Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I went online and got the President's proposal here, and it is 11 pages, and it is a summary. And then I got the summary of the summary, and it looks like it is about 19 pages summarizing the 11 pages. So I guess we are creating jobs by trying to do summaries of the summaries of the summaries. That is not good enough. People are out of work.

We heard last year, a year ago that if we did not pass the stimulus bill, the porkulus bill, if that didn't pass, unemployment might go as high as 8.5 percent. God, would that we would be there instead of where we are today.

This is not going to create jobs. It is going to suck more money out of the economy that government uses that the businesses will not have to create jobs. Let's help America. Let's put people back to work so they can afford their own health care.

I appreciate my friend yielding.

This is such a perplexing time.

The American people, the vast majority, have made clear that they don't want what has come through the House and what has come through the Senate. And you know yes, I came from east Texas. I've worked in some pretty nasty barns and fields. And one person said to me, So you're going to go in and compromise, you know, talk about the Senate and the House bill and try to work out a compromise? Because when you try to compromise between one type of horse manure and another type of horse manure, you're still not going to really like what you got unless you're going to use it for fertilizer.

But the thing is we heard last week--I read that a representative of the AARP and unions had said that they had been behind the scenes privately behind closed doors working on a compromise between these bills that the vast majority of Americans said they don't want. And that was going to be unleashed today. Apparently, it was revealed this morning.

So I am really struggling with this. We're going to have negotiations on C-SPAN, but we're not going to do it when it really counts because we got the bill.

We heard from the representatives at AARP and this administration they've been working in secret behind closed doors, like the auto task force that wouldn't even come to Congress and tell us what had been going on behind closed doors. There is no accountability in that. We don't know, as the President promised, who was negotiating for whom. Did the AARP executives get another exemption in this bill so there is no salary cap on them even though they can sell millions in insurance? Did the unions exempt themselves from something else and get a sweetheart deal? We don't know because the C-SPAN cameras weren't there.

But now that the bill has been revealed this morning that was all negotiated in secret, now we're going to have a meeting, and we're going to have Republican leaders and Democrat leaders come together and talk about the bill that was negotiated in secret?

And I tell you, credibility, as my friend, the former judge, knows, whether it's in the courtroom as we dealt with or whether it's in public, credibility is everything. And this massive bill doesn't give a whole lot of time. Seventy-two hours is not much time to go through a massive bill like that and try to figure out the sweetheart deals that are in there because sometimes it's hidden by referencing another law. And then you've got to go chase down that law and see how this affects this, and whether that controls--like the references to ERISA in the big House bill. Well, that was a sweetheart deal to get some insurance companies on board. And then there was a sweetheart bill to get plaintiffs lawyers on board, and then there was a sweetheart deal for pharmaceuticals in there. But you had to know where to look, and you had to know the other references, and you had to know the effect of bureaucrats' rules on all of those laws. We hadn't had that chance.

But going back to the issue of credibility. Right there at that podium as an invited guest in this Chamber the President of the United States came in here and said as a matter of record, ``There are those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false.'' That came out of the President's mouth. ``This too is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.'' Yet he knew, he knew when he was saying those things that this body passed a bill, and the Senate passed a bill, that did not require identification. And at every level Republicans tried to inject the amendment that you had to identify yourself in order to get access to this Federal taxpayer-funded health care insurance, the public insurance.

Well, he surely had to know that those efforts were beat back at every turn. So there was no requirement to show your identification that you're legally here to get insurance.

So giving the President the benefit of the doubt or just, you know, giving him the benefit of everything, then you'd have to figure, well if he didn't know that that's what had happened, then you're going to have to go in and negotiate with a man who doesn't know what's in a bill or isn't in the bill or what the effect will be, because clearly that bill was going to allow illegal aliens and will, if it's passed. And I haven't had a chance today because we've been so busy up here, haven't had a chance to go through the brand new bill.

But then the President also said, ``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.'' But the very House bill that we had in here, was the only bill we had to work with at the time, and there was a provision in there that was titled, basically, ``Abortions for which Federal dollars may be used.''

Obviously I am sure the President would never misrepresent things, so he clearly did not know what he was talking about. And you are going to come in and negotiate about a bill that people there don't know what is in it? You know, we dealt with that with the crap-and-trade bill.

Thank you. That is what concerned me back in September. The President repeatedly said, my bill will not do this, my plan does this, my bill does that, my plan does this. And he says, if you misrepresent my bill, I am going to call you out. Well, I know what it means to be called out back in Texas, but I didn't know what the President meant by calling out. Well, I don't want to give the President rise to call me out because I have misrepresented something. So all I would ask for is what bill he was talking about.

How can anybody say this bill, my bill, this plan, my plan, and they don't have a bill that they are talking about? How can you misrepresent what is in a bill that doesn't exist? It makes it rather frustrating.

But I do know in this document here, and this was put together by the Republican Study Committee, it is a list of just different Republican proposals. This whole thing is one summary after another. And each one of these bills represents many pages. My bill in here is 25 pages. It has some great information, not that I dreamed up, but after visiting with real experts that deal with this stuff all the time, and some of the brightest minds in America. Newt Gingrich did me a favor, sending over some people to visit with me about some of the ideas. That is 25 pages.

There are some great ideas contained in all these many different Republican proposals. And yet we are told you can't make any preconditions for this meeting, and yet here is our 12-page proposal, and that is our precondition. You would meet with Ahmadinejad--and this is something my friend Mr. King pointed out--how could somebody agree to meet with a man who is proud of being the former President of a terrorist country and wants to destroy the United States, clearly wants to wipe Israel off the map, and you will sit down with a nut like that with no preconditions. But that is a terrorist, it is okay, we will meet with no preconditions with him. But with Republicans, they are worse than terrorists. We have got our preconditions, and you can't have any. That is really not right.

It is not right when we are talking about something as important as not merely the health of Americans, but we are talking about government control of virtually every private aspect of your life. If this were just about health care, it would be rough enough. But you don't have over 2,000 pages, as we

did in the health care bill here in the House, and not intrude into so many areas, including the requirement, a shall, one of the many shalls it required was a study by the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a study of businesses.

And it goes through a list of different things they are supposed to look for, the kind of benefits the employees get. And one of them is whether or not particular companies are making decisions that will allow them to remain solvent. It is government at an intrusion like never seen before in this country.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's a pleasure to wait. It's not patiently. I'm just sitting and taking in everything that has been said and benefiting from that.

My friends here, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Iowa, and others, have worked very hard on the Declaration of Health Care Independence.

But it must it be noted that these last 10 things that are pledges are things the President has already promised. You know, and it is important that people in Washington keep their word. You give your word and say, this is what we're going to do, we will not do that, then it's important that we keep our word.

So we were hoping that the President--and there's still time, and we would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the President go ahead and note these 10 things, all of which he has promised, and say, you know what? Even though our leaders didn't make these preconditions, they're not really preconditions. They're just saying, will you live up to what you've promised before? Please, Mr. President, live up to what you promised before. That's all this is asking. That's all it's stating. That's what the pledge is.

Number 1, protect as inviolate the vital doctor-patient relationship. That's been promised by the President. We're going to protect the doctor-patient relationship. So that shouldn't be a tough one to agree to.

Number 2, reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all Americans. The President promised when he was running for the Presidency and after he's elected to the Presidency, we're not going to heap on any debt. And, in fact, I've enjoyed his speeches recently where he has chastised Congress for spending too much money, and that he's having to do by Executive order what didn't pass in Congress.

And I'm sorry. I haven't heard anybody point out the irony of saying, you know what? I am going to appoint an executive committee, people that I choose, and heck, I'll let you throw some people in there, but I'm going to sign an order to create a panel to save money. Now, this panel is going to cost millions and millions of dollars. But we're going to have a panel that will cost us millions and millions of dollars, but we're hoping somehow in the end we'll finally get this Democratic majority to do what they haven't done before, and that is rein in spending.

You know, Republicans lost the majority in 2006 because they had not reined in spending. Yeah, it was the Republican Congress in 1995 through 2000 that did as they said, they reined in spending. This President has said that.

And I don't know what happened to the Vice President. I do know the President said, you know, he's going to put him in charge and people would be afraid to mess with the Vice President.

But what happened to scrubbing the budget line by line? We just shot up $3.8 trillion, never a budget that high in the history of the country ever. And yet, just crushing national debt will be heaped upon all Americans.

So, the ask here, Mr. Speaker, is that the President go back and listen to some of his own speeches recently where he has said we have got to stop this runaway spending. So if he'll listen to what he said himself there, then we'll be able to get him to agree to Number 2 because he said it himself.

Number 3, improve rather than diminish the quality of care that Americans enjoy. Now, it's one thing to come before the American public and say nobody's going to be denied any type of coverage. Yet, you talk to people in England, you talk to people in Canada, they're not denied coverage.

So we're not going to say you can't have that surgery. You can't have that radiation. We're going to put you on a list and one in five of you, like for with localized breast cancer tumor, one in five of you here in England are going to die waiting on a list; whereas, if you were in America, you would get that treatment anyway. So let's improve, rather than diminish the quality of care. That ought to be the goal.

Number 4, negotiate it publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability and oversight, and be free from political favoritism. I know eight times the President promised on television that he--it's on video eight different times that the negotiations would be done on C-

Madam Speaker, we can agree on some things. Default is not responsible is one of them. It isn't responsible. But there are things that can be done to avoid defaulting other than raising the massive debt ceiling beyond anything anybody ever dreamed of before. And we keep being told that Clinton gave you a balanced budget. The President does not vote on a balanced budget. He signed, and wasn't real happy there at first about signing a balanced budget that was pushed over there by the Republican majority that was voted in in 1994 because of the Democrats' irresponsibility.

And so things went well as the Republicans did what they were elected to do for a time. But you are right: when President Bush got elected, 9/11 happened, and the spending began anew, and it was not responsible as it should have been. And when I was elected in 2004, one of the things that we dealt with was too much spending. And it continued. And some of us fought to bring it down, but it was not enough.

And as a result, the Democrats have been in charge since 2007. And so pay-as-you-go--let me tell you, I was asked earlier today by our whip, Eric Cantor. You know, we checked our records. You voted for this one of the times they brought it up last year. Why'd you do that? And I said, it was my mistake. I thought they were serious. But they keep waiving and exempting, keep adding it to bills, and here it is back again. They won't fool me again because I know they're not serious about it anymore.

We heard from Art Laffer, who was the architect behind turning around double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates. How'd he do it? He cut taxes 30 percent. And Art Laffer 2 weeks ago said you want to deal with this deficit? You have so much in the way of assets in the western part of the country. You own most of the country. Start selling some assets. That's what people do who are responsible.

What responsible people do, and I appreciate being lectured on responsible, is they bring down spending immediately. You don't have a President or a head of a household saying we're going to get responsible next year. Yeah, that's it. Next year. No, you do it now. You don't keep going on. And I'll give you a personal, very personal example. We have three kids who have been going through college. We owe a lot on student loans. We have a home that I'm not in 4 or 5 days out of the week. I love that home. I hoped that home would be my home the rest of my life. But we're putting it up for sale because it's an asset; it will allow us to pay off debt.

Let's start selling some of our assets. But instead, oh, no. Last week we voted to buy a bunch of the Virgin Islands. We voted in here, because of the majority, we're going to buy homes in foreign countries for rare dogs and cats. We're going to buy homes for cranes that don't live in this country. It's time to get responsible all right. Let's vote down this bill, and let's come back and be responsible immediately.

Mr. Speaker, here on the floor of the House of the United States House of Representatives, tribute must be paid to the incredible achievement of a constituent of the First District of Texas, from Longview--he's already a legend--Ben Spies. Ben won the 2009 FIM Superbike World Championship.

This brave and talented Texan started racing as an 8-year-old child with the Central Motorcycle Roadracing Association and, for good reason, has earned himself the nickname ``Texas Terror.'' Ben is the second youngest rider to win the American Motorcyclist Association Superbike Championship, and the fourth youngest rider with 20 AMA Superbike wins. He holds the third most all-time AMA Superbike wins, and boasts the longest AMA Superbike winning streak.

After coming off his third straight AMA Superbike Championship, Ben successfully beat the expected winner, Noriyuki Haga, at the 2009 FIM Superbike World Championship by six points with 11 poles in the 14 round series for a total of 28 races. The discipline, dedication and success that Ben has displayed to the sport of motocross racing over the past 16 years has truly set him apart as a true champion.

Ben Spies is to be congratulated upon his winning the 2009 FIM Superbike World Championship. He has no doubt blazed a trail for future successes with his steady hand, nerves of steel, and balance like nowhere found here in the House of Representatives.

May God bless and protect an American legend, Ben Spies.

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of hearing the esteemed economist, Art Laffer, who is credited with bringing the United States out of a worse recession than we are in right now by overcoming double

digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates, and he did it by cutting taxes. Of course, we know taxes are going to jump up like crazy a year from now. But what he said is if you want to get this government out of the tremendous trouble we are in, quit buying things, quit buying land and things, and start selling off some of the assets.

That is what a regular family would do when they find themselves in debt. That is what I am doing right now to pay off student loans. We are selling our house and going to downsize. Why can't the government do that? Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of our assets, pay down our debt, and let America find jobs again.

I sure thank my friend from Virginia for yielding.

And, yes, we need a balanced budget amendment, and that will do great things. It will strengthen the dollar. It will show the world that we are responsible when it comes to spending for a change. And also, of course, we know that takes ratification of the States and passing both Houses, and we just flat need to do that.

In the meantime, we understand the President may come into this very Chamber and stand right up there and actually suggest that perhaps we ought to freeze the budget of three Departments.

Well, I am so glad that our President is coming around and getting on board with some Republican proposals. This is H.R. 4408. But rather than three departments, this is--and I will read from the bill. It was filed last year. Got lots of Republicans on as cosigners. No Democrats yet. Hope they will come on board once the President starts talking about this. But it says, to amend the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985 to eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for discretionary appropriations, and other purposes. It will end the automatic increase in every discretionary budget in the Federal Government.

Now we're talking about being responsible with our spending. No automatic increases every year. Nobody I know of in America gets that kind of thing. If they're working, if they produce, perhaps they'll get an increase. Well, the government shouldn't get automatic increases every year. If you're going to get an increase, it has to be justified. And that has been lacking for so long.

I will just read here. It says, This act may be cited as the Within Our Means Budget--WOMB--Act of 2009; whereas, from passage of this bill will come a new birth of freedom for American taxpayers and an end to the automatic increases for each department that has been bankrupting America.

There are all kinds of good solutions. So I'm proud the President's coming around. Perhaps if we can push him a little further, we can make him even a little more responsible so we start reining in the greatest budget deficit in a 1-year history that has just gone on under this President's watch.

So I appreciate my friend from Virginia yielding, and I look forward to starting to get Democrats, now that the President is talking about some good Republican ideas.

Well, I thank my friend from Iowa (Mr. King). And I know from having visited Iowa, it's composed of extraordinary people as well. And I tell you, just in the last month we have seen extraordinary things across the country, from Massachusetts, for one, for, we saw when we had a Senator take--basically hold up the health care bill, many of us hoped it was going to be on good principle, but it turned out it was just for money to take back to his State.

But here, again, you had to love the people in America's heartland. I think the gentleman from Iowa knows where Nebraska is. And here the Senator comes back and says, you know, gee, I negotiated hundreds of millions of dollars for you here in this State at the expense of the whole rest of the country. And what did Nebraskans say? The vast majority said, we don't want that dirty money. That's not ours. We don't want extorted money. We don't want dirty money. We just want fairness. And you've just got to love folks that have that sense of equity and fairness and justice and understand where the country came from.

And so it's that spirit, that same spirit that started a revolution back in--going back to 1775 and 1776, with the production, as we know, in July, of the Declaration of Independence. And what a historic time that was. What a powerful time that was. And we know, going back to those days, that now we have the letter that John Adams wrote Abigail after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the last part of the letter he says, talking about the celebration and the incredible event that had occurred, the coming together, the first draft of course that Jefferson did, and of course the first person he showed it to was then John Adams.

They politically were at odds, but they were friends at that time, very close friends, even though they fussed and argued over political issues. And then Adams was just taken aback with how fantastic the document was. He may or may not have made some minor changes. And then second to see it was Benjamin Franklin. Now, Benjamin Franklin made more changes, the editor and publisher that he was. And then that was brought to the body, and they debated and they fussed and they came up with this, the final declaration. And after they had come together, they signed it.

The last part of John Adams' letter to his wife, Abigail, was this, his words: I'm apt to believe that it, the day of the signing of the declaration, will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. We call it July 4, Independence Day. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. John Adams' words. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns--of course we use fireworks instead of guns quite so much now--bells, bonfires, illumination from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.

Then he goes on very seriously to Abigail, and he says, You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this declaration and to support and defend these States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction which I trust in God we will not rue.

So that's basically the gist of the end of the letter, and that was quite an occasion. In other correspondence he had said, you know, we have within our grasp the opportunity to govern ourselves that people have only dreamed about, that theologians have written and talked about, but it's within our grasp to govern ourselves. But then we also know that one of Thomas Jefferson's great lines was, The normal course of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain. And that's what we've been seeing, particularly for the last year or so.

Liberty has been yielding and government has been gaining. We know that government is where the jobs have been gained, not in the private sector, not liberty jobs, not jobs of freedom, but government taking more and more away from the private sector. And then we see this health care monstrosity, 2,000 pages, not about health care. You know, we've heard people say, it's about the government taking over one-sixth of the economy. But I like the way our friend, Tom Price, put it. It's not about taking over one-sixth of the economy. It's about taking over 100 percent of every individual. That's what it's about.

And so, as my friend from Iowa knows, we've spent many, many hours with friends like Michelle Bachmann and others, so many others up here on Capitol Hill, putting our heads together and working, giving and take, to come up with a document that really declares what we believe about health care. And I imagine my friend from Iowa is as sick as I am of hearing people, even here on the floor, come in and say, well, Republicans, they don't want reform. They're the party of no, no, no. We have over 40 bills that are good solutions to health care problems.

And I know that my friend from Iowa agrees: we need reform. We want reform to health care. We cannot have the costs continue to skyrocket like nothing else in this country. We can't have that. We need reform, but we don't need more government. We need health care reform. And it was in that spirit of coming together, not with something as dramatic as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin and those incredible intellects came up with with the original Declaration of Independence, but really with that, just a modicum of that great spirit of independence that they had and not wanting government to gain and liberty to yield, but wanting liberty to triumph and yet everyone have the opportunity for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So in that spirit, the Declaration of Health Care Independence was put together. No one got shot. No one lost their fortunes, as did so many of those 56 signers of the original Declaration. We owe them so much. But we also owe them not to continue to allow liberty to yield and government to gain. They told us what would happen. Read their writings. Read their quotes. We owe them better than that.

And that is why it's going to be so great to have so many people coming together and say, I am making this declaration. I am pledging that we are going to adhere to those principles of liberty and yet providing a better chance for health care with affordable health care under patient control where the relationship between a doctor and patient doesn't have a government intermediary, doesn't have an insurance company getting in between the patient and doctor.

It gets us back to something that has been missing for so long, and that is a regular doctor-patient relationship. And to think in that 2,000 pages, one of the biggest parts of it is we're going to bring all of the health care records to Washington and we're going to store them here for you because that way we will know all of your deepest, darkest, private secrets. There is nothing your government won't know once we get holed up every one of your most private medical records. That was a big deal.

You hear them say, well, we'll cut this out, we'll cut that out, because they know when they have every person's medical records in Washington,

D.C.--and under both the Senate and the House bill you make the Internal Revenue Service the enforcement arm for a health care bill, the worst of all world's--the government knowing all of your most private secrets about your own body and the Internal Revenue Service having access to them and to your finances to bring about, as Tom Price says, a hundred percent control over your body, that is something that should be intolerable. That is why we need a Declaration of Health Care Independence.

And I know there are friends across the aisle who believe abortion is just fine; it's just tearing the tissue out. I know we have other friends like Bart Stupak who know what abortion is, that it's taking a life. But surely, surely we can get the vast majority in this body to agree that taxpayers should be protected from being forced to pay for abortion when they know and believe in their hearts it is taking the life of our most vulnerable people.

There is just so much that needs to be done to drive a stake through the heart of this terrible monstrosity called the health care reform bill.

With that, I yield back to my friend from Iowa.

I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa pointing these things out. And I do recall in the President's address here in this very Chamber back in September, I believe he said in that speech that there would be no funding abortion. Now the trouble for us was that some people in this body actually read and had been reading the House bill. And there was one section there, and I don't have the bill

with me, I have got a copy all tabbed that I have gone through because I was reading the bill. And shockingly, even though, the President said there won't be a penny going for abortions, you turn right there, and there's a section title that says ``abortions,'' for which Federal funding can be spent or approved. And you go, whoa, I guess the President didn't know about that.

We heard the President say there is no money in this health care bill that is going to go for illegal aliens, and I think one of our friends hollered out about that time. When the fact is, as we know, when the House health care bill passed, one of the things that had been written up in the local papers were there were Members across the aisle that said: if you put a requirement in this bill that people show identification to show that they are legally here, they are legal residents and therefore legally getting the health care insurance benefits, then we are voting against the bill.

Some of us think that should have been the motion to recommit, and that would have of course either gotten the bill pulled or it would have gone down in defeat if our friends across the aisle who said they would vote ``no'' if that was in there had been voted for and approved.

But the way it stood, I think most everybody in here knew, except for the President--we know he wouldn't lie because the Parliamentarians told us that--but when he said that there would be no funding for illegal aliens, he didn't know, apparently, because if he did, it would have been a lie. So, obviously he didn't know that unless there was a requirement for identification in order to get the proceeds, then they are entitled to get the proceeds, illegally here or not. And obviously he didn't know that, or he wouldn't have said it.

I have a dream that one day the President's promises are going to be kept. I have a dream it is going to happen. And I know when the President told America eight different times on television that we are going to have all these negotiations on C-SPAN, I know some day we are going to have all these negotiations on C-SPAN. It hasn't happened yet, because I have been trying to find out where the negotiations are going on so we could have true transparency.

It was a great idea when the President said it, so that people all over the country can see who is negotiating for them, who is negotiating for the pharmaceuticals, who is negotiating for the insurance companies, who is negotiating for the plaintiffs' lawyers, who is negotiating for AARP, and who is really standing on the side of the retired folks. We would be able to see all that and it would be transparent.

When I heard him saying that over and over on television throughout the Presidential campaign, I have to say, I thought, now, that is not a bad idea. That is a good idea. We will make this totally transparent. And even though I am a Republican, I have to say, the President had a good idea.

Now, the trouble is we have got to get him to follow through. Once he won the election based on things he promised, we need to get him to follow through, because he did have some good ideas and the American people liked those ideas.

If you go back and look at the exit polling data from 2008, November, when the President won, indications are two-thirds of the people in America said they voted for President Obama, and jobs and the economy was the number one issue. I believe it was about 10 percent who said that health care was a big deal to them, health care reform. So I think he misread the results.

People wanted job assistance, get jobs going. We know that 70 percent of the jobs come from small business; yet his stimulus bill provided less than 1 percent in loans and assistance for small business.

He told America, well, this is going to create infrastructure. Might as well do that. And it turns out less than about 7 percent of that bill went for infrastructure.

So I think it is important that when the President has a good idea, this body follow through, whether the President wants to follow through or not. And these things should be transparent. It should be open.

The 40 bills that we have as solutions and great ideas to helping reform health care, because we want reform, we need reform, they ought to be listened to. There are some great ideas. And one of them would be complete transparency, and that is one of the things we want people to pledge, that you need transparency.

The President was right when he was a candidate. He hasn't been right on that point since he has been President, but he was sure right as a candidate. And you look at the Declaration of Health Care Independence that we hope that lots of folks will sign tomorrow, transparency is a critical issue.

Now, when you have a health care system where the big insurance companies, whether it is Blue Cross or Aetna or any of them, where they get one really, really cheap price and the government pays a small amount, but if you come in and pay cash because you are a hardworking, lower-middle class person that is struggling to make every dime and to make every dime stretch, and then you come in and you pay several times what the insurance company or the government pays when you are paying cash, the system is upside down. It needs reform.

And we do need to say, as candidate, now President, said, you have got to have transparency. You have got to see who is selling out whom. And so if there were a group that said, We are for retired persons, and yet they didn't care what their members said, and they were losing members right and left who were dropping their dues, but you found out they make a lot more money from selling insurance than they do from people paying dues and they are getting a special deal and have millions more buying their insurance, then you would have some idea.

And they also maybe negotiate that their executives will not be under the same pay cap that most other executives under the Federal insurance exchange part of it, people would notice that if they are watching it on C-SPAN, and they might get upset at anybody who says, I am representing retired persons, publicly, but in negotiations they cut deals for their executives and not for their retired people.

Those are the things that need to be brought out. Those are the kinds of things that I know folks tomorrow, when they sign the Declaration of Health Care Independence, will be thinking about. You need transparency. You need accountability and oversight.

One of the things we saw with the Madoff scandal, with the credit default swaps scandal, with AIG overextending on selling those, Goldman Sachs selling themselves in with AIG, and then their former chairman getting them the massive bailouts so that they could have the biggest, most healthy profiting year in history this last year, all these kinds of things going on, you need transparency and you need somebody standing up for the people. You need reform. And the government should be about oversight. It should be about making sure there is a fair, level playing field.

And then the government doesn't play. They are referees. We don't need them as players. We need them as referees. That is an obligation this body has fallen down on badly in the preceding years, and it is time we got back to it.

Those are things that need to be part of reform. The government should be about making sure people play fair, not being the bully player on the field that muscles everybody else off of it. Those are the kinds of things we need to be about.

And when you think of the things that have been represented and what turned out to be true, people were told, well, this group came out with a study that said if you are between 40 and 50 and you are a woman, you shouldn't get a mammogram. And then they are told, well, that wouldn't have the power of law. Then they get to finding out, well, gee, if this bill passes, what that body just said is going to be part of the law. And if you are 40 to 50, you don't get a mammogram.

How many women have had their lives saved because they were able to get a mammogram between 40 and 50, and they found that little tumor early while it was still localized, at a time where they were allowed in the United States to have a 98 percent chance of success and no cancer at 5 years;

whereas, in England, where they have the socialized medicine that some of our friends across the aisle are trying to drive us to, they have about 20 percent less success, and about 20 percent more die of cancer. They don't need to if you let them have the mammogram when they need it.

And those are the kinds of things that need to come out. People need to know those. I yield back.

I understand we just have 1 minute left, but I appreciate so much Mr. King from Iowa taking this time to point out what we need in the way of health care reform. It isn't the massive 2,000-page monstrosity. It's true transparency. It's true accountability. And I appreciate this discussion with my friend from Iowa tonight.

So what you're saying is the President's health care bill really is a jobs bill, but instead of creating them, it eliminates them.

If it's mandated by the government, then certainly it's a tax, because that is all that the government is entitled to do. Under our Constitution, you can't force somebody to buy a product.

And I appreciate your directing that question to me because obviously all the prior questions were directed at my friends from Louisiana and Minnesota because you qualified it by saying, This question is for the esteemed Members. So I stayed quiet throughout your answers, but now you have included me as the unesteemed Member.

Yes, exactly, Tennessee. Tennessee and Minnesota.

But that is what has gotten people upset across the country and is what we saw in Massachusetts. They've seen what's going on around here.

There was a promise that C-SPAN would be covering all the negotiations because we're talking about people's lives, the length of their lives, and their loved ones, how long are they going to be able to be living in this world, whether they will get the medication they need, or are they going to be told you're too old? So as the President so ably said before he was elected, those negotiations need to be out there. And all we've seen is the nasty, sordid deals that were cut after being behind closed doors so that you have insurance companies signing onto the President's bill. And then you go through and say, ah, here are the pages where they got their deal cut. Ah, here is the deal that the plaintiffs lawyers got. Ah, here's the deal the pharmaceutical industry got. And they're conflicting. And it is such a mass of mess the way they've cut these deals and they've forged them together. And the ones that are going to suffer are the people in this country when there is no reason to.

Exactly.

And along those lines--I appreciate the gentleman yielding--we've heard the President say, well, you know, States require you to buy insurance for your car, so this is nothing new.

It is very new. Of course we've heard the argument that actually, yes, States do require you to buy insurance if you're going to drive a car. You don't have to own a car or drive a car to live in a State, not in any State.

But another thing that's lost in the equation too is there is no mandate by any State in this country to buy insurance to protect your own car and your own person. You are required to buy insurance to protect the other person whom you may harm while you're driving. And all of that is based on the privilege of driving, it is not based on just living.

We are supposed to have, under our Constitution, as was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, this right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether you're an unborn child or whether you're an old geezer like some of us, you actually have a right to life. And here the Federal Government is saying we're going to snuff yours out a little early because we just don't find that you're all that productive. Where is that line drawn once they're allowed to say now you buy a product or you don't get to live here?

It is so important also to note that, with all the talk about our friends across the aisle who are concerned about the working poor in America, if you look at the bill that was passed out of this House, it makes it very clear: if you can't afford the great policy that is mandated and if you're just above the poverty line where the government is going to pay for it, you'll have an additional 2\1/2\ percent income tax on your income. That is outrageous. Those are the people who, if they could afford to buy the insurance, they would buy the insurance. Now you're going to pop them with another 2\1/2\ percent tax. That's not caring about the working poor, about the people who are helping make the engine in this country go.

Well, in hearing the discussion about what is constitutional and what isn't, the American people are not stupid. In Massachusetts, with over 68 percent of the precincts reporting, the Republican, Brown, has about a hundred thousand votes more--53, moving towards 54 percent, to 46. Massachusetts was not fooled. They looked at the candidates, they looked at what the candidates themselves were saying to the people in Massachusetts, and

Brown made clear he wasn't voting for the health care bill. And he is doing the unthinkable: he's running away with this at this point. It's not even close. It's not even close enough that legal action and all those types of things that have been tried in other places were going to help.

The people have made clear, and I couldn't help but think about a comment of one of our Democratic colleagues down the hall when he said, You know, the further we go, the more difficult it is to pass laws that the American people don't want passed. That is the way it's supposed to be. This body is not supposed to come in here and pass laws that the American people do not want passed. They are not supposed to. That is the way it was designed.

I love what Justice Scalia said not long ago when someone asked, Is the Bill of Rights really what has made this country the greatest country of liberty in history, and he said, No; the Soviet Union had a better Bill of Rights than we do. It was because the Founders did not trust government, and they wanted to make it as difficult as they could to pass a law to put upon the people. So they created not one body, but two bodies, and created it to where either body could cancel out the other body.

And that wasn't good enough. They said, We need an executive. But we don't want a prime minister that is elected by the legislature. Oh, no. We want an executive elected separately, and then he can veto what those bodies do. Even if they don't cancel out each other, he can cancel them out. And that's not good enough. We want a judicial branch that will make it even more difficult to create laws that are crammed down the throats of the American people. He said, That is what actually has done more to preserve the rights of Americans, because it was so difficult to get laws passed.

And what we have seen the last year in here is just a complete usurpation of all of those checks and balances that were provided by the Founders, the complete, actually, elimination of them, as we saw the White House have an auto task force in secret. Cram down laws that were in violation of what were passed here regarding bankruptcy. We had a bankruptcy judge willing to just sign an order that was given to him that was in clear violation of the laws that were passed, and then a Supreme Court that didn't do anything about it. To her credit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a 24-hour hold, but then that was withdrawn. And so the Constitution was turned upside down; the laws were turned upside down. And now the American people have had enough. And we are seeing it in Massachusetts.

Who would have thought that a Senator in California would have a close race, much less a Senator in Massachusetts have a close race. And now it's turned out it wasn't even close. You have a Republican in Massachusetts that appears well on his way to being sworn in as the next Senator from Massachusetts. I know that those in power in Massachusetts would not be exceedingly hypocritical and delay swearing Senator Brown in. Surely they would not be that hypocritical. He ought to be sworn in just as quickly as the interim Senator was sworn in to avoid being labeled eternally as the hypocrites of the decade. So I'm sure they won't allow that to happen. They will swear in Senator Brown just as quickly as they can do that. This should spell the end, as we are told, of health care. But, here again, we have people in the House, people in the Senate, that say, Forget what the American people want, forget what the Constitution says.

It should be pointed out, as my friends have been talking about the Constitution, when you lay it out, I don't see how this could be held constitutional. And so we've tried to get a fast track in there to go straight to the Supreme Court. Here and in the Senate they don't want it in there because they know it'll be held unconstitutional.

I appreciate my friend for yielding. But it appears Massachusetts is speaking very loudly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an interesting time we live in. We have heard in the past year that Gitmo is the main recruiting tool, the best recruiting tool for al Qaeda, for Islamic jihadists who want to destroy America. And so I thought it was important that we look at that a little more in depth, rather than just having a cursory action, because for those of us who have been to Gitmo, I have been twice, I know that no one has ever been waterboarded at the Guantanamo Bay facility. The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarding occurred in the Middle East. And there are those that are worried about waterboarding continuing.

The fact is, when that was leaked and such a big deal made out of it and the fact that when the U.S. has done it, been involved, there have been a doctor there, there was no way they were going to allow harm to come to the individual being waterboarded, the word was out. And so Islamic extremists, jihadists that want to kill America, that want to wipe us off the face of the map, want to destroy Israel, they knew and could tell their extremists you don't have to worry if you are ever waterboarded, because they will have a doctor there, they are not going to let anything happen to you. So obviously, it will never work as a procedure again. But as we have found out, there are a lot of Americans that are alive today because that procedure was used.

So if Gitmo had never been used as a location where waterboarding or torture of any kind occurred, then why is it so bad? Well, it is because a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Having visited many prisons as a judge, chief justice, and even as a Congressman having visited prisons, I know from visiting Guantanamo Bay facility, the detention facility there, that the people are not mistreated. They get good food. And in fact, most of the detainees there have gained weight, not lost weight. They get excellent medical facilities. They get treatment when they need it. The interrogation often, if there is any at all, occurs in a big lounge chair there.

In fact, the biggest problem there at Guantanamo Bay for those who work there is having feces and urine thrown on them. The detainees figure out really brilliant ways to go about throwing

feces and urine on the guards. Now, at most prisons if you do that you are put in isolation, where there is no way you could do something like that again. Not at Guantanamo Bay.

As I was told by a commander there, because there are so many frequent visits by those who want to make sure no one is being done wrong there, they don't want anyone ever to be found in isolation no matter how much feces or urine they are throwing. So the thing that is normally done is taking away some of their movie watching time. Yes, they watch movies there. Nothing that violates their religion. They are given Korans that American hands have never touched. They are given food that is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs. It is really rather amazing.

And then all of the money that was spent to build a courtroom facility there, and areas where the detainees could consult with their attorneys in private so that it was clear to anyone in that facility, in that detention area that there is no way to have bugs in this place, and so you could truly have private consultation, but it is so isolated an area you didn't have to worry about anybody coming in there. And the security measures were such there that it was an amazing facility for the trial of alleged terrorists.

Now, we have Americans who are saying but it is just wrong to hold somebody without trying them. Those people are completely ignorant. They are not mean. They are just ignorant of the laws of war that have gone throughout time. Because never in the history of mankind has there been a time when a group declared war on another group or country and then were captured while they were in the process of bringing war against those individuals that they were given full civilian treatment in court. Certainly there has never been any American prisoners that were treated like that.

In fact, if you read of the torture to Americans during World War II, some in the Pacific, some in Europe, but just phenomenal the treatment that has been accorded Americans. If you look at what has happened before Guantanamo Bay was ever opened to Americans at the hands of jihadists, extremists, then you find out that Gitmo didn't cause those problems. They didn't cause a rallying cry for people to join some extremist jihadist group. It was a matter of their religious beliefs.

And if you look at the pleading that was filed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has now been ordered by our President, our Attorney General to be brought to New York for trial instead of being tried under the constitutional military commission down in Guantanamo, you see what he has to say. In fact, if you go back to his last--and this was declassified so that everyone in the country and the world could know what he had to say.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very smart man. He is intent on doing everything he can to help destroy America, destroy our freedoms, destroy our way of life. But if you look at page six of his pleading, toward the end, he says, ``We have news for you. The news is you will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that America will fall politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near, and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise from the ruins, God willing,'' Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says. ``We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity, as the lion emerges from his den.'' And he says, ``We ask God to accept our contributions to the great attack on America, and to place our 19 martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.''

Other comments he had to say in his pleading, and as I understand it he did his own interpretation, and he would make statements and then support them with what he believed was support from the Koran itself, he says, ``God stated in his book, verse 190, Al-Baqara, and fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but Allah likes not the transgressors.'' But then he goes on in the very next page and talks about then fight--and he quotes, he says, ``From God's book, verse nine, Al-Tawbah, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.''

He says himself, ``In God's book, he ordered us to fight you wherever we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, the Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months.'' So we've been told we could never fight a battle with extremist jihadists during Ramadan because that might violate their religious beliefs. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states his belief that it's fine for them to blow us up in their sacred months, that's just fine.

He goes on in another place, he says, ``We do not possess your military might, nor your nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we fight you with the Almighty God. So, if our acts of jihad and our fighting with you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your trinity beliefs.''

So obviously anyone who is a Christian, who believes that there is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost as part of the Holy Trinity, as was cited in the Treaty of Paris 1783--an original copy of that is over in our State Department on display. And you can see that the bold big letters that start the Treaty of Paris in which England had to recognize the United States--there was a treaty after the surrender at Yorktown, but this was the official treaty that England officially signed onto. They knew this was so important that they had to have it done in the name that was so important that no one in England would dare try to violate that oath. So in big, bold letters it says, ``In the name of the undivided and most Holy Trinity.''

So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed makes clear that anybody that would sign onto something like that clearly is an infidel and needs to be killed.

Then he quotes, God stated in his book, verse 151, Al-Umran, ``Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority''--in other words, saying that Allah or God had a son--``their place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers.''

Again, this is the pleading that was declassified by the court so we could know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wrote. And he wrote it apparently, but on behalf of himself and the other prisoners who are now going to be transferred to New York City in an unprecedented move to get him right in the middle where he can cause more trouble.

By the way, they were planning on pleading guilty. They were pleading guilty. There was not going to be much of a trial because they were going to plead guilty, take credit for what they've done, as he has done in this pleading. But now that our President and the Attorney General have said, hey, let's bring them to New York, let's give them a platform to spew their anger and hatred and disgust for the United States and let's give them a platform--they didn't say this verbally, but it's clearly what is happening and will happen--this will give them a platform to recruit for the terrorists.

I know the President didn't intend to do that, I know that our Attorney General didn't intend to do it, but they're just ignorant of history and therefore they don't realize--and we'll forgive them, they know not what they do. But we need to look at these things that have been said.

If you look at the bottom of page 5, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says, ``America is the number one, and the largest country in the world, spreading military might and terrorism.'' He says, America is the principal and greatest supplier to the occupying terrorist State of Israel, and so God has ordered us to spend for jihad and this cause. And he says this is evident in many Koranic verses.

There is one thing he says, though. He says, ``God has stated in his book, verse 14, Al-Hashir: They fight not against you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls, their enmity among themselves is very great, you would think that they were united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who understand not.''

And so as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is saying, this is a great recruiting tool because of their ignorance. They don't

know who they're fighting. They're not united. Obviously they're people that don't realize we're at war with them, and so they want to be buddies. And others realize we're at war with them and they want to stop us. But because of that division, the ignorance of those who don't really understand the war--not of the vast majority of Islam, but for this small, perhaps 1 percent of Islam, these extremist groups, they're saying they're going to be able to defeat us because we're divided because so many are ignorant and don't understand that they are in such a war with us.

I see I have a colleague, Mr. Thompson; I would like to yield him such time as he may need.

That is an excellent question that's been posed about the type of discovery that's afforded in a civil trial, in a civilian U.S. district court as opposed to those in a military commission. A military commission, as set up constitutionally, as the Supreme Court has said is constitutional, has more limited discovery, so we do not have to turn over all our national secrets to our enemies during a time of war when they're at war with us.

Can you imagine if during World War II there were Japanese or Germans who were at war with us captured on the battlefield and President Roosevelt or President Truman had said, you know what? We're going to bring them in and put them in a show trial in a U.S. district court in America. Well, they would say, well, we, as defendants, we want all your information; Germans saying we want to know what information you have about our Enigma machines. We want to know in the Japanese area of occupation what information you have. All the demands that can be made in discovery. And you say, well, a U.S. district court can review those things privately and decide what can be disclosed and what can't. You don't have to disclose state secrets. It is ridiculous to get to that point.

I hear some, again, who are ignorant of history--good people, just ignorant of history--that think we need to afford these people all of the rights that any American has. Well, an American who is at war with another country is afforded certain rights, but not the rights that they would be afforded in a U.S. district court. They're afforded all of the rights that our Constitution requires in the military commission. And there is more restrictive discovery.

Unfortunately, there was ignorance in America and among our leaders and among most of us in America that there was a war going on. The United States was at war, but only one side knew, and that was the side attacking us. President Carter didn't realize that; actually, President Reagan didn't realize that. President Clinton certainly didn't realize that. For all the good things he was doing to try to help oppressed Muslims in the world and sending troops to help out, you would have thought that there wouldn't be this type of thing being planned on his watch.

But we know from the trial back in the early 1990s after the bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993 that, on the one hand, information was disclosed in discovery that the U.S. had gotten intelligence by intercepting cell phone calls. That was immediately traced back to al Qaeda, and they immediately stopped using cell phones. And so had that not occurred and that trial not occurred in a U.S. district court, so they wouldn't have handed over the information that we were getting our intelligence from cell phones, there is an excellent chance we would have known that 9/11 was coming from the cell phone chatter. But that was foreclosed.

We also know from that trial back in the 1990s that information was demanded by the defendants of the unnamed co-conspirators. That was required to be disclosed. Within 2 weeks, all of that information was back in the hands of Osama bin Laden and they knew who not to use and who we were on to. Again, it hurt us dramatically in our intelligence efforts to defend ourselves and to prepare for the onslaught against us. So it is dangerous to provide people at war with you with the kind of discovery that will be available in the U.S. district courts.

What is infuriating to me--I was in the Army for 4 years. I know about the military justice system. To think about our soldiers in harm's way having the requirement put on them that for the future you may have an Attorney General or a President that decides the people you capture on the battlefield are entitled to a trial in a U.S. district court. Therefore, we know you're being shot at, but go ahead and go on out there and bring your forensic wagon and start getting fingerprints so we can prove that they touched the bullet casings that you saw them touch because your testimony in a U.S. district court will need to be supplemented with hard evidence.

We will need DNA evidence, we will need other evidence forensic in nature. We'll have to have people go out there and check out the bodies, take the bullets out of our servicemen who were killed by this guy you saw shoot so that we can establish that, yes, their fingerprints were on the weapon. That is insane to require our soldiers and sailors, our military in harm's way to go out and be conducting forensic evidence examinations on a battlefield during a time when people are at war with us.

I was glad to hear our President say in the last couple of weeks that he recognizes now that we are in a war. Well, if we're in a war, you don't bring--they were called ``enemy detainees''; now, as amended in the past year by our majority here in the House and Senate, that language has been changed. It was just really kind of impolite to call them enemy combatants. That language has now been changed in the law to ``alien unprivileged enemy belligerents.'' Hopefully that will make them feel better.

But it goes back to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said in his pleading, ``They fight not against you even together.

``Their enmity among themselves is very great, you would think that they were united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who understand not.''

They know that there are people in this country who are ignorant, that they are in a war and intend to destroy us, and they say that's what gives them the advantage over us. So you have people well- intentioned. Now, that's a good intention of the President of the United States to say, You know what? We're going to be above board, give them all this information, and

have all of these open trials. Of course, we also heard we were going to have open proceedings on the health care bill, and that hasn't happened. Although we're not going to open up the health care debate and although we're not going to do what we promised and put it on C- SPAN, we are going to do that for the enemies of the United States. That is extraordinary.

Certainly.

I would take you back to 1978 when a very nice man at that time was the President, named Jimmy Carter. I believe it was in 1978 that President Jimmy Carter hailed the Shah of Iran as leading a country that was the most stable entity in the whole Middle East. Then a year later, it had been home to a revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini came back, and for the first time in our lifetime--some say the first time ever--but certainly, for the first time in my lifetime, there were Islamic extremists, jihadist individuals, who were in charge of a nation and that nation's military. So going back to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said in his pleading: Their hearts are divided. That is because they are people who understand not.

Well, we had a President--again, a nice man, Jimmy Carter--but he understood not. He was wrong about the shah's having such a stable country. It was not stable. That was misread. Then he misread that these were guys who, if you just were nice to them, they'd be nice back. Apparently, they even sent a Cabinet member to talk to the representative of Ayatollah Khomeini to tell him, Look, we're ready to be friends, to help, to have a wonderful relationship with you. Just let us know when and how fast you want to proceed. He understood not that these people considered themselves as extremist jihadists--enemies of the United States. They considered it the Great Satan, and they needed to destroy it at all costs. Ayatollah Khomeini called for, basically, war against the United States.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian Muslim extremists stormed the American Embassy in Iran. They actually took more than 52 hostages. They released some for PR purposes later but kept 52 diplomats hostage. Now, President Carter and his administration thought we can just out-friend them, and they'll release them. We'll just be nice to them. We know how to do this. We'll be really, really nice, and we'll work with them. In fact, at one point, President Carter said, We don't want to do anything that will put these hostages at risk. That was a green light to Islamic extremists, jihadists, around the world that the United States is a paper tiger, that it's weak and that, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, They're divided. They understand not. They don't realize we are at war with them and are going to destroy them, and so we can take them.

Those 444 days that the United States allowed itself to be held hostage in Iran were the greatest recruiting tools of jihadists the world over, and we did nothing.

During the campaign of 1980, President Carter painted Presidential candidate Reagan as being so crazy that he might just attack these guys and take them out and that you couldn't trust him. Remember that ``Saturday Night Live'' had a sketch of Reagan walking around, asking where the red nuclear button was. He was going to push it. So the reputation around the world was such that people perceived that this Reagan guy may actually come after us, that we'd better release the hostages. Well, the hostages were released; but again, unfortunately, it wasn't limited to President Carter and advisers of his administration that they didn't recognize that the jihadists were at war with us.

We had Marines in Beirut, Lebanon. In 1983, the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon. One terrorist driver drove through the concertina wire, drove through the guards, and the truck exploded and killed 241 American servicemen in Beirut, Lebanon. That was a phenomenal recruiting tool. People in America started saying, Let's just get out. Just get out. Unfortunately, on that occasion, President Reagan bowed to his advisers and to popular opinion at the time that we needed to just pull out.

That was an extraordinary recruiting tool. At the time, jihadists used it in an incredible way to recruit for their crazed jihadist cause because they were able to say, Look, one guy gave his life, detonated a bomb, and the most powerful military country in the world, the United States, turned tail and ran. One man completely committed as a suicide bomber could make the United States cower and run, because that is the way it was perceived. That was a phenomenal recruiting tool for jihadists around the world. They were also not ignorant. The jihadists were not.

In Vietnam, instead of just finishing giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen what they needed to just win the war and to come home, it was strung out in Washington under President Johnson. He was even picking the bombing sites in Washington instead of letting the servicemen do their jobs.

One of the things I admire about former President George H.W. Bush is when he committed that we were going to liberate Kuwait from the atrocity of Saddam Hussein's moving in and taking over that country, he did a great thing. He called in the military guys, and said, You guys are in the military. You tell me what we need. Here is what we're going to do. We're going to liberate Kuwait. So they put together a plan, and that's what they did. It was not the civilians running the activity.

Sam Johnson, a Member of our body here, a colleague who was in the Hanoi Hilton for nearly 7 years, was told, after we carpet-bombed North Vietnam in Hanoi for 2 weeks, that they rushed back to the negotiating table, worked out a deal that was favorable to them and not to the United States. Sam said, when he was leaving the POW camp, the Hanoi Hilton, the commander was laughing, and said, You stupid Americans. If you had just bombed us for one more week, we would have had to surrender unconditionally.

But we didn't do that. We didn't give the servicemembers what they needed to just win the war and come home. That should have been the lesson of Vietnam: never commit troops unless you are willing to give them what it takes to win the war and come home.

In Beirut, Lebanon, our Marines were told--and the ones who were out on the perimeter who should have been able to stop the truck coming through the concertina wire--and there should have been more to stop them than that--

they were not allowed under their rules of engagement to even have rounds in their weapons. We've repeated some of those same mistakes, but that was a tremendous recruiting tool.

If you go through the history, there are so many acts of war. That was certainly an act of war. Under everyone's interpretation of international law, when you invade an embassy, you have committed an act of war against that country. There is an act of war against America. We were within our rights to say, You either get our hostages out within 48 hours, 72 hours, whatever it is, or we're coming in.

I was in the Army at Fort Benning at the time, so we were paying close attention. Nobody was dying to go to Iran, but people were prepared to go and die, if necessary, to defend our country after an act of war like that. Yet what happened after that was no response. So, again, they were able to recruit.

After we pulled out of Beirut, Lebanon, after the attack on our Marine barracks in 1984, Malcolm Kerr, a Lebanese-born American, was president of the American University of Beirut. He was killed by two gunmen outside his office. Hezbollah said the assassination was part of the organization's plan to drive all Americans out of Lebanon.

On March 16, Hezbollah kidnapped William Buckley, a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Buckley was supposed to be exchanged for prisoners, but that didn't happen. There was a trial in the U.S. District Court of a civil nature, not of prisoners of war, not of enemy combatants. There was a trial in the U.S. District Court where the evidence came forward to prove and it was established, and the court found that Hezbollah was responsible for the attack on the Beirut Marine barracks and that it was sponsored by Iran, that Iran was the one behind it all. They've been at war with us since 1979, and we didn't know it.

You would have thought as other things occurred, like the Kuwait Airways Flight 221 being hijacked and diverted to Tehran where two Americans were killed, that that might have been a clue.

It might have been a clue when two Hezbollah members hijacked a TWA flight and forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, and one of the hostages, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered.

You would have thought that perhaps, when 4 terrorists from Abu Nidal's organization attacked the El Al offices at Leonardo DaVinci Airport in Rome and 13 people, including 5 Americans, were killed and 74 were wounded, among them 2 Americans, that that would have been a clue that someone was at war with us.

It might have been a clue that in an explosion at the LaBelle nightclub in Berlin frequented by American soldiers that two U.S. soldiers were killed and 191 individuals were wounded, including 41 U.S. soldiers, and they saw the evidence indicating Libya was involved, that that would have been a clue.

In 1988, Colonel William Higgins, the American chief of the UN Truce Supervisory Organization, was abducted again by Hezbollah, backed by Iran, and Hezbollah later claimed they killed Colonel Higgins.

Some who were alive back in the 1980s may recall that, after Libya had sponsored terrorism, President Reagan realized you have got to deal with these people in a manner they understand. We sent planes to Libya, they bombed his home, and we didn't have any more trouble out of Libya for a number of years.

But if you come up to 1991, there were two car bombings that killed a U.S. Air Force sergeant and severely wounded an Egyptian diplomat in Istanbul, and the Turkish Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

You get to 1993, February 26, a massive van bomb exploded in an underground parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York City that killed six and wounded 1,042. Four Islamist activists were responsible for the attack. But those in authority in the country did not realize that we were even in a war. We were in a war.

So when you start thinking about what is the greatest terrorist recruiting tool? What is it that has enabled the jihadists to continue to recruit since 1979? Well, first they use the fact that even though we have so much military might, we turned tail and ran from Vietnam. And then they were able to use that in 1979. They attacked the United States by attacking our Embassy, took American hostages, and we did nothing about it. That was a great recruiting tool, and they were able to recruit well because of it, because they were able to show they scared the great Satan even though they had more power, more military might.

Then, in 1983, to bomb our barracks and have one man give his life and kill 241 Marines and we withdrew, that was a great recruiting tool for jihadists. It wasn't Gitmo.

These people have been at war with us for over 30 years, and it took too long for people in authority here to realize it. So if you go forward, of course--and there are many other killings, bombings.

In 1995, Islamic extremists set fire to a warehouse belonging to the U.S. Embassy, threatened the Algerian security guard because he was working for the United States, and the armed Islamic group was apparently suspected and felt clearly that they were involved with the attack.

November 13 of 1995, a car bomb exploded in the parking lot outside the Riyadh headquarters of the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi Arabian National Guard, killing seven persons, five of them U.S. citizens. Three groups--the Islamic Movement for Change, the Tigers of the Gulf, and the Combatant Partisans of God--claimed responsibility for that attack, that act of war against Americans.

February 25 of 1996, a suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem killing 26, including three U.S. citizens, injuring 80 others. Among those injured were U.S. citizens. Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing.

June 25 of 1996, a fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility there in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Saudi Hezbollah was identified as the group responsible.

They were at war, but the United States still did not recognize it. Still, we are turning over secrets and intelligence gathering information through trials, through the courts in the United States District Court. What a mistake.

1997, September 4, the bombing on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, one U.S. citizen killed, 10 injured. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

There are so many others.

November 12, two gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum and their Pakistani driver as they drove from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. Two groups claimed responsibility: the Islamic Council and Islamic Revolutionary Council, also known as the Aimal Khufia Action Committee.

1998, August 7, a car bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. The attack killed a total of 292, including 12 U.S. citizens, injured over 5,000, including Americans. The perpetrators belonged to some group named al Qaeda that is part of Osama bin Laden's network.

2000, October 12. While the campaign for President in 2000 was going on, a suicide squad rammed the warship the USS Cole with an explosives- ladened boat, killing 13 American sailors and injuring 33. It was believed to have been caused by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.

We still didn't recognize there was a war going on, not until September 11, 2001, when people know what happened. Finally, we got the picture. Finally, we realized this war has been going on since 1979, and it is time we fought in this war and not let it be a one-sided war.

There is no answering these people who want to destroy our way of life with reaching out in peace. I saw a sign not long ago, some protestor had a sign that said, ``War never brought about peace.'' I was amazed. Obviously, this person knows nothing about history.

The greatest periods of peace come when bad guys are defeated. Those who are mean and evil and they want to take the liberty others may have, you defeat them, and then you have a period of peace.

And there are periods of peace when the bad guys defeat countries who

don't know they are at war even though they are stronger. That is what al Qaeda, that is what Hezbollah, that is what the jihadists are counting on is the ignorance in this country by people who do not realize there is a war going on and that we are determined to show how loving and peaceful we can be.

Neville Chamberlain tried that. He tried that. And what happened was, as Winston Churchill said: An appeaser is someone who keeps feeding the alligator, hoping they'll be eaten last. And that is what Chamberlain did, and it didn't work. It didn't work in the Pacific.

When people declare war against you, you have got to fight them in the war until they finally acknowledge, Okay, we give up. We are no longer at war. We will quit fighting.

At that point, all of the detainees, the prisoners of war that you have held, you release them because their buddies are no longer at war with you. That is the history of civilized society at war. And when they are released, you hold those you have probable cause to believe committed war crimes and then try them in a Nuremberg or military commission-style trial.

I would like to recognize my dear friend, my colleague from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann.

I appreciate so much those wonderful points that were made. It is weakness that gives a recruiting tool, the joy among jihadists to realize we told them, close Gitmo. It's a nice place if you're going to be held somewhere as a prisoner. We told them it was a recruiting tool. And now, as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said, that is because they are people who understand not the reason they'll defeat us. They didn't get it. They thought they really did need to close Gitmo, and they did, and they're going to bring it onto the continental U.S. That shows weakness. The fact that we are showing that kind of weakness in closing Gitmo is a fantastic recruiting tool.

If you go back after the surge that was ordered by President Bush, and before that, things weren't going well. General Petraeus told us we need a surge. We got a surge and all of a sudden things are going much better in Iraq. They're going great. And some of the declassified information that was obtained by our intelligence sources, we saw their own writings. We saw what they said. They said that things are going so good for the United States, we thought after the Republicans lost the majority, they would pull out. But now that they've come with more troops and they're defeating us, we can't recruit. Their own information said we can't recruit, because this showed strength.

And now they're having a big time because, gee, they've been successful in making us think that showing weakness is going to help us, when it's actually helping them recruit. It is exactly what's happened. Every time they acted and did something violent, and we responded by backing up.

I want to address very quickly one of the things that's been brought up by

some of our friends. Some people in the country say, Well, these prisoners need all of the constitutional rights they're supposed to have. And they're getting them at Gitmo. Because just as if--when I was in the military, I was subject to the UCMJ. I was subject to a military court. I wasn't entitled to a trial if I had done something on a military installation. I was entitled to a military trial. And that was constitutional. And it was constitutional and is constitutional for this Congress to set up military commissions to try people who have engaged in war against us. That is constitutional. And they've gotten all of their constitutional rights as someone at war with us. And now, because they're going to be tried in the United States, they're deciding to plead not guilty so they can put on a show.

What causes more weakness, what causes more recruiting? Is it U.S. weakness or is it Gitmo? Clearly, our country leaders have been suckered into thinking that closing Gitmo will be a good thing for us, and in fact what is telegraphed is, these people are weak, just as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said. You would think they are united, but their hearts are divided. That's because they're people who understand not. They're saying, We don't understand.

Thank you. I realize my time is expiring and appreciate the indulgence, Mr. Speaker. It should be clear, though, the way to deal with Iran is not through weakness. If they won't shut down the nuclear proliferation, we have got to shut them down.

With that, we yield back our time.

We heard the President--now the President--say back in a debate with Hillary Clinton in 2008, ``That's what I will do in bringing all the parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.''

We know in the debate, when he was running against John McCain, our now-President said, ``I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies--they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who's making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who's making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.''

We heard the Speaker say repeatedly that when she was Speaker, this would be the most open government ever. So it's deeply perplexing, since we know they would never lie, why they're preventing what they promised from coming true.

Madam Speaker, we were asked: How can we vote to have troops go to Iraq and not be willing to pay for them?

Well, the problem is we keep having things added to the bills that will pay for these things. We keep adding things like Gitmo language, like we're going to move the people from Gitmo and spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily just to make some political point.

We hear people across the aisle say, Gee. You know, we can't afford to lose respect around the world if we forfeit on the debt. Don't forfeit on the debt. You don't gain respect when you keep calling the credit card company and saying, I know I'm not making any payments, but if you'll just keep increasing my debt limit, I know you'll have more respect for me. No, that's not how it works.

We are told across the aisle we have no solutions. Go look at the bills that are waiting to come to the floor. I've got a zero baseline budget that doesn't allow the automatic increases. That would make a huge contribution, and we could bring down the debt. Yet there are no indications, nothing to indicate that the spending is going to be controlled. It is outrageous what we are doing to future generations. Any parent who would go in and tell the bank, Keep loaning to me, and I promise my kids will repay it, would be considered an unfit parent.

Yes, the people in America were promised change. What they have gotten is exponentially more spending than Republicans had done before. It's time for a change. Stop spending. Vote this down.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting following the gentleman from Florida. In the spirit of Christmas, it sounds like accusing previously Members of Congress and now Members of the Senate of basically being responsible for deaths. I can't help but address that in this respect--ignorance is a dangerous thing, and the fact is, if you will examine, Mr. Speaker, the statistics of those, for example, you take numbers I'm familiar with of women who find a localized tumor, of breast cancer, they have a 98 percent chance of success, of complete elimination of the cancer. That's in the United States with our health care.

If we go to what the gentleman from Florida is proposing, as we see in other countries like England, it's about 20 points less. In other words, the program the gentleman from Florida is advocating would be responsible for killing one out of five women who find those type tumors. And you can run those statistics throughout health care.

So, despite what some have said--I know not intentionally trying to misrepresent, because I know the gentleman is an honorable man. As Shakespeare said, so are they all, all honorable men. But they're wrong about the facts. And the truth is, we have numerous proposals to reform health care and to provide health care for everyone. But one of the great misrepresentations that's been made this year in this House is that so-called health care reform is about health care reform. It is not. We've heard everyone from the President to lots of people on this side of the aisle say that yes, we want to insure 30 million more people. Well, the statistics tell us if they do their program, then they are going to be millions who lose their health care insurance. And even if you wanted to insure 30 million people, well, the statistics indicate those 30 million are in approximately 10 million households, and you can insure those 10 million households for potentially less than $10,000. So for $100 billion, you could insure all the people that they say they need to add to the health care insurance rolls for $100 billion. And yet the estimates are anywhere from $1.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion as to what they're proposing will cost.

That makes it clear that the truth is their proposals are not about health care reform. They are about government control. And consistently, when you go through the statistics of the success rates with regard to different types of cancer, if you go to the programs being advocated, then people get on lists and they die waiting on those lists. People die waiting for the treatment, the therapy, the diagnostics that require lists in a socialized medicine setting.

But I want to get away from the partisan politics and the nasty allegations that have been made in here just prior to me speaking, and back and forth throughout this year, because this may well be the last hour that we have here in the House before we recess for Christmas and before we come back next year. So, instead of getting into all this rancor, I thought it would be

good to help address an area that some people have just not had education about, and that this is the appropriate place, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that the record is correct, because we have so much wonderful history in this building, in this House.

For example, I hear people really concerned around this building, around the Supreme Court, across the way, around Capitol Hill here, about someone, my goodness, praying in public. Well, we begin every day we're in session here in the House and the Senate's in session with a prayer.

Many are ignorant from the place in which that tradition started, where it came. You have to go back to 1787, the Constitutional Convention.

The Constitutional Convention, people may recall, began in 1787 as a result of the failure of the Articles of Confederation. And for those that know history, they would know that the revolution was won in 1783. It was the Treaty of Paris in which England finally recognized the United States' right to exist as a Nation, and George Washington did something that had never been done in the history of mankind before or since then, and that is lead a revolutionary military, win the revolution, and then resign and go home when he could be Caesar, he could be king, emperor, whatever. That was not his goal. His goal, as he said, was to do his duty to God, basically, and his country, kind of like the Scout oath.

Anyway, here they are in Philadelphia, Independence Hall, 1787. It's June. Benjamin Franklin is 80 years old. Now, many people say, Well, we know he was a deist from history. That means he believed there was a creator out there but that he believed God, the creator, created things and then stood back and let everything happen and that he never interfered. Well, those who also know history know that there were times in his life when Benjamin Franklin sowed some wild seeds, and that included some in Europe and in England. But by the time of the Constitutional Convention, there in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was between 2 and 3 years away from meeting his judge, meeting his maker, and he knew that. He was as brilliant as ever, as witty, an amazing man, the genius that he was, and there he sits.

There is a picture right outside the House floor depicting that area in Independence Hall where they were meeting. Now, in the beautiful painting, the windows are open. Well, the windows were covered. It may have been by blankets instead of beautiful lined curtains depicted in the scene. But for nearly 5 weeks, they went without accomplishing much of anything. Finally, the 80-year-old Ben Franklin rose and was recognized by the President of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. And we have these words because James Madison recorded them as secretary of that convention.

These are the exact words of Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Congress. Benjamin Franklin said: ``Mr. President, the small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks' close attendance and continual reasonings with each other, our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of human understanding. We, indeed, seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we've been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all around Europe but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

``In this situation of this assembly groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?''

Ben Franklin goes on and says: ``I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, `except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

``I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.''

His motion was seconded, and then Ben Franklin's motion was adopted unanimously. And from that day to this day, we do not begin Congress in this body without a prayer to begin.

Now, for those who say Ben Franklin obviously was a deist who didn't believe, believed a God or creator created things but never intervened, his own words seem to defy that. He begged and implored Congress to begin with prayer every day because, as he said, ``Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.''

So, Mr. Speaker, also, here again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit, for me, of Christmas that has been so historically observed in this Nation, we want to just go through and make sure people understand our heritage.

Now, the great thing about our Constitution, it does allow for freedom of religion and a freedom not to worship at all. That is because they're based on the teachings of Christ and his willingness to allow all men to make their own decisions for themselves, knowing, as he did, that one day, all people will meet their maker. But let's go back to the person that found the New World, as it was called. This was Christopher Columbus.

You don't find many history books which have these kinds of quotes in it. This is Christopher Columbus in his own hand, in his own journal. He said: ``It was the Lord who put it into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with the rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures.''

Now there are those today who say the real lesson of Columbus is that it's amazing what you can do, even when you don't know where you're going, you don't know where you are when you get there, so long as you get the government to pay for it. But I would submit that there was a creator, a creator as Christopher Columbus believed, who put this into his mind to sail west and discover this area so that the greatest nation in the history of mankind could arise.

Now if you go to the Pilgrims who came across, originally from the Netherlands to England and to America by way of stopping in England, this was 1620. Part of the Pilgrims' compact, these are their words, ``In the name of God, Amen . . . Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil body politick.'' That was the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, November 11, 1620.

I have had people I have met from Harvard University who are not familiar with their history and the fact that Harvard University, September 26, 1642, this was part of their code. It was part of their handbook.

Harvard University: ``Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth the wisdom, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him, Proverbs 2:3.'' That's Harvard University at its founding back around the year 1642.

In George Washington's own personal prayer book, which he read from daily, this is one of the entries in that prayer book that was in Washington's possession when he passed away: ``O most glorious God and Jesus Christ, I acknowledge and confess my faults in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are come my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard Thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer . . . Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day, according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy word . . . Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the way, the truth and life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land.'' That's George Washington's prayer book.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, as we know, who wrote basically the Declaration of Independence at the urging of John Adams, and it was Jefferson who was the third President after John Adams. Jefferson in 1782--and for those who visit Washington, this is inscribed inside the Jefferson Memorial.

Jefferson said: ``Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that their liberties are the gift of God?''

Jedidiah Morse, who is called the father of the American geography, also father of Samuel Morse--folks who know history know who that is. On April 25, 1799, Jedidiah Morse said: ``Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.''

James Madison, the fourth President, March 4, 1815, in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation said: ``No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the United States. His kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. He protected and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days. Under His fostering care, their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self- government.''

Then John Quincy Adams, who was the son of John Adams, John Quincy Adams was the sixth President. Some think he may have been the smartest President, but there's no way to know. He was a brilliant man, the youngest diplomat ever appointed in America when he was 11 years of age. He knew all the Founders. His father, John Adams, allowed him to accompany him to so many events and things. He knew the Founders. He knew the founding.

And John Quincy Adams in 1821 on July 4 said, ``The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of the civil government with the principles of Christianity, wherefrom the day of the Declaration they, the American people, were bound by the laws of God which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.''

Noah Webster, 1833, said: ``The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.''

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835, said: ``There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free Nation of the Earth.''

Again, John Quincy Adams, he was defeated in 1828 for a second term by Andrew Jackson. Then in 1830, he believed it was God's call for him to run for Congress, run for the House of Representatives, after having been President. He was elected and served for 17 years in the House of Representatives, just down the hall in Statuary Hall. It was John Quincy Adams who was retained to represent the Africans who were aboard the Armistad in their case before the Supreme Court. Anthony Hopkins did a wonderful job of portraying John Quincy Adams in the movie ``Armistad.'' I think in the movie his closing argument was around 10 to 12 minutes, whereas in real life it spilled into a third day.

John Quincy Adams, 1837, after he had been in the House 6 years, he said, ``Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon Earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?''

And all of these people believed. People in America will be able to worship the way they choose or do not choose because the Nation was founded upon Christian precepts that allowed that freedom as no other nation in the history of mankind.

Andrew Jackson, 1845, this was just a few weeks before his death, and of course, people that know Jackson know that he was quite a rounder and he had quite a life. But, again, as he was just a few weeks before his death, he knew he was going to meet his Maker. Andrew Jackson said these words: ``Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy. The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.'' That was Andrew Jackson just a few weeks before his death, May 29, 1845.

Daniel Webster, considered the greatest orator probably of all times in this country, served in the House, served in the Senate, thought perhaps he might be President one day, but he urged a compromise which cost him the election. Whether he was right or wrong, he believed if we didn't have the Compromise of 1850 then the Nation was doomed, that there would be a civil war in 1850 from which the Nation may not survive.

So he did a very selfless thing and stood up and urged the Compromise of 1850, knowing that he would lose his base. But he believed it was to save the country. Daniel Webster said in 1852: ``If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall respect His Commandments, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country. But if we and our prosperity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political Constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.''

Daniel Webster, 1852.

Now the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1853 stated this as a committee: ``We are a Christian people, not because the law demands it, nor to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity?'' Senate Judiciary Committee, January 19, 1853.

Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, February 11, 1861, said this: ``Unless the great God who assisted Washington

shall be with me and aid me, I must fail; but if the same Omniscient Mind and Mighty Arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me, I shall not fail. Let us all pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.'' Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861.

We can skip over to the President's inaugural address, 1865, again, Abraham Lincoln. He said: ``Both'' talking about both sides of the Civil War, the North and the South. He said: ``Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. `Woe unto the world because of offenses; for if it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.'''

Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, went on and said: ``If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which''-- and he knew it was an offense. He knew it to his soul that slavery was an offense and that it would be difficult for God to ever bless America as long as slavery existed. And Christian people in this country did not treat their brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. So Lincoln goes on in that address. And you can feel the analysis that he did as he went back and forth within himself trying to figure out how a just and mighty God could allow this type of injustice.

So Lincoln goes on and he says: ``If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the Providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God ascribe to Him?

``Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and 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 it must still be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' ''

Lincoln went on: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all Nations.''

Abraham Lincoln, 1865.

Edward Everett, the Massachusetts Governor also served as U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, he spoke immediately before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He said this: ``All the distinctive features and superiority of our Republican institutions''--and he wasn't talking about the Republican Party, he was talking about the Nation. This is considered a Republic. Senator Everett said the ``superiority of our Republican institutions are derived from the teachings of Scripture.''

William Seward was a U.S. Senator, a Governor of New York, Secretary of State under Lincoln. And it was interesting, Lincoln had such a diverse cabinet. Many of them didn't like each other, didn't like him, and yet he took all of that information together and made executive decisions.

William Seward said: ``I know not how long a Republican Government can flourish among a great people who have not the Bible. But this I do know: that the existing government of this country never could have had existence but for the Bible. And, further, I do in my conscience believe that if at every decade of years a copy of the Bible could be found in every family in the land, its Republican institutions should be perpetuated.''

1862, Andrew Johnson, he was Vice President, and he said: ``Let us look forward to the time when we can take the Flag of our country and nail it below the cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribe for our motto, `Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever,' and exclaim: Christ first, our country next.''

U.S. Grant, the 18th President, 1876, said this: ``Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, in reading these quotes, I think it is important for people to know I'm not trying to push my religion on anyone else. But I think it is imperative that we at least know where the Founders were, where the heart was of those who provided for this incredible government, the incredible Nation we have that I believe is the greatest in the history of mankind.

This was in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, in the opinion, February 29, 1892. The Supreme Court said: ``Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These and many other matters which might be noticed at a volume of unofficial declarations to the massive organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation.'' That was the Supreme Court in their opinion Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1917, our 26th President, said: ``In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their Christian duties, is a community on the rapid downgrade.''

Warren G. Harding, our 29th President, 1920 said: ``It is my conviction that the fundamental trouble with the people of the United States is that they have gotten too far away from the Almighty God.''

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President, 1923, said: ``The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.''

Franklin D. Roosevelt, October 6, 1935, said: We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity. Again, Franklin Roosevelt, 1935.

1943, President Hoover, in a joint statement with former First Ladies Mrs. Coolidge, Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Taft, Mrs. Harrison and Mrs. Cleveland, gave this statement: The whole inspiration for our civilization springs from the teachings of Christ and the lessons of the prophets. To read the Bible for these fundamentals is a necessity of American life.

Harry Truman, our 33rd President, in 1952 said this: The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a government which does not believe in rights for anyone but the State. Profound. That was Harry Truman, 1952.

Charles Malik, our ambassador to the United Nations from Lebanon and the president of the U.N. General Assembly in 1958, made this statement in 1958: Whoever tries to conceive the American word without taking full account of the suffering and love and salvation of Christ is only dreaming. I know how embarrassing this matter is to politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and cynics; but whatever these honored men think, the irrefutable truth is that the soul of America is at its best and highest, Christian. That was the U.N. ambassador and president of the U.N. General Assembly in 1958.

Now, Ronald Reagan, our 40th President, 1984, said: The frustrating thing

is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives. Ronald Reagan, 1984.

Now, I point out these quotes from our history. I could read volumes and volumes of quotes basically along the same lines, not trying to push Christian religion on anyone, but just so that people understand where we came from. It's incredible the amount of ignorance on the basis of this Nation, the foundation of this Nation.

Let me go to some of our Founders directly. Sam Adams. He was called, back at that time by those who knew and knew well, the ``Father of the American Revolution.'' Samuel Adams was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. In the will of Samuel Adams he says this: I . . . recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. That was the Father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams.

In a letter written by Charles Carroll to Charles Wharton, Charles Carroll was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, one of the 56. He said: On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

William Cushing was the first Associate Justice appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court. William Cushing in his will said: Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the Earth.

John Dickinson was also a signer of the Constitution. In his will he said: Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. Again, John Dickinson, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

John Hancock we know signed the Declaration larger than anyone else, President of the Continental Congress in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed and made public. In his will he said: I, John Hancock . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory--thanks be given to God--therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die (Hebrews 9:27), do make and ordain this my last will and testament . . . Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it, and my body I recommend to the Earth, nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. Again, that was John Hancock.

Patrick Henry, the Governor of Virginia, a patriot, made that stirring speech that I gave on the radio in fifth grade, made this statement: This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family-- this was in his will--the religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

John Jay played such an important role in this Nation's founding and negotiations of treaties. I believe he helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and so many others, but he was also the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In his will, Chief Justice John Jay said: Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has accompanied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation, but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name. John Jay.

Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer was a signer of the Constitution. In his will he said: In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer . . . of disposing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer.

Henry Knox, Revolutionary War general, extremely important to the success of the American Revolution, said in his will: First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind, and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the universe--to that great and tremendous Jehovah--who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite. To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection.

John Langdon was a signer of the Constitution back in 1787. He also said: In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die-- again, Hebrews 9:27--do make and ordain and publish this my last will and testament.

John Morton, signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in his will: With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton, being sick and weak in body but sound of mind and memory, thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors, and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life.

There are so many others, just one after another, vesting these same type things, signers of the Declaration of Independence, signers of the Constitution.

Jonathan Trumbull said this in his will: Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God, the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth, nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection through the power of Almighty God, believing and hoping for eternal life through the merits of my dear exalted Jesus Christ. That was Jonathan Trumble, who painted four of the paintings that are out here in our Rotunda.

One of the things that has run throughout this Nation, you go back to the Constitution, these were the Founders I've been quoting, those who were able to come together and have a Declaration of Independence, who sought, as Benjamin Franklin said, God's help in the revolution, and who sought him in the difficult, trying times after the Articles of Confederation were passed. And who they sought, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out in those great words I read, 1787, when afterwards they were finally able to come together with a constitution.

But as we know from our history, the Constitution was not afforded to all people as it should have been. They said, as these Founders I've read, that they were Christians, and yet as Christians they should have recognized that we could not expect God to bless America while we were treating our brothers and sisters by putting them in chains and bondage.

Martin Luther King came along after the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, as I've read, made clear his beliefs in the Almighty and His grace and mercy and justice, and that's why he pushed for an end of slavery. But even still, it took Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who worked with him to bring about civil rights and an abdication of the supreme Constitution that we hold so dear to all people. It doesn't require that everyone receive equal things; it requires equal opportunity.

I would remind my friends that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an ordained Christian minister. He said in his letter from Birmingham jail: But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the 8th century B.C. left their villages and carried their ``thus saith the Lord'' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the four corners of the Greco-Roman world, so I am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. That was in 1963. Profound words, Martin Luther King.

One of his quotes in 1963 from Birmingham jail: Whenever the early Christians entered the town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being disturbers of the peace

and outside agitators. But the Christians pressed on, and in the conviction that they were a colony of heaven called to obey God rather than man, small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be astronomically intimidated. Powerful, powerful words, Martin Luther King.

Well, I think it's worth noting also, we have an original copy of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, located in the Department of State in a glass case. I didn't realize how that started until I saw that copy there, but it made sense once I saw it. In big bold letters at the top of the Treaty of Paris--this is the one that was negotiated in Paris in 1783 after surrendering at Yorktown to get England to sign onto a treaty indicating they would observe the United States' right to exist as an independent Nation.

It starts out in big block bold letters, ``In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' When I first saw that I thought, I wonder why they would start like that. And then you realize, you're asking the nation of England to sign a treaty and pledging not to ever attack or fail to recognize its right to exist independently of England. What do you get them to swear under that is so important and so manifest that they would not dare go back on their word? Well, they decided at that time it was to start with the words, In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

Those who are familiar with the War of 1812, 1814, we're up here on Jenkins Hill, where the Capitol was built, and the British proceeded across burning every public building, proceeded to the Capitol, set fire down the hall in Statuary Hall, what was then the House of Representatives, went down and set fire to the Senate Inn, and went to the White House, set fire there. The White House was terribly damaged inside.

The Capitol, by all rights, with the intensity of the fire and with the munitions that were spread to make the fire get more hot, should have collapsed and fallen in on itself, but it didn't because a rain came and put out the fire.

By the way, the next day, there was such a huge, straight-line wind. Some thought it was tornadic, but most believed it was a straight-line wind. It was so intense that it blew their canons off their mounts. Some credit the wind with killing soldiers.

``As the British troops were preparing to leave, a conversation was noted between the British admiral and a Washington lady regarding the storm. The admiral exclaimed, `Great God, Madam! Is this the kind of storm to which you are accustomed in this infernal country?'

``The lady answered, `No, sir. This is a special interposition of Providence to drive our enemies from our city.' '' The weather drove them out. The American soldiers were not able to.

A little history about the White House nativity scene: It's Italian-- made in Naples around the time of the United States War for Independence, the late 1700s. It has been on exhibit in the East Room of the White House during the holiday season since 1967. In 1999, a new tableau was made for the nativity scene. The design of the new display was inspired by historical Neapolitan presepios, which is the Italian term for ``Christ,'' from the Baroque period, which incorporated architectural elements found in the 1700s.

That is a little bit about the nativity scene. There has been a lot said about that recently.

As far as the history of the White House Christmas tree, in 1889, the tradition of placing an indoor decorated tree in the White House began on Christmas morning during the Presidency of Benjamin Harrison. It was in 1895 that First Lady Frances Cleveland created a technology savvy tree when she hung electric lights on the White House tree, which was introduced into the White House in 1891.

There is just so much history with our Founding Fathers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 24--obviously Christmas Eve--1934, said, ``This is the second year that I have joined with you on this happy occasion. Then, as now, with millions of others, we celebrate the happy observance of Christmas.

``The year toward which we looked then with anticipation and hope has passed,'' Roosevelt goes on. ``We have seen fulfilled many things that a year ago were only hopes. Our human life thus goes on from anticipation and hope to fulfillment. This year again, we are entitled to new hopes and new anticipations.''

He goes on and he says, ``Just across the street is the house he occupied 100 years ago, the house the people of the country have built for their Presidents. From its windows, I see this monument to this man of courage.'' He is talking about Washington. ``It is an inspiration to me as it should be to all Americans.

``And so let us make the spirit of Christmas of 1934 that of courage and unity. It is the way to greater happiness and well-being. That is, I believe, an important part of what the Maker of Christmas would have it mean.

``In this sense,'' Roosevelt says, ``the scriptures admonish us to be strong and of good courage, to fear not, to dwell together in unity.''

He said, ``I wish you one and all, here and everywhere, a very, very Merry Christmas.'' Franklin Roosevelt.

I have a number of other speeches that he gave on Christmas. Time will not allow me to read all of those.

I will go to 1962, John F. Kennedy, when he said: ``Ladies and gentlemen, Secretary Udall, members of the clergy: With the lighting of this tree, which is an old ceremony in Washington and one which has been among the most important responsibilities of a good many Presidents of the United States, we initiate, in a formal way, the Christmas season.

``We mark the festival of Christmas, which is the most sacred and hopeful day in our civilization. For nearly 2,000 years, the message of Christmas, the message of peace and goodwill towards all men, has been the guiding star of our endeavors.

``This morning, I had a meeting at the White House, which included some of our representatives from far countries in Africa and Asia. They were returning to their posts for the Christmas holidays. Talking with them afterwards, I was struck by the fact that, in the far-off continents, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, as well as Christians, pause from their labors on the 25th day of December to celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace.

``There could be no more striking proof that Christmas is truly the universal holiday of all men. It is the day when all of us dedicate our thoughts to others, when all are reminded that mercy and compassion are the enduring virtues, when all show by small deeds and large and by acts that it is more blessed to give than to receive.''

He goes on to talk about the Christmas spirit.

As my time grows short here, I want to finish with a speech Ronald Reagan gave, his Christmas message in 1988.

He said: ``The themes of Christmas and of coming home for the holidays have long been intertwined in song and story. There is a profound irony and lesson in this because Christmas celebrates the coming of a Savior who was born without a home.

``There was no room at the inn for the Holy Family. Weary of travel, a young Mary, close to childbirth, and her carpenter husband, Joseph, found but the rude shelter of a stable. There was born the King of Kings, the Prince of Peace--an event on which all history would turn.

``Jesus would again be without a home, and more than once--on the flight to Egypt and during His public ministry when He said, `The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head.' ''

Ronald Reagan goes on. ``From His very infancy on, our Redeemer was reminding us that, from then on, we would never lack a home in Him. Like the shepherds to whom the angel of the Lord appeared on the first Christmas Day, we could always say, `Let us now go even unto Bethlehem and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.'

``As we come home with gladness to family and friends this Christmas, let us also remember our neighbors who cannot go home themselves. Our compassion and concern this Christmas and all year long will mean much to the hospitalized, the homeless, the convalescent, the orphaned--and will surely lead us on our way to the joy and peace of Bethlehem and the Christ Child who bids us come. For it is only in finding and living the eternal meaning of the Nativity that we can be

truly happy, truly at peace, truly home.

``Merry Christmas, and God bless you.'' Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, with that wish from Reagan, I do now hereby move that we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 11(b) of House Resolution 976, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), pursuant to section 11(b) of House Resolution 976, the House adjourned until Saturday, December 19, 2009, at 6 p.m., unless the conditions specified in section 11(c) of that resolution are met, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 223.