care. If you liked your insurance, you were going to keep it. 
Yet we found out that absolutely was not true. If you liked your 
doctor, you can keep him. We found out that absolutely was not true. 
It's a bad bill.
  Then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 
2,800-page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new 
President's commissioned officer corps and noncommissioned officer 
corps, do we really need that, I wondered, when I had read that in the 
bill.
  But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya and going to use 
our treasure and our American lives there, maybe there's intention to 
so deplete the military that we're going to need that Presidential 
reserve officers commissioned corps and noncommissioned corps that the 
President can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to 
the ObamaCare bill.
  But the trouble is there's already been $105 billion appropriated. 
It's like writing postdated checks that are due to be cashed each year 
into the future. Well, you're really not supposed to do that. That's 
not appropriate.
  This isn't like Social Security where it is controlled by formulas 
and it's in automatic motion. This was just an appropriation. It's not 
mandatory. It could be repealed; but, to do so, it actually has to be 
rescinded.
  My friend Steve King has got a bill that would prohibit any money 
that's currently been appropriated through the present from being 
utilized for the purposes; in other words, it ties the hands of the 
administration from using any of the money already appropriated for the 
purposes of implementing this ObamaCare program.
  Denny Rehberg has an amendment that was voted in that also has some 
effect in that regard.
  Jack Kingston is an appropriator and has come up with an idea that a 
couple of us have joined forces with him, and I think we've got around 
22 cosponsors, and that's growing constantly. But it is an approach 
that I would hope would attract Democrats in both the Senate and the 
House because it is an important principle. And I would certainly hope 
that it would attract Democrats in the House because it, in effect, 
says we're not going to do postdated checks for something besides 
Social Security, those type of things that were controlled by formulas. 
We're going to cancel the postdated checks.
  Now, it should be attractive to my friends in the minority now 
because, someday, they may be back in the majority. If and when that 
happens, they surely would not want the Republican majority to have 
passed a decade worth of spending bills, not for Social Security, not 
for mandatory spending, but a decade worth of spending with postdated 
checks, say you can't ever stop this.
  So the principle that the Kingston bill would stand on is that these 
type of things must be taken up annually. So we're going to cancel all 
the postdated checks that were going to be cashed in the future. And if 
the Democratic Representatives get back in the majority, some will say 
it's not a good idea, because if they get back in the majority, they 
can just appropriate that money. Well, of course they can.

                              {time}  1910

  They can pass a whole different health care bill if they get back in 
the majority. That's the way it works. When you are in the majority, 
you can pass things.
  So it would not be unfair to just say we are canceling all those 
postdated checks, we are canceling $105 billion worth of spending; and, 
if you get back in the majority, it is up to you what you appropriate. 
But as long as we are in the majority, we are not spending that money.
  That allows us to keep our promise. It allows people on both sides of 
the aisle to say we are standing on principle and on procedure that the 
majority should rule in the legislature, and not a minority that years 
ago was a majority. That's a better way to do it.
  So there have been those questions. Some have said, why make it so 
complicated? In the new bill that we have

[[Page 4735]]

proposed today and filed today, it would effectively end the $105.5 
billion in the funding that was in Obamacare by turning them into an 
authorization without the appropriation. That means not this or any 
future administration would be able to spend the money without first 
coming to Congress and getting a majority here in both the House and 
the Senate to approve it.
  Now, there are those that say, well, you know, there are a few good 
things in that Obamacare bill. Well, my gosh, when you have a 2,800-
page bill, there surely ought to be something in there that is decent. 
And there were a few good things. But why not make those a 25-page bill 
instead of a 2,800 page bill? Why create all these hundreds of new 
agencies, the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, all those 
things that come from this massive government overload? Why not just do 
away with all of those things?
  That is what we should do, and then start, as Senator Obama had said 
we should do when he said repeatedly we ought to have negotiations on a 
health care bill. We ought to have hearings, we ought to have 
negotiations that are public. Have them on C-SPAN if C-SPAN will carry 
it. Let everyone see who is in it for themselves and who is in it for 
the American people. I think the American people, even without seeing 
the negotiations on Obamacare, got the message who was for the American 
people, and that is why the House changed hands.
  So we hope that in the next few days there will be more and more 
people get on board, because this is an important principle: A 
minority, even though they once were a majority, should not be able to 
bind future Congresses on things that are not mandatory through 
formulas like Social Security.
  Now, with regard to Libya, there were some interesting quotes from 
the President's speech. He had pointed out that Qadhafi had denied his 
people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and 
abroad, and terrorized innocent people. This had been going on for 
years. It certainly had been going on all the time that President Obama 
has been in office. It was going on when he was a Senator, and he had 
never called on these kind of things before.
  But he goes on. Just two paragraphs down, he says, ``Joining with 
other Nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our 
sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those 
around him to be held accountable for their crimes.''
  Now, I'm familiar with holding people accountable for their crimes. 
As a former judge and as a former prosecutor, I have done that, held 
people accountable for their crimes. I don't see what this 
administration has done to make Qadhafi accountable for his crimes. In 
fact, there was discussion in the news today that this administration 
is floating the idea of some type of amnesty if Qadhafi will just 
leave. So that statement in his speech may be like the one, if you like 
your health insurance, you will be able to keep it. It sounds good, but 
it has no basis in fact.
  The President said, ``Military jets and helicopter gunships were 
unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against 
assault from the air.'' My understanding is that has happened in Burma, 
Pakistan, possibly in Syria. There are a lot of other countries it has 
happened in where we haven't gone against the administration in that 
country. So that was a little puzzling.
  The President said, ``So 9 days ago, after consulting the bipartisan 
leadership in Congress, I authorized military action to stop the 
killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.'' But the 
fact is, we have been told repeatedly that this administration had the 
support of the U.N., to whom the President did not take an oath to 
defend and did not have the consent of the governed in this country--
not the governed and not the governed's legally elected 
representatives.
  Now, the President said in his speech, ``We hit Qadhafi's troops.'' 
Well, I would think, with the President's broad education, he would 
understand if an infidel, or an infidel country like we are considered, 
kills Muslims, then we are worthy of death under what they consider the 
law. So if the President is right and we haven't just shot rockets and 
taken out certain type of military hardware, we have actually killed 
Muslims in Libya, then we have not made ourselves a bunch of friends. 
In fact, that may be one of the reasons we see the President's image 
being stomped on and burned and destroyed in effigy in Libya and 
foreign countries.
  The President said, ``I said that America's role would be limited. We 
would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique 
capabilities on the front end of the operation, and we would transfer 
responsibility to our allies and partners.'' In other words, we are 
turning over command, but our U.S. military is doing the lion's share 
of the fighting. And so we keep hearing that in the news. This 
administration is turning over the lion's share of the effort when 
actually they are turning over the leadership.
  My office made an official request yesterday of the administration to 
know what percentage of the military of NATO is U.S. military, and we 
were given the figure 65 percent. So it doesn't come as a great comfort 
to many of us that we are turning over this great responsibility that 
we have led as helpers in Libya to NATO when we are 65 percent of NATO. 
That is one of those things that sounds good. Kind of like, if you like 
your insurance, you can keep it. But it really doesn't have much basis 
in fact for comfort.
  The President said in his speech, ``NATO has taken command of the 
enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone.'' Yet, it is 
confusing, because those speaking for the administration here in 
Washington seem to indicate that we have not yet turned over command.
  He says, ``Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and 
protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and 
our partners.'' I guess that means NATO, which we are 65 percent of.
  I know I look stupid sometimes, but, I mean, I can get that. If we 
are turning it over to a group that is 65 percent us, we really haven't 
turned it over. Unless we want to say, ``Yeah, but we are not leading 
anymore. We are putting our military under the command of foreigners 
who have never taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of 
this country.''

                              {time}  1920

  How do you feel good about that? Well, it is hard for some of us to 
feel good about it.
  The President says Libya will remain dangerous. The question is, 
dangerous to whom? We saw that after the invasion of Iraq, that Qadhafi 
threw up his hands and said, Hey, we will give up nukes, we will give 
up pursuing anything. We don't want you to invade our country, so we 
want to work with you. We saw a similar attitude after President Reagan 
dropped a bomb down his chimney.
  So we know that, as long as Qadhafi knows we have a strong President 
who will go after him if he does anything to us, then we have nothing 
to fear. But we also know from his history that if he is not 
controlled, if we do not have a strong President who is willing to go 
after and punish those who are attempting to destroy us, then maybe he 
is dangerous. Maybe that is what the President was talking about in his 
speech.
  Anyway, the President said we also have the ability to stop Qadhafi's 
forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. 
But, here again, it didn't have the support of the American people; it 
didn't have the support of Congress.
  It brings back to mind, when George W. Bush was President, he enjoyed 
playing golf. He still does apparently. I never played with him, but I 
understand he is a good athlete. But once troops were committed to 
harm's way, President George W. Bush said it didn't feel right for him 
to be out on a golf course while troops he committed to harm's way were 
in danger, so he gave up playing golf for the rest of his 
administration.
  Yet the current administration has a President at the top who not 
only

[[Page 4736]]

doesn't feel any qualms about playing golf while we have troops 
committed that he committed to harm's way, he will also play golf and 
pause long enough to commit more troops to harm's way.
  The President said the democratic impulses that are dawning across 
the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship. That 
is, unfortunately, what the majority of Americans are concerned about 
happening here in America if we get away from the legislative process 
and forcing bills through that are not supported by the American public 
and forcing American commitments in places that America does not 
support and spending beyond anything a drunken sailor would have ever 
spent. We are afraid of what is happening in this country. We are 
afraid of what is happening to our economy.
  The President said it is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to 
do. Well, then we find out the Libyan opposition is composed of, at 
least numerous members are part of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood; 
and apparently al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood representatives had not 
asked us to intervene militarily in Egypt or Tunisia or Syria. Maybe 
that is the difference, I don't know. But it is disconcerting.
  The fact is, when you look at the oath we took, our allegiance is to 
this country. It is not to the United Nations; it is not to other 
countries. It is to this Nation. So a serious look at Libya and the 
problems there might deserve some intervention. But first we have to 
ask the question, is whoever will replace Qadhafi more of a danger to 
this country than Qadhafi? If the answer is possibly yes, then we 
should not be sending American treasure and American lives to help 
intervene on behalf of people who would like to see this Nation 
destroyed. That ought to be pretty commonsense.
  One other factor is Israel. We have a true friend in Israel in the 
Middle East. But, unfortunately, our friends have seen the way we have 
treated our best friend in the Middle East, Israel. We vote against 
them at times, like we did last May. We snub them in public ways people 
hear about. Israel's enemies hear about how we snubbed Israel. And 
Israel's enemies know when there is a crack and especially, whether it 
is there or not, a perceived distance between Israel and their greatest 
ally that used to be us. Then it is time to move. That is when the 
flotilla came last May, is after we voted against Israel. That is when 
a lot of these actions began taking place. People who want to see 
Israel gone seem to be in the middle of revolting in a number of 
countries around the Middle East and Africa.
  We have got to come back to what is best for the United States, and 
it should be very clear. With the common interests and beliefs that the 
people of Israel have in the value of life and the value of equality of 
people and the equality of women, those ought to be our friends. Those 
ought to be people who, when under attack, tell us we are next.
  In this case, it is not a hard deduction to get to, because the 
people have said we want to eliminate Israel, the little Satan, and 
then the United States, the big Satan. So Israel is a great investment 
as a defense partner, because if they go, if they go down, we are 
certainly next, and also I happen to believe that, in blessing Israel, 
we can be blessed.
  Before I conclude my time here tonight, it is so important to take a 
look historically at things that have been said in the past history of 
this Nation, that have been said in this building in official settings, 
that have been said by those who have led the way, carried a torch to 
light our way down the years. One such man was the Chaplain of the 
Senate, Peter Marshall.
  I was given this book in the last couple of weeks, two or three 
weeks, ``Sermons and Prayers of Peter Marshall,'' while he was Chaplain 
of the United States Senate. I would just like to read a prayer that 
Peter Marshall gave in the Senate for the historical value and insight 
of this brilliant man, a dedicated Christian.
  He said: Our father, we are beginning to understand at last that the 
things that are wrong with our world are the sum total of all the 
things that are wrong with us as individuals. Thou has made us after 
Thine image, and our hearts can find no rest until they rest in Thee.
  We are too Christian, really, to enjoy sinning and too fond of 
sinning to really enjoy Christianity. Most of us know perfectly well 
what we ought to do. Our trouble is that we do not want to do it. Thy 
help is our only help. Make us want to do what is right, and give us 
the ability to do it.
  In the name of Christ, our Lord. Amen.
  A prayer by Peter Marshall.

                          ____________________