[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19108-19113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            A YEAR IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the

[[Page 19109]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 
designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, tonight, one of the things we did was to 
take up the National Defense Authorization Act. It was to extend the 
power of the President.
  There were some good things in it. I applaud the inclusion of the 
conscience exception that would allow members of the military to do as 
members of the military have done throughout our history--be able to 
have, for example, a Bible on a desk, which are things that now have 
begun to result in persecution--and, actually, knocks against the 
military--things that our greatest Commander in the history of our 
country, George Washington, felt were noble things. Under this 
administration's watch, these things have now begun to result in 
persecution.
  When you go back to the bill, the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force, that was passed on September 18, 2001, when the United States 
did not even know who had attacked us, it is incredible. I don't fault 
the legislature at the time, the Congress--the House and the Senate. 
Americans were scared. Churches and synagogues were packed all over 
America. I have never seen anything like it in my lifetime the way 
people especially flocked to churches and were praying fervently. Then 
after there was not another attack within 90 days, it was as if 
Americans began to say, Never mind, God. We don't have to worry about 
that because we haven't been attacked again.
  The NDAA is basically added to the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force against September 11 terrorists. That is the name of it.
  It says in section 2(a):

       The President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided 
     the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
     harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent 
     any future acts of international terrorism against the United 
     States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  Then it sets out War Powers Resolution requirements consistent with 
section 8(a):

       (1) Of the War Powers Resolution, Congress declares this 
     section as intended to constitute specific statutory 
     authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War 
     Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1544(b).

  It goes on and it is more extensive, and as I say, the NDAA actually 
modifies and extends things.
  When that was passed, we didn't even know who had attacked us. I, 
obviously, was not here in Congress at the time, but we were afraid and 
concerned. We didn't know what was going to hit next, but it, perhaps, 
in retrospect, was a granting of more powers than should have been 
granted by the Congress because it is subject to being abused.
  Fortunately, I don't consider it to have been abused by President 
Bush. Some blame him for Iraq. I wasn't here at the time, but I can't 
help but wonder when people supported the numerous successful efforts 
by President Bush at the United Nations in building a big coalition of 
countries to support our efforts to curtail Iraq's military efforts of 
not allowing U.N. inspectors to check on them. I don't blame the 
Democrats who voted for the authorization to go into Iraq, and I don't 
blame the Republicans, because Saddam Hussein gave every indication to 
the people who were in Congress at the time and to the President that 
he was up to no good. That was a long time ago.
  Now we find that the President is using authorities that were 
granted, and this administration is using authority that was granted to 
do things like help rebels who we knew at the time in Libya had al 
Qaeda infused within them. We just didn't know how extensive, and many 
of us pointed that out. Now, this fall, we see that this administration 
has sent hundreds of tons of weapons to the Syrian rebels, and we find 
out that the Syrian rebels who are fighting a cruel dictator named 
Assad are engaging in more brutality, particularly against Christians, 
in the original roots where Christianity was born.
  These are areas in which Apostle Paul established churches. It is the 
only city in the world that still speaks the original Aramaic that 
Jesus was believed to have spoken. This is an amazing place. This isn't 
just some trivial area in which a few Christians happen to be. This is 
right to the very founding of the Christian church. So many people came 
to America to have the freedom to worship without persecution. They 
fled Europe and fled other places so they could worship without 
persecution in a Christian church, and now this administration is using 
incredible powers that were bestowed on the President by Congress to 
help the wrong people.
  I go back to a visit to the Middle East earlier this fall when allies 
basically were saying, We do not understand what you are doing. The 
Muslim Brotherhood is that which supports radical Islam, and it was the 
radical Islamists--the Muslim Brotherhood--that supported the 9/11 
attacks. It was the Muslim Brotherhood that basically supported the 
training and all of the efforts the Taliban was doing. It is the Muslim 
Brotherhood that was engaged in trying to take down Qadhafi, which, 
without American help, they may not have done. It was the Muslim 
Brotherhood that took control in Egypt and was persecuting Christians 
as the Coptic Christian Pope, the Egyptian Pope, verified himself in 
meetings with him this fall. Now, in Syria, you are backing the people 
who are at war with you? We don't understand.
  So it appears that we have gone from being at war, as President Bush 
talked about, with anyone who has supported the terrorists--you are 
either with us or you are with them--to now, not only not being at war 
with those who are at war with us, but to helping them.

                              {time}  2015

  As a Christian, to know that votes we have taken in Congress have 
helped enable this administration to provide weapons, weapons of war, 
to people who are brutalizing, raping, killing, seeing reports of the 
beheadings of Christians in Syria.
  Though I greatly appreciate some of the things that were included in 
the NDAA, and in the past I have even helped work on bipartisan 
agreements, bicameral, with the Senate and the House, worked on an 
effort to rein in the President's authority to just indefinitely detain 
American citizens--and I think we had a great solution we worked 
together to get inserted, so I don't believe the President can do that 
any longer with the language now being used--I still can't continue to 
support what we are doing. I hope that we will have a bipartisan effort 
in the new year to actually end the authorization for use of military 
force against September 11 terrorists now that we seem to be helping 
those who are associated with the radical Islamist terrorists instead 
of being at war with them.


                           Horizon Industries

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand here and 
congratulate the National Industries for the Blind, that is the NIB, on 
their 75th anniversary and the great work they do for Texas' First 
Congressional District.
  NIB's mission is to ``enhance opportunities for economic and personal 
independence of persons who are blind, primarily through creating, 
sustaining, and improving employment.''
  Unfortunately, 70 percent of working-age Americans who are blind are 
unemployed. However, the NIB is trying to reverse those upsetting 
trends by providing more employment opportunities for people who are 
blind through their more than 250 locations across the United States.
  Horizon Industries, which is a division of the East Texas Lighthouse 
for the Blind, is located in Tyler, Texas, and currently employs 70 
blind and visually impaired individuals. When I visit Horizon 
Industries, East Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, I am overwhelmed with 
amazement and appreciation for the dedication, the ability, the desire, 
and the outright help that these visually impaired American wonders are 
working with.
  Horizon, one of their jobs, they convert paper products into 
industrial cleaning cloths for the General Services Administration and 
its customers. These incredible employees have also manufactured 35,661 
miles of parachute

[[Page 19110]]

cord for the Department of Defense, much of which was shipped directly 
to our troops who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Horizon 
Industries has empowered blind Americans through employment since 1976.
  These marvelous friends, whose visual impairment has heightened their 
other senses to an amazing extent, are dedicated, they love this 
country, they want to help this country, are a blessing and an asset to 
their community, to east Texas, to Texas, and this country. May God 
continue to bless these wonderful, lovable, dedicated Americans as they 
continue to bless America.


                        The Affordable Care Act

  Mr. GOHMERT. To address the Affordable Care Act, as it was improperly 
and inaccurately labeled, is an article from Ben Shapiro in Breitbart 
today that said:

       On Friday, PolitiFact bowed to the inevitable and named 
     President Obama's ``If you like your health care plan, you 
     can keep it'' statement its Lie of the Year. That came after 
     PolitiFact labeled that statement ``half-true'' in June of 
     2012 and then defended its ``half-true'' rating in October 
     2013.

  PolitiFact said:

       It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves 
     about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic 
     change to America's health insurance system, but the promise 
     was impossible to keep.
       Of course, there's more to the story than that: the promise 
     was a lie when it was made, given that Obama knew at the time 
     that insurance plans would be canceled. But PolitiFact, even 
     in naming the statement the Lie of the Year, soft-pedaled it:
       Obama fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own 
     oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became 
     clear his promise was too sweeping.

  So even PolitiFact, doing all they could to defend something that 
ended up absolutely not being true, they finally had to come around and 
actually admit when the whole country basically--most of the country--
could see the truth, even PolitiFact had to finally get around to being 
factual.
  Here is another story from John Nolte, the Breitbart, 12 December, 
today. He said:

       During Thursday's White House press briefing, the press 
     corps erupted in protest over the Obama administration's lack 
     of transparency and media access. The press corps seemed to 
     be in complete agreement that the Obama White House has been 
     less transparent than the Bush White House. Quite a 
     condemnation for the self-described ``most transparent 
     administration in history.''

  I have also noted in the news today statements from some of our 
leaders in our Republican Party here in the House that immigration will 
be a top priority for 2014. I would not have a problem with immigration 
being a top priority in 2014 if the administration would first enforce 
the laws that enter in effect regarding this Nation's security and its 
immigration laws.
  We had a hearing today in Judiciary and heard testimony about the 
administration from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, that 
actually they are not complying with the law. The law says if somebody 
claims asylum, then they are detained until such time that they have 
the matter ultimately adjudicated. We learned that actually about 75 
percent of those claiming asylum, which has grown multiple times from 
where they were in 2008 when President Bush left, a dramatic, dramatic 
increase in numbers of people coming across our southern border and 
claiming asylum, and apparently this administration is releasing about 
75 percent of them.
  And I was quite sad to hear testimony that even though they are 
making policy, that these individuals, deputy directors, could not give 
us the exact numbers of how many people they were releasing, how many 
people reported back for their hearings; and so that was quite a bit 
discouraging.
  So when you know that there have been so many misstatements by this 
administration that turned out to be far less than accurate or true, 
then I do not know why Republicans and Democrats would want to take up 
immigration. Just the discussion about legal status, amnesty, anything 
of the sort, creates a massive magnet drawing people across our borders 
illegally, as we have heard testimony repeatedly, statements 
repeatedly, from our ICE agents, our Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement people. They say it increases dramatically every time we 
start talking about legal status and amnesty. We see huge numbers of 
people, numbers that we get about the people dying coming across 
deserts, not having adequate water and food to get across. Why would we 
do something to create a magnet until we have a secure border?
  There are a lot of things that need to be reformed. But for those who 
continue to say, oh, yeah, but we will have real security in the next 
bill, look, there is money that this administration has, there is 
manpower this administration has, there is the ability this 
administration has to secure our border. What it does not have is the 
will.
  If it turned out the administration were really and truly serious 
about securing our border, they could be confirmed by the border 
States. Then you would see me, along with most of the people I know, 
willing to sit down and immediately work out an immigration reform 
package. But to debate it in committee and on the floor, to talk about 
it, to make speeches before the border is secure, I am afraid makes us 
complicit in drawing people across deserts that will not make it and 
will die in the desert because we started talking about promises, 
dangling shiny objects to draw people to us, when we had not put proper 
protection in place to make sure that innocent people did not die 
trying to get here.
  For those who say we need to vastly broaden the number of visas, 
there are some areas that I am in favor of increasing visas. There are 
a lot of things we can talk about, but it does not serve those who we 
will draw across deserts who won't make it, it doesn't serve them any 
good purpose until the administration secures the border. So with all 
the wonderful talk about triggers and, oh, but we are going to finally 
secure the border, well, President Reagan got fooled on that and 
regretted it.
  I just think it will be a terrible mistake to do anything other than 
take up a resolution. I filed one basically saying that until the 
administration secures our borders, as confirmed by the border States, 
not Homeland Security, which we have trouble getting straight answers 
out of, but as confirmed by the border States, who are important, 
critical stakeholders in the immigration and secure border issue, when 
they confirm the borders are secure, then we immediately move in to 
dealing with immigration reform. To do otherwise is a mistake that will 
do great damage to people that we draw in, unfortunately, to their 
great damage and possible demise; and it will do great damage to this 
country.
  Let's get the immigration, set it on hold, not take anything up until 
the President is committed and does actually secure the border. Then we 
get something worked out, and it won't be a difficult issue at all. But 
for those that say, oh, I think we can trust Homeland Security or we 
can trust groups in Washington or we can trust Homeland Security, sure, 
we can trust this administration. They say that once we give them 
everything they want in an immigration bill, then they really and truly 
will start securing the border to the extent that the law requires.

                              {time}  2030

  I am sure I look stupid to some, but I say that is a massive mistake. 
Follow the law. If you won't enforce and follow and execute the law 
faithfully now in accordance with the oath that was taken at the 
beginning of office, then why should we think things will change after 
you have gotten everything you want and there is no more incentive to 
follow the law.
  Well, we get back to the promises made about the so-called Affordable 
Care Act. Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal today that 
says ObamaCare raised the cost of your kids' braces. And again, those 
of us who have used the term ``ObamaCare,'' we don't mean anything any 
more derogatory than the President when he called Massachusetts health 
care ``RomneyCare.'' It was just a way to identify Massachusetts health 
care. The President didn't mean anything derogatory when he says

[[Page 19111]]

``RomneyCare.'' People who use ``ObamaCare,'' including the President, 
don't mean anything derogatory, but it certainly identifies for people 
more than the Affordable Care Act does, as we have seen man-on-the-
street interviews on television that people don't know the Affordable 
Care Act and ObamaCare are actually the same thing.
  This article points out:

       Here is something your orthodontist is not smiling about, a 
     new tax rule raised the cost of braces this year thanks to a 
     change from the Affordable Care Act that places an annual 
     $2,500 contribution cap on flexible spending accounts which 
     let workers set aside pretax dollars to cover medical 
     expenses. Some consumers may be spending more on braces, 
     expensive eyewear, or other medical supplies they would 
     typically buy with the accounts. Before the new rule, there 
     was no official cap on how much taxpayers could stash into 
     the account, although many companies typically set their own 
     limits of $5,000. For a person in the 25 percent tax bracket, 
     it cuts the maximum tax break in half to $625 from $1,250.

  And then it goes on to explain how these increase the cost of braces 
and orthodontic care.
  Another issue here, this article from The Wall Street Journal as 
well, dated December 11, says, ``Juking the ObamaCare Stats.'' It says:

       Most of Washington seems to have bought the White House 
     claim that the 36 Federal exchanges are finally working, and 
     glory, glory, hallelujah. But if that is really true, then 
     what explains the ongoing secrecy and evasion?

  We have had so much trouble getting specific, direct answers about 
people who have actually purchased insurance through the exchange.
  Now, Health and Human Services, HHS, if they don't have these 
numbers, if they can't even tell us the number of people that have 
actually purchased insurance, then how in heaven's name will they ever 
be able to tell people whether or not they are actually covered and how 
extensively they are covered and whether or not they are going to take 
care of expenses. I mean, the fact that they can't come in here and 
give us specific information on who signed up, how many have signed up 
for this, that or the other, is a terrible harbinger for just how bad 
and disastrous this health care bill is.
  As we have continued to have a number of hearings where we get 
nothing but obfuscation when specific facts are requested from the 
administration, we know that somebody has this information in this 
administration and it brought to mind the legal doctrine called 
spoliation. Now in our American courts in every State, in Federal 
court, we have very strict laws about the admittance of hearsay into 
evidence before a jury because our rules are there to protect the 
finder of fact, the jury, from hearing evidence which does not have 
really enough credibility to it, and hearsay has to be a specific 
exception or it is not allowed. It must be direct evidence; otherwise, 
it is not allowed, with very tight exceptions.
  One exception that most jurisdictions, as we have in Texas, it is 
called spoliation. The doctrine is this, in essence. If one party in 
court has control of evidence that would be admissible toward proving 
or disproving a fact and that party does not, will not, or say they 
cannot produce that evidence to prove or disprove a fact, in that case 
the judge, as I used to be, could turn to the jury and instruct the 
jury that even though this is not direct evidence because of our 
justice system and the effort to achieve justice in America better than 
any court system in history, we can direct the jury under the doctrine 
of spoliation that this party had evidence in their possession that 
they have either refused to produce, cannot produce, or will not 
produce. Since this party has possession or had possession of that 
evidence, then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you may consider the 
fact that they are not producing that evidence as evidence itself that 
if produced that evidence would disprove what they are claiming. That 
is called, in essence, the doctrine of spoliation.
  So that is the evidentiary doctrine that came to my mind as we 
continue to have hearings and the Obama administration fails to produce 
specific information about sign-ups to ObamaCare. So if we were in a 
court of law, it certainly appears that that instruction might be 
appropriate. Ladies and gentlemen of America, the administration has 
evidence in its possession that it either cannot, will not, or refuses 
to produce. Therefore, Americans, ladies and gentlemen of America, you 
may consider as evidence the fact that they will not produce that 
information as evidence that it does not support what they claim.
  Basically, that is what we have here. They are refusing to produce 
evidence, information about ObamaCare. So I think the American people 
would be justified. I think a jury in my court would be justified in 
presuming, a legal presumption, that their failure to produce this 
evidence is evidence that their claims are not supported by the 
evidence they refuse to produce.
  Here is an article from The Weekly Standard, December 11, entitled, 
``Sexiest man alive brought in to boost ObamaCare enrollment.'' I don't 
really know who Adam Levine is; probably my daughters do. Apparently, 
he was designated as such by People magazine. Apparently he has been 
enlisted, according to Bloomberg, as having been hired by this 
administration to give credibility to ObamaCare.
  To me, again, that seems like if you have to hire some sexy guy to 
come in and promote and tell people, promote ObamaCare as being so 
wonderful and great, it is a pretty clear indication that as people 
look into ObamaCare personally that they don't like what they see, and 
that is what we are hearing from most constituents. Thankfully, there 
are a few people who have benefited from ObamaCare; but the people we 
are hearing from, the vast majority, have been hurt, not helped.
  Here again, another article from the Washington Examiner, Brian 
Hughes from today, actually 5:08 p.m. today. It says, ``HHS extends 
more ObamaCare deadlines.'' It goes on to talk about that the Obama 
administration announced today that they would take steps to push back 
an already delayed deadline, help those struggling to obtain health 
coverage on January 1, and extend a Federal insurance program for those 
with preexisting conditions.
  They keep extending deadlines. If Harry Reid and Senate Democrats had 
not been so dead set on shutting down the government on October 1 as 
they did, if they had been at least willing to forgo their desire to 
shut down the government and hope Republicans got blamed, which they 
knew that the mainstream would do because the mainstream media would 
not actually look at the facts that the House was compromising 
repeatedly and the Senate was saying ``our way or the highway,'' 
basically, by their actions, making clear they wanted a shutdown. Well, 
they got the shutdown, and now, in retrospect, there have got to be 
Democrats in the Senate saying, You know what? Since we have to keep 
extending these deadlines, the American people are going to figure out 
we could have avoided that whole shutdown if Democrats had been even 
remotely reasonable in the Senate and said, Okay, let's go ahead and 
postpone this for a year because it is not going well.
  Well, they wanted a shutdown and they got a shutdown, as the Senate 
Democrats wanted, and now there has got to be some buyer's remorse. 
They created the shutdown when they should have taken one of our 
various compromise offers and at least extended, suspended the 
individual mandate the way the President illegally did for businesses.
  I want to touch on another thing quickly here. Iran is, as Israel has 
said repeatedly, an existential threat to the very existence of Israel. 
If they get nuclear weapons, they want to attack Israel first as the 
little Satan and they want to attack America next. And we have had 
Wendy Sherman, who is the lead negotiator for the Obama administration, 
come up and brief Members of Congress. I wasn't there because I had 
read about her policy leadership in working out the deal with North 
Korea under the Clinton administration which provided them nuclear 
power plants, fuel, got them up and going, and also agreed not to 
inspect their nuclear facilities, which gave North Korea time to 
develop nuclear weapons.

[[Page 19112]]

  In order to get us to give them nuclear power plants and all they 
needed to make nuclear weapons, basically most of what they needed, all 
they had to do was promise they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. They 
have got to be thinking these Americans are the most stupid people in 
the world.
  Sure, you want us to tell you we won't pursue nuclear weapons, we 
won't pursue them. Now give us what we need to make nuclear weapons and 
we will make nuclear weapons.
  Here we have some of the same people involved with the Obama 
administration who want to do the same type of thing with Iran. The 
trouble is this time it really is a threat to the United States. It is 
a threat to Israel, and we have betrayed our ally, unfortunately, in 
Israel.
  But anyway, here are the people in whom the Clinton administration 
and numerous people now in the Obama administration have such faith in. 
This article today, 5:07 p.m., ``North Korea State Media Says Uncle of 
Kim Jong Un Executed.'' Oh, these are great people. These are people 
that we shouldn't have trusted, but the Clinton administration did and 
Wendy Sherman did back in the 1990s. She continued to persist. Oh, we 
can trust these guys, even in her op-ed in 2001.

                              {time}  2045

  You couldn't trust them, and people who knew these people knew you 
couldn't trust the leadership. You can trust the North Koreans, but you 
can't trust their leadership. You can trust the Iranians, but you can't 
trust their leadership.
  Here is another article in the National Review online entitled 
``Nuclear Gangbangers.''

       An observant Iran appreciates three laws of current nuclear 
     gangbanging:
       1. Nuclear weapons earn a reputation.
       2. The more loco a nuclear nation sounds, the more likely 
     it is that civilized states will fear that it is not subject 
     to nuclear deterrence, and so the more likely that they will 
     pay bribes for it to behave. Gangbangers always claim they 
     have nothing to lose; their more responsible intended targets 
     have everything to lose.
       3. As of yet, there are no 100 percent effective nuclear-
     defense systems that can guarantee non-nuclear powers 
     absolute safety from a sudden attack. The nuclear gangbanger, 
     not the global police, currently has the upper hand.

  And this administration is turning a blind eye to the deceit and the 
lies and the nuclear development in Iran to our detriment and the 
detriment of our dear friend.
  Madam Speaker, in the remaining time, since this is the last 
Republican Special Order time before we recess in the House for the 
Christmas holidays, the new year, I want to say that although it 
apparently irritates some liberals to no end and they miss the point of 
why it is important to read these historic statements, some people say, 
Gee, we are getting lots of calls from irate people saying that the 
things that are being read on the House floor by Congressman Gohmert 
are an affront and should never be allowed to be a part of the United 
States Government. They miss the entire point that the reason that I am 
reading them is because these poor people have not had a proper 
education. They do not know what a historic basis it is in going back 
to George Washington who created an order that you couldn't take God's 
name in vain, creating in his resignation a prayer for the Nation, 
talking about the divine author of our blessed religion and that 
without a humble limitation in these things that we can never hope to 
be a happy Nation.
  There were the proclamations thanking God, directing people to have 
days of prayer. There were all of these things throughout our history. 
So, Madam Speaker, I hope Americans appreciate the profound things that 
have been done by America's leaders in the past.
  This is from Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24, 1933, in a Christmas 
greeting to the Nation. Again, it was okay in the 1930s, just as it was 
throughout our history, to thank God. No one ever had a problem with 
Democrats or Republicans paying tribute to God in the House Chamber, in 
the Senate Chamber, in the White House, anywhere. These are Franklin 
Roosevelt's comments. He said:

       This year marks a greater national understanding of the 
     significance in our modern lives of the teaching of Him whose 
     birth we celebrate. To more and more of us the words ``thou 
     shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'' have taken on a meaning 
     that is showing itself and proving itself in our purposes and 
     daily lives. May the practice of that high ideal grow in us 
     all in the year to come. I give you and send you one and all, 
     old and young, a merry Christmas and a truly happy new year. 
     So for now and for always, ``God bless us every one.''

  The following year on Christmas Eve, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave us 
these words from the White House, a government property. It was 
entirely proper. He said:

       Let us make the spirit of Christmas of 1934 that of courage 
     and unity. That is, I believe, an important part of what the 
     Maker of Christmas would have it mean. In this sense, the 
     Scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to 
     fear not, to dwell together in unity.

  That was just some of his comments.
  Franklin D. Roosevelt, January 25, 1941, in the prologue of the New 
Testament published by the Gideons and distributed to soldiers during 
World War II--and I have one that my aunt provided me that she said my 
uncle had received. It says:

       To the Armed Forces: As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure 
     in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in 
     the Armed Forces of the United States. Throughout the 
     centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found 
     in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. 
     It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in 
     attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul. Very 
     sincerely yours, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

  On December 21, 1941, two weeks after America was attacked, a day 
which will live in infamy, as President Roosevelt said, Franklin 
Roosevelt delivered this message:

       Sincere and faithful men and women . . . are asking 
     themselves this Christmas how can we light our trees? How can 
     we give our gifts? How can we meet and worship with love and 
     with uplifted spirit and heart in a world at war, a war of 
     fighting and suffering and death? How can we pause even for a 
     day, even for Christmas day in our urgent labor of arming a 
     decent humanity against the enemies which beset it? How can 
     we put the world aside, as men and women put the world aside 
     in peaceful years, to rejoice in the birth of Christ?

  President Roosevelt goes on. He says:

       Looking into the days to come, I have set aside a day of 
     prayer, and in that proclamation I have said: ``The year 1941 
     has brought upon our Nation a war of aggression by powers 
     dominated by arrogant rulers whose selfish purpose is to 
     destroy free institutions. They would thereby take from the 
     freedom-loving peoples of the Earth the hard-won liberties 
     gained over many centuries. The new year of 1942 calls for 
     courage . . . Our strength, as the strength of all men 
     everywhere, is of greater avail as God upholds us.
       Therefore, I . . . do hereby appoint the first day of the 
     year of 1942 as a day of prayer, of asking forgiveness for 
     our shortcomings of the past, of consecration to the tasks of 
     the present, of asking God's help in days to come. We need 
     his guidance that this people may be humble in spirit but 
     strong in conviction of the right; steadfast to endure 
     sacrifice, and brave to achieve a victory of liberty and 
     peace.
       Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the 
     dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas day signifies.

  President Roosevelt goes on:

       Against enemies that preach the principles of hate and 
     practice them, we set our faith in human love and in God's 
     care for us and all men everywhere.

  On January 6, 1942, President Roosevelt said:

       Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy 
     contempt for the human race. We are inspired by faith which 
     goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the 
     Book of Genesis. ``God created man in his own image.'' We on 
     our side are striving to be true to that Divine heritage. We 
     are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the 
     doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. Those on 
     the other side are striving to destroy this deep belief and 
     to create a world in their own image, a world of tyranny and 
     cruelty and serfdom.

  That was Franklin Roosevelt, 1942. He knew at the time that there 
were the axis powers, the evil powers that included Hitler in Germany, 
Mussolini in Italy, radical Islamists in North Africa joining forces 
together, and he talked about our heritage. Here he is a year later, 
Franklin Roosevelt. These are official statements, Madam Speaker. This 
is President Roosevelt's official government message:


[[Page 19113]]

       To you who serve in uniform I also send a message of cheer 
     that you are in the thoughts of your families and friends at 
     home, and that Christmas prayers follow you wherever you may 
     be. To all Americans I say that loving our neighbor as we 
     love ourselves is not enough, that we as a Nation and as 
     individuals will please God best by showing regard for the 
     laws of God. There is no better way of fostering good will 
     toward man than by first fostering good will toward God.

  Then President Roosevelt quotes John 14:15. President Roosevelt says:

       If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. In sending 
     Christmas greetings to the Armed Forces and merchant sailors 
     of the United Nations we include therein our pride in their 
     bravery on the fighting fronts and all the seas.
       It is significant that tomorrow, Christmas day, our plants 
     and factories will be stilled. That is not true of the other 
     holidays we have long been accustomed to celebrate. On all 
     other holidays work goes on gladly for the winning of the 
     war. So Christmas becomes the only holiday in all the year. I 
     like to think that this is so because Christmas is a holy 
     day. May all it stands for live and grow throughout the 
     years.

  That was Franklin D. Roosevelt.
  In 1944, December 24, the official government statement by Franklin 
Roosevelt as President was:

       It is not easy to say ``merry Christmas'' to you, my fellow 
     Americans in this time of destructive war, nor can I say 
     ``merry Christmas'' lightly tonight to our Armed Forces at 
     their battle stations all over the world, or to our allies 
     who fight by their side. Here, at home, we celebrate 
     Christmas Day in our traditional American way because of its 
     deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ 
     are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our 
     youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of 
     this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal 
     Prince of Peace and good will.

  He goes on:

       But in perhaps every home in the United States sad and 
     anxious thoughts will be continually with the millions of our 
     loved ones who are suffering hardships and misery and who are 
     risking their very lives to preserve for us and for all 
     mankind the fruits of his teachings and the foundations of 
     civilization itself.

                              {time}  2100

       The Christmas spirit lives tonight in the bitter cold of 
     the front lines in Europe and in the heat of the jungles and 
     swamps of Burma and the Pacific Islands. Even the roar of our 
     bombers and fighters in the air and the guns of our ships at 
     sea will not drown out the message of Christmas which comes 
     to the heart of our fighting men.

  President Roosevelt goes on:

       The tide of battle has turned, but slowly, but inexorably 
     against those who sought to destroy civilization. We pray 
     that this day may come soon. We pray, until then, God will 
     protect our gallant American and women in the uniforms of the 
     United Nations, that He will receive into His infinite grace 
     those who make their supreme sacrifice in the cause of 
     righteousness and the cause of love of Him and His teachings.

  President Roosevelt finishes by saying:

       We pray that with victory will come a new day of peace on 
     Earth, in which all the nations of Earth will join together 
     for all time, that in the spirit of Christmas, the Holy Day, 
     may that spirit live and grow throughout the world in all the 
     years to come.

  And then finally, close with this, Madam Speaker. This is Franklin 
Roosevelt, January 20, 1945. This is part of his last inaugural 
address. And as I finish with this, may I say, Madam Speaker, that I 
know all of us here in the House and the Senate, no matter what our 
persuasions, have these same very best wishes as Franklin Roosevelt had 
for our American troops, our men and women in uniform today, just as 
those wishes were made 68 years ago.
  This was 1945. Roosevelt said:

       As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of 
     office in the presence of my fellow countrymen, in the 
     presence of God, I know that it is America's purpose that we 
     shall not fail. The Almighty God has blessed our land in many 
     ways. He has given our people stout hearts, strong arms with 
     which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has 
     given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all 
     people in an anguished world.

  President Franklin Roosevelt finishes by saying:

       So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way 
     clearly, to see the way that leads to a better life for 
     ourselves and for all our fellow men, to the achievement of 
     His will, to peace on Earth.

  Roosevelt finishes by saying:

       In the presence of God, I know that it is America's purpose 
     that we shall not fail.

  Madam Speaker, if we keep that same faith of Franklin Roosevelt, in 
his official capacity as President of the United States, he is right. 
God will not let us fail.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________