The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ISSUES OF THE DAY” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H7136-H7140 on July 18, 2019.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a former district judge.
Swearing in of the Honorable Richard Hudson into the Texas Navy
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Gohmert, for yielding.
I rise today to honor my dear friend, Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina.
Congressman Hudson served as my chief of staff from 2006 to 2008 and is now forging his own path right here on Capitol Hill.
Some time ago, Congressman Hudson gave me a hard time about other Members being recognized as ``Honorary Texans'' by Governor Abbott. Well, after speaking with the Governor, we have gone one step further with our recognition here today, and I am pleased to swear in Admiral Richard L. Hudson to the Texas Navy.
I will now read the certificate granting his commission:
``In the name and by the authority of The State of Texas to all to whom these presents shall come, Greetings. Know ye, that Richard Hudson is hereby commissioned an honorary Admiral in the Texas Navy with all rights and privileges appertaining thereto and with the duty of assisting in the preservation of the history, boundaries, water resources, and defense of the State.
``In testimony whereof, I have signed my name and caused the Seal of the State of Texas to be affixed at the City of Austin, this the 10th day of May, 2019.''
Signed: Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas.
I am now going to read the oath that Mr. Hudson will take as he takes this commission:
``I, Richard Hudson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And I will remember the Alamo. So help me God.''
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding, and I thank Judge Carter for this incredible honor. The gentleman is a dear friend and someone I admire very much. His love for the State of Texas is unmatched.
This truly is an honor. I am proud to be a North Carolinian, but I do love the State of Texas.
I would first suggest that we should all remember that seven North Carolinians, if my recollection is correct, died defending the Alamo.
I also have family ties to Texas. My great uncle Joseph Wesley Humphrey was a deputy sheriff, a member of the Texas legislature, and county judge in Rains County, Texas.
Another great uncle, Reverend Daniel A. McRae, was a Methodist minister in San Augustine County, Texas. I believe that might even be in Mr. Gohmert's district. And the church and the cemetery there is still named ``McRae'' after my great uncle.
So I do have family ties. I do love the State. I am deeply honored to receive this commission, honorary as it may be, and I will be proud to recite the oath:
I, Richard Hudson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Texas against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And I will remember the Alamo. So help me God.
Madam Speaker, I thank Judge Carter.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Hudson.
Mr. GOHMERT. It is wonderful to have a new admiral in the Texas Navy, and we welcome Congressman Hudson to that role, that honorary role, in the Texas Navy.
And we are grateful to Judge Carter for his role in making that happen and to our great Governor Greg Abbott. I thank both the gentlemen.
It is nice to be able to do something that brings a smile. But I think, for Texans to ask that people remember the Alamo harkens back to feelings within us that freedom and liberty are something worth dying for. That is what all of those Texans did.
And with due deference to my friend from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn--yes, I know--we are grateful to Tennessee for their contribution at the Alamo and to Texas as well.
But those people had a choice: Were they going to run or were they going to stand for freedom, stand against despotism. And they chose to stand.
And here it is 163 years later, and we still remember, and we are still inspired. Liberty comes at great cost, and we are forever grateful to our God and to our predecessors who took such a stand against tyranny.
There is a lot of tyranny going on in the Middle East, and there will be until the end of time. But each of us has a responsibility to do what we can to help accommodate and protect those who can't help themselves.
That is why some of us are pro-life. But when it comes to life in the Middle East, it has been shocking now for years, under the previous administration, the people that were supported, the weapons that were provided to people that were called the ``vetted moderate rebels'' against the leader of Syria.
Yet we saw over and over again those so-called ``vetted moderate rebels'' were constantly allowing their weapons to be seized--there is some question whether they were actually turned over--to radical Islamists who hate Americans, who made clear, yeah, they are not crazy about some fellow Muslims, but they like them a whole lot better than they do the United States and Christians.
So it was tragic, in years prior, when our current U.N. general secretary was in charge of the refugee program at the U.N. and people were noticing, under the then head of the refugee program at the U.N., now general secretary--they were noticing that, gee, you are helping all these Muslims, which is wonderful, but there is a significant percentage in those areas, some areas there, that are being overrun by ISIS, where there are Christians and the Christians appear to be the target of genocide.
And it has been a long time since I read his quote, but in essence it was basically, well, those Christians are very important to those areas historically where they are, and so we think it is important to just let them stay in those areas.
Well, what Christians had found was, if they tried to go to the refugee camps where they were unwelcome and brutalized, they were lucky if they got out with their lives. But they weren't welcome.
And the head of the refugee program did nothing that we can find to accommodate Christians to the extent that he was accommodating Muslims. I don't know if it was an innate bias, prejudice, bigotry that he had--
maybe still has--or whether it was just sheer ignorance on his part, deciding to save some people and not save a big bulk of the Christians.
So they were being wiped out. There was a genocide going on.
I saw this story today by Edwin Mora. The title of the article is,
``Hope Is Back: Trump Helps Save Christians, Yazidis in Iraq From Extinction.''
It goes on to say, ``U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is helping bring Christians and Yazidis in Iraq back from the brink of extinction fomented by a genocidal campaign at the hands of the Islamic State, religious minority representatives declared this week at the second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom convened by the Department of State.
``The U.S. Government has officially determined that ISIS committed genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities during its reign of terror in the Middle East that began in 2014 . . .
`'
Of course, that was when the Obama administration was in its heyday. Of course, we didn't realize how much the DOJ, FBI, and some of the Intel community had been weaponized and actually corrupted.
The article goes on, ``Echoing Yazidis activists and a U.S.-based Syriac Catholic Iraqi priest who spoke to Breitbart News, a Chaldean Catholic priest from a parish in a Christian Iraqi town indicated that hope for the future along with security improvements have returned to religious minority communities devastated by ISIS, courtesy of the Trump administration efforts.
``Their comments came during the 3-day ministerial summit. . . .
``While delivering a speech during the event on Wednesday, Father Thabet Habib Youssef, a Chaldean Catholic priest from the town of Karamles in Iraq's Nineveh Province, thanked the Trump administration for its assistance.''
And this is what Father Youssef had to say:
``I wish to give thanks to the government of the United States for including us in this important conference and a special thanks to the administration of President Trump for his concern and commitment to the persecuted minority communities in Iraq.
``I can say this conference gives us hope. Our greatest fear in the early years was that the world would forget us. This conference tells us we are not forgotten.'
``Nearly half of the Christian families who fled Karamles, liberated by U.S. and local forces in November 2016, have returned, and Father Thabet expects many more to come back in the coming year.
``Although ISIS burned down the homes and churches in the Christian town, `We are determined to return and rebuild.'
``Today we have 45 percent of our families returned, and we hope in this next year we will see many more.'
``He went on to say that the Iraqi government needs to do more to bring about `real change and support for the protection, safety, and equal rights for the minority communities in Iraq.'
``The U.S.-funded nation-building efforts, coupled with''--and let me make myself clear on that, I'm talking about helping others build their nations--for those who claim that America is trying to build some hegemony, has imperialistic notions, as it always has--it just tells us they had terrible history teachers.
{time} 1330
They are not intentionally spreading untruths. They are just ignorant. They don't know what the real truth is because the real truth is, we have never been an imperialistic nation. If we were, if we had been then English would be all that was spoken in France, and Germany, and Japan, and many other nations. That is not who we are. That is not who we have been.
We have given our most precious commodity, American lives, for another people's freedom.
Back to this article. It says: ``The U.S.-funded nation-building efforts, coupled with assistance from the Catholic group Knights of Columbus and the government of Hungary, have rendered the town of Karamles a `story of success and we are optimistic it will survive' '', Father Thabet also said.
``Northern Iraq's Nineveh province is the historical homeland of Iraqi Christians and home to the largest concentration of religious minorities in the country.''
So it goes on and also talks about the help this has been to Yazidis.
And I note this week we had resolutions or amendments to condemn and express the majority of the House's sentiment that we shouldn't do anything to help in the effort against those who are killing, persecuting, and trying to commit a genocide against the Yazidis in Yemen. But, thankfully, that is only from the majority in the House. That is really unfortunate.
But there has also been news this week that we may have a very strong anti-Israeli resolution filed. Why not? The majority doesn't ever condemn specific anti-Semitism by Members here in the House; so why not file a resolution? We will see if it gets filed. That is the news.
That resolution supports the boycott against Israel; even though the people it supports, that resolution would support, would be the very people that have said they want Israel wiped off the map. They want no Israel from the river to the sea. They want it gone. They want a genocide. They want the Jews wiped out, and that is a goal.
It was a goal of Arafat. It is why, when Ehud Barak, as prime minister of Israel, when President Clinton was twisting his arm so strongly, basically offered Arafat virtually everything he wanted.
I, personally, knowing biblical history, I think you had a case where, just as God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, initially, when Moses was asking to let his people go, I think Arafat's heart was hardened. He got basically everything he wanted, but he turned it all down.
If he had accepted it, it would have been basically impossible for Israel to defend itself under anything but nuclear means; no conventional way to defend Israel if Arafat had accepted that, what I would consider, outrageous proposal. But fortunately, he didn't accept it, and so Israel has been able to defend itself since then.
But the attacks are daily. They are ongoing. There is an ongoing effort by enemies of Israel that are being promoted by some Democrats, some in Congress, some outside of Congress. That is who they are supporting, people that are, every single day, smuggling rockets into Gaza, smuggling weapons, trying to smuggle weapons into Israel, and continuing to teach hatred, blind bigotry against the Jewish people, against Israel.
So I would be thrilled if that resolution did not get filed; but that is up to individuals in Congress. Everybody has a right to file whatever bill they think will be most helpful.
But I have looked for Scripture in the Bible that says, those who curse or seek to harm Israel will be blessed. And I just--it is just not there. So it causes me grave concern to think that we may have people in leadership positions in the United States, again, who really want to harm Israel. They want to divide it.
I know we have a growing group that don't believe anything in the Bible. But for those of us who do, when we are told that any nation that divides or attempts to divide Israel will bring down judgment on itself, that causes me great concern for the country for which I have taken an oath to defend repeatedly; as a member of the United States Army, as an Assistant District Attorney, as a District Judge, as a Chief Justice, and as a Member of Congress.
That oath means so much to me that I think it would be a good idea to be supportive of the Nation of Israel, and I am thrilled we have a President that is doing that.
Even though, reports I have heard from people that were there, he had Cabinet officials telling him he was going to start World War III if he recognized Jerusalem as the capital. A bit like some of the stories of Lincoln being told by every member of the Cabinet it would be a disaster if he finalized the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln knew it was right in his heart, and with every Cabinet member reportedly against him and arguing against it, he, in essence, said the ayes have it. He was the only one.
Here you had not all, but most of the Cabinet really hammering President Trump not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital. He knew in his heart it was the right thing to do. He had said he would do it; he did it.
I know some can't find anything at all admirable about President Trump; they are so blinded by their hatred. But I think that is a pretty amazing thing that President Trump has done.
And now, to hear from Christians in the Middle East who were the objects of genocide, being wiped out, being killed, destroyed, taken off of the map completely, without much of anything helpful from the so-called United Nations, it is amazing what President Trump has done in that regard.
So when I hear friends across the aisle saying we have lost respect around the world, they are not seeing and hearing what I am. The last polls I saw were that, around the world, there is more respect for our President than the prior administration.
And the truth is, in respect, there is a little element of fear. You can not like somebody, but still respect them, and fear can be involved.
We have a reputation that is growing again, that we have a President that will do what he said. Sometimes he is talked out of taking steps, like bombing and killing 100 or more in Iran. But what we are seeing in Iran is amazing, because their economy is suffering dramatically, so much so you see them lashing out and trying to, whether it is by attacking ships, trying to use whatever power they can. The pressure is intensifying.
And I would humbly submit, this will not be a President who, in response to the biggest supporter of terrorism in world history, sends them pallets full of billions and billions of dollars in cash to help the biggest supporter of terrorism, who has killed and been responsible for the deaths of more American military than anybody else in recent decades.
So they can say what they want about our President. He is doing amazing work.
And it is interesting, I keep hearing this term ``racist'' and the President keeps talking about American citizens. Well, until recent days, it has never been racist to talk about American citizens.
In fact, going back again to the comment of Benjamin Franklin after the Constitutional Convention: ``It's a republic, if you can keep it.''
He knew that republics, the very few that have been established, that just means they elect representatives. It is not the totally democratic governing that was, for example, in Athens, as a city state. They had a democracy.
And what historians have seen, clearly, is that when it is a true democracy, where everybody participates--they had jurors, they would have 501 jurors in just a court case. And what that would often lead to what would be mob action. I mean, people get stirred up, and they end up coming out with a sentence like they did for Socrates, that was far beyond anything appropriate whatsoever. You take an innocent man like that and have him put to death simply because you had too many jurors that got each other worked up.
So that is where Rome made a great stride forward. They said, you know what? There were problems. It was a good idea, but there were problems with a complete democracy, where everybody participates in all governing decisions, except jurors, and that is 501.
But Rome figured out, we need a representative form of government; so it has parts of it that are democracies, and in part it is a representative government, so it is a republic. And until Caesar crossed the Rubicon and made it into a virtual dictatorship--of course, that didn't last long because as, Mark Antony said:
Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all, all honorable men.
There was trouble in the Roman empire. But they began to have a flood of people that were not Roman citizens. They lost their power. They had begun bread and circuses; gave away way too much in what was considered welfare of that day, bread and circuses.
And, as I recall, it was even Caesar that decided maybe we are corrupting people by providing this form of welfare and entertainment. But by that point, it was too late to rein it in and, for all of these factors, and others coming into play, people crossing the borders and taking a toll, the Roman Empire was eventually lost.
No country is going to last forever. I love this country. I have offered to die for this country. That is what you do when you sign up and take an oath in the U.S. military.
But when people begin not to appreciate the good things that their nation does and is doing, has done, and they build up hatred toward their own nation, you really are on the downhill slide and you are moving ever closer to the dustbin of history. Eventually every country is going to get there.
But our goal in this body should be to perpetuate this little experiment in self-government, the best ever contrived. Keep it going as long as possible. Don't let it die on our watch. But it is in trouble.
And as we have bills, I don't know anybody on this entire House floor, either party, who is against standing behind and helping those incredible American heroes of 9/11 and the days following. We are all for that.
{time} 1345
But then we have people in the majority who see an opportunity. Instead of doing what we normally do and have an authorization for 5 years and 5 years extend 10 years, we had a bill that was extended to 2092.
There will not be a firefighter or policeman who is alive anywhere close to 2092, first responder that was there during 9/11 and doing these heroic works. So why would they choose 2092?
Well, the saying in Washington is no matter how cynical you get, it is never enough to catch up. But you go by what we have seen.
People in this body often, and it has happened on both sides of the aisle, like to get a bill, especially with money, get it extended out as far as possible, way beyond the existence of people for whom it is dedicated, and then when those people eventually pass away, you will see an effort to come in here and say, wow, we had all this money that we have passed overwhelmingly, and now the people aren't there that it was originally meant for, so let's start giving this money to other people, people that we want to curry favor with.
That is not the way it is supposed to go. I voted for it out of respect for our heroes, but for goodness' sake, 2092, seriously? How could anybody with a straight face say: Oh, if you are not for paying out billions and billions of dollars in 2091 to 2092, then you must hate the first responders of 9/11? That is ridiculous.
They have inspired me from that time, and in my hometown in east Texas and other towns all over east Texas, all the same thing. People lined up to give blood.
The first time I went, they said: There is hours and hours of wait to give blood for people in New York so we would ask that you come back tomorrow.
You couldn't even get in. That was true all over east Texas and all over the country. People cared deeply about what they had seen happen. We were under attack from outside. There were no hyphenated Americans. We were all just Americans wanting to help each other and help those who had been harmed.
So I hope that the Senate will take a look at that and be able to be more responsible so that the 9/11 fund will truly be for the people who the 9/11 fund says it is supposed to be for.
We are loading up future generations with so much debt. That alone could be enough to bring down our country. It is time to become responsible.
And I know across the aisle we have had these hearings on the bills, the Equality Act, for example, and I understand the sentiment behind it is to try to avoid any type of discomfort, uncomfortable feelings by anybody because of their chosen gender.
But as we brought out at our hearings before the Equality Act was passed in committee and here on the floor, there is a danger, and it is not about making people a little uncomfortable because they are biologically male but they want to go to a women's restroom.
As a former felony judge, I have heard the testimony about the trauma. I have seen the effects of sexual assault on women. I have read and understand that women who are victims of sexual assault have three to four times more occurrence of PTSD.
There are different explanations as to why they have so much higher rate of PTSD than even our soldiers in combat, but also that a trigger for reliving the horrors, the awful crime against them and their person is to be in a small, confined area and have someone of the opposite sex come in. We were laughed at and belittled when we brought up that concern.
The story was contained in another story. It was about a British leader who was pushing for transgender bathrooms. It is now under criminal investigation or charges.
But this was a story I missed back in February: ``A trans `woman'
''--meaning biological man but considered himself, herself, whatever you want to say, to be a woman--``was allowed to walk free from Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court in Scotland after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in a supermarket restroom.
``The attacker, whose name is given as Katie Dolatowski, waited for the young victim to come out of a toilet cubicle at Morrisons supermarket . . . then grabbed her by the face and forced her back inside.
``Dolatowski told the girl to remove her trousers and warned that a man outside would kill her mother . . . but she fought back, striking the pedophile in the face, belly, and crotch and tearing away to her father and siblings outside.
``Dolatowski had attempted to photograph a 12-year-old as she urinated at another supermarket a month prior . . . but Judge James Williamson decided not to send the sex offender to prison, instead handing down a tagging order and community service order. . . . The girl's mother was horrified, saying she felt `very, very let down' and that she did not have any confidence whatsoever that Dolatowski will not go out and do something equally as bad or worse.''
It is important to still discuss this because the Senate hasn't taken it up, and I hope they won't take it up because of the problems of the so-called, misnamed Equality Act. It is not equality for female sexual assault victims, that is for sure.
But then it contained another reference: ``Girl Guides''--it is like Girl Scouts--``Expels Leaders Who Opposed Trans Shower-Sharing Policies.
And this insert says: Two Girl Guides leaders were expelled after they opposed ``new rules which compel units to let transgender-
identifying males share showers and other facilities with girls as young as 5.''
There are other references like: Allegedly transgender prisoner gets life after raping two women, sexually assaulting inmates in female jail.
Another: Mother arrested in front of her children for calling a trans activist a man; said Kate Scottow was arrested for calling a trans activist a man online and a judge has banned her from referencing their former male identity.
So there was a time when people could say hurtful things in America, but as we see with any declining society--not declining in goods and services, but declining in morality and as a society. We see it in L.A.
The most so-called liberated and liberal leaders of cities in America seem to have more homelessness, more defecation on the streets, more pollution.
Where are all the green activists, by the way? I mean, these people are polluting like crazy, and they are out there with signs picketing everywhere else, but for some reason they don't seem to be bothered by the destruction of an orderly society.
You go back to some of the great city-states, one of their big problems was sewage. And if you have too much homelessness, you encourage it, bless it, then it can cause problems for any society.
But that also brings us to our southern border, the continued expressions from this body about wanting to get rid of any enforcement of our border and refusing, in the $4.6 billion that was passed out of this House, not one dime for detention beds, not one dime to help the Border Patrol do their job to secure the border, not one dime to help build a wall barrier where we need it, when we basically, because of liberals who may mean well, but they basically turned over our southern border to drug cartels.
Some of the most evil people in the world, these drug cartels, and we are not going to enforce our border. That message from the majority has gone out over and over again, and what it does, as the Border Patrol will tell you if you go down there as often as I have: Every time one of you guys in Congress talk about amnesty, legalization, not enforcing the border, any of those things, we get surges.
And they will also tell you, and I have seen it for myself, the drug cartels control everybody, when and where they cross the border, and they will send groups. The Border Patrol know when they send a group in the middle of the night, they have to stand there and go through in-
processing all these people, asking them their questions.
And despite what some of our colleagues across the aisle have said, these are sympathetic border patrolmen. I have seen it over and over again. I have seen hundreds of very sympathetic border patrolmen, but they are at their wits end.
An article here from Michaela Ross today talking about ``Sick, Exhausted Border Agents Stoke Exodus Fear in Migrant Surge,'' the migrants, the illegal aliens coming in.
I have been castigated for referring to them as ``aliens,'' like they are from some other planet; and I had to remind my colleagues the very bill that they were supporting referred to them as aliens, and they were a little embarrassed because they didn't realize they referred to them as aliens. They thought it was just mean-spirited Republicans.
It is kind of interesting when you see that kind of thing, but it is a tragedy, and it is a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. And it is no longer just a humanitarian crisis for those who are pouring over our border illegally. They are taking their toll on the border patrolmen. Some have suspected that: Gee, maybe that is a strategy of the Democratic Party.
You keep talking about amnesty, about getting rid of border enforcement, which will encourage more and more people to come in.
You keep claiming that people, no matter whether they came in illegally or legally, should be allowed to vote and keep encouraging people in.
You refuse to give a dime for border enforcement. You refuse to give a dime for beds to house people who are pouring in illegally for what they need to be able to detain people that commit criminal acts in coming into the country.
You continue to talk about doing away with any criminality to violating the law and more people come in.
You devastate those officers who have taken an oath to defend our border and our Constitution, and they are already having recruiting problems.
Why would somebody want to come work where you have got a major party of the two in the country that castigates you at every turn, says you can't or won't protect babies, children, you do not care, you are mean, you are evil, when you are out there doing everything you can, and you are being harassed, not being given what you need?
And then we had this bill this week in Judiciary talking about it was going to add millions and millions and millions of dollars of requirements for the Border Patrol to have to follow, lest they be pursued with some kind of charge or allegation, and yet not give them a dime to do those jobs, knowing that the result will be more and more people flooding in, more and more humanitarian crisis. Then you blame the humanitarian crisis on those who are trying to secure our Nation.
{time} 1400
Then you get an allowance for all of those people who have poured in illegally, and many of them don't speak English. They don't know what is going on. They have never been educated on how you sustain a self-
governing country.
All I can figure, the assessment has to have been made, yes, it will have our country in chaos for a little while, and we will have to take away some freedoms because of all the chaos, but, as Democrats have said, that will end the Republican Party nationally, as the Democrats were able to do in California with 2 or 3 million pouring in and voting that had come in illegally after the amnesty in 1986.
Actually, after 1986, when they were given amnesty, now it is legal for them to vote, and that changed California into a very Democratic State.
And there is an assessment: We can do that for the Nation and eliminate the Republican Party as having any kind of viability. And then once we do that, even though it has taken quite a toll on the country, we will get control back again. We will rein in the chaos, and the Republicans will be gone and we will be a one-party country.
Somebody must have made that kind of assessment to be pushing the kind of bills that they are.
We cannot allow that chaos to occur and to build, because it wasn't just Ronald Reagan, but historians throughout time have noted, once you have a country that has had great freedom and it loses that freedom, it doesn't come back. Reagan said not in that generation, but I have trouble finding where it ever came back once a nation of freedom lost it. That is a real potential if we don't get things under control.
I think God has blessed this country more than any country. I know Solomon's Israel was just an absolutely amazing place, but there is no place that has ever had our opportunities, our individual freedoms, our individual assets, never in the history of the world.
There is nothing wrong with recognizing the greatness that America has been. It is only in recognizing America's greatness that you can determine we want to perpetuate that for future generations to have those opportunities, those freedoms, those assets.
But we are in trouble, and there has got to be a change or our time as the greatest country in history will become a self-fulfilling prophesy of those who say: ``Ah, it was never that great.'' ``Nah, it is not a great country.'' ``No, I have always been embarrassed of America.'' That will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will lose our greatness. We will lose our freedom.
I said to three individuals from Australia who were here on Capitol Hill a couple years ago: Hey, I have had people up here say when we lose our freedom, I guess we can all come to Australia.
Neither of them even laughed. One of them said: Do you not understand, if you lose your freedom in America, China will take over Australia before you could ever get there?
America is a shining light on a hill. We give people hope. I have heard it and seen it from Africans with tears in their eyes--and, yes, they were Christians. Maybe you would be prejudiced against them. But they said: We need America strong if we are going to have any chance of security and freedom in our own country.
Let's keep America strong. Let's support Israel. Let's support enforcing the law as it is, as it has been, and as we need it to prolong and perpetuate this incredible country.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
