Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride today that I enthusiastically recognize the 2014 Douglass Indians Baseball Team on an outstanding season, in which they have attained the title of 2014 Texas State Class A Baseball Champions.

To end their thirty-three to one season, the Indians defeated Flatonia Bulldogs in a shutout, with a final score of 10-0. Throughout this outstanding season the Indians had, in thirty-four games, allowed only thirty-four runs and scored themselves a dazzling three hundred seventy-seven. The team's batting average for the season was an impressive .392. All in all, the team set the school record for wins and secured the first and only state baseball championship in the school's history.

With the support of coaches, teachers, administrators and their entire community, these young men bear witness that anything is achievable through hard work and determination. These are guiding principles that lead to success not only on the field, but will undoubtedly resonate through every endeavor these valiant championship players undertake in their entire lifetimes.

Among the individual team members to be congratulated are Matthew Wallace, Logan Ammons, Cade James, Kolten Rhoudes, Grant Holland, Chase Dyson, Clayton Sestak, Trenton Carrigan, Bryce Westbrook, Bryce McLeod, Taylor Schroeder, John Sinz, Jake Spies, Hunter Lee, Brandon Stanfield, and Robert Campbell.

Douglass Indians' Team Manager Bonner Watson, Head Coach Eugene Lafitte, Assistant Coach Nick Freeman, and Principal Jeff Roquemore are to be praised for their support and unwavering leadership.

It is indeed an honor to join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2014 Class A Champion Douglass High School Baseball Team. Their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record, which will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sessions.

This was a different experience the last few days. I remember the fiscal cliff problem when we were told: Here is your remedy, take it and like it. And they didn't have enough votes so it ended up getting pulled, and people were sent home.

But this time was different. We had people who said: Do you know what? Wait a minute, why don't we stay here and work something out? Kind of a refreshing change.

There were numerous Members last night that sat down in a room and worked for quite some time--for hours actually--and came to a conclusion. We had a verbal agreement, and there was a misunderstanding on one provision. Anyway, there were so many great changes, great compromises, people from different, diverse positions took part.

But let me just say, the importance of getting something done now before we get even one day further into August is this. I have spent many days and many nights on the border. When you look at the pitiful, beautiful little faces of people that have come 1,000 or more miles because there was a shiny object being dangled here in the United States, saying: Come on, you may get amnesty, come on, come on now; and adults paid gang members, paid drug cartels, to bring these people through--some got pulled off into sexual trafficking we are told, many were raped, if they were young women, along the way, some given birth control pills so, gee, if they are raped they are not getting pregnant--and all because the law has been violated in an unconstitutional action by the President, who said: I don't like the law that was passed by the House and by the Senate and then the prior President signed into law, so I am passing a new law through my lips. And it created this allure.

I wish the Senate had stuck around to work with us, as many of us stayed last night to work. We could be so far down the road.

I am greatly encouraged by many of the things that are here, by the great compromises.

I want to thank Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Patrick McHenry, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary staff, but especially Chairman Sessions. Thanks for your accorded assistance today.

We could get to a finished product even with the Senate if it wasn't Harry Reid's way or the highway.

Who suffers? Come some night with me and sit out at the border 1, 2, 3 in

the morning, dodge tarantulas scorpions, rattlesnakes, and you may get to see a beautiful face that has gone through hell instead of being accorded the decency of a better way to immigrate into America.

We can do a better job, and we haven't done our job.

I am going to be a ``no'' because the provision was not pulled out that gives the Attorney General the power to appoint the 40 judges that are going to deal with the issues on the border. I have been assured we are going to work on that in the future to fix it better. I just can't give a guy in contempt the ability to appoint the 40 judges to deal with this issue. But I am so grateful for the process that we are now starting to use.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

There is a section within the bill, which we just passed, that provides that the Attorney General--who is currently under contempt of Congress--will appoint the 40 new immigration judges established in the bill. A number of us have a problem with that. And I know that concerns you, Chairman Goodlatte.

I believe that you, as Judiciary chairman, have agreed to work on a solution to deal with that issue going forward and to attempt to craft a solution that would be acceptable to a majority of the committee. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

I thank you both so much for your commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my friend for yielding, and I am very grateful for his strong stance on the issue of Israel and just wanted to add an exclamation point to the gentleman's comments.

There has been a lot of discussion about Israel tonight and about what is being done against the interests of Israel, but, Mr. Speaker, I think it bears pointing out that this administration could do much to help our friend Israel. And that when anyone in this administration says to the world and, in particular, the people in the Middle East, including the terrorists in the Middle East, that we see Israel, a country whose leaders are elected, and Hamas, whose leaders are sworn to the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, then the world gets the wrong impression. They get the impression that we see terrorism and love of life in Israel--terrorism by Hamas, love of life in Israel--as equals. That is a despicable thing to show the world from the United States, from any administration official.

It is important that we let the world know that when a nation that is such a dear friend as Israel is attacked repeatedly by rockets intended to kill innocent children, women, others around the country, then they have the right of self-defense to go in and clean up those who would destroy them. That means, when they go in to shut down the tunnels by which terrorists are allowed to enter their country and kill people, that we don't have some do-gooder from the United States rush in

and say: Hold on. Hold on. We realize you are destroying the tunnels that are allowing Israelis to be killed. We realize you are shutting down the rocket missile sites from which rockets are being launched to kill Israelis, but we want to give Hamas a breather so these terrorists, bent on killing Israelis, can regather their forces and get a better run at death to Israelis.

That is a disastrous foreign policy. You don't put as equals terrorists and a country that loves life, and it loves life so much that, unlike any military operation I am aware of, it notifies the people they are about to bomb before they bomb so people can clear out. That is extraordinary.

The burden of proof on Israel that is placed there by some in this administration and by others who love the terrorists and hate those who simply want to live in peace is unbearable. It is time the United States showed itself to be a friend of Israel.

The good news is, in this body, in this House, and even at the other end in the Senate, though we disagree profoundly on so many issues, when Israel comes up, we are more unified on our friendship with Israel than we are about any other issue I am aware of. And that is how it should be.

When the leader of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, came and spoke a few years ago right here at this podium, both sides of the aisle stood and applauded repeatedly. That is as it should be. As he pointed out right here, if Israel lays down its weapons, there is no Israel. If the Palestinians lay down their weapons, there is no war. The war ends. That is all they are asking for.

I used to wonder why in the world did the Israelis try to give away land, try to buy peace, when every time they give away land they are attacked from that piece of land. After spending time in Israel, I began to understand. When you see the coffee shops, the different places where people would gather that would have someone loaded up with a suicide bomb, walk in and blow up as many innocent people as they could, or see an area and they would say that is where the terrorist bomber came walking up on the school ground, then you realize they are willing to even give away their precious land that God gave to them over 3,000 years ago if they can just buy a little peace. But the lesson should come back loudly: there has never been a time in Israel's history when it has given away land trying to buy peace when that land was not ultimately used as a staging area from which to attack it.

I think it was pretty clear this administration showed its cards when, as a method of thumping, figuratively speaking, Israel, the FAA suspended flights into Tel Aviv. They were not at risk any more than other flights from American airlines around the world, especially in countries where there are terrorists. But it was a message to Israel that, hey, you better do what we tell you or we are going to hurt you economically. That message was clear and it wasn't missed by the Israelis. And then to have that followed by the Secretary of State putting a terrorist organization and a country that is one of our dearest friends together on equal standing was further insult to the injury, literal injury that this country had caused Israel.

It is time that we recognize what my dear friend Mr. Bentivolio has said clearly. It is time we stand with Israel. It is time to make clear to Israel's enemies: You take on Israel, you take us on. You may not get that from this administration. They may still be playing patty-cake with terrorists, but in this Congress, from both sides of the aisle, we stand with Israel. I thank my friend so much for helping make that clear.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield to a friend, a colleague, a guy I came in with in the class of 2004, my friend, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. I am immensely grateful to my friend, Mr. Fortenberry, for bringing this point home. It is a point that has been brought home repeatedly to me in different places in the world.

In Afghanistan, where this country helped with a constitution that would be shari'a law-based, my country, my country, where Americans have fought and died for freedom, my country, where the most valuable commodity we have, human life, has been sacrificed on the altar of freedom because we believed where there was a threat like Afghanistan to us as Americans, we could repel the Taliban, and the world would benefit and certainly America would benefit, and Christians around the world would benefit, who were being so persecuted by the Taliban in control in Afghanistan.

But we weren't alone. Moderate Muslims in Afghanistan were being persecuted. That is why there were plenty, there were plenty of groups willing to rise and fight with America, for America, against the radical Islamists of the Taliban.

The moderate Muslims didn't want radical Islamists running their country. They were perfectly willing to allow Christians or Buddhists or secularists, Jews, to live and worship or not worship as they saw fit in their country.

So the people that some in this administration call war criminals, the Northern Alliance, fought for us, and they defeated the Taliban in a matter of months.

It was in October of 2001, a month or so after the worst attack on the United States in our history killed over 3,000 people here in our homeland. We finally figured out that planning and preparation occurred in Afghanistan.

And there did have to be some diplomatic negotiations to get some of the tribes to be willing to fight together because they didn't like each other sufficiently, at least, to work together and be under each others' control and command.

Diplomatically, there may have been some money that changed hands, we are told, to get one tribal leader to subjugate to another.

General Dostum, legendary in the region, in the whole continent, for courage, led. We had less than 500, around 300 or so, embedded military, special ops guys, as well as intelligence. And within about 4 or 5 months, the Taliban were totally routed, totally defeated.

Then the administration, under the leadership of the State Department, decided the best thing for Afghanistan would be to have a stove-piped, centralized, top-heavy government, even though this was a regional, tribal country, had been for millennia.

That was a mistake that was not the Obama administration's; that happened before President Obama took office.

But, from those I talked with, they could see problems, and I believe, if there had been a President Bush clone he would have been willing to admit we needed a change.

But the new President accepted Afghanistan, with its top-heavy government, where the President can appoint the governors, appoint the mayors, appoint the police chief, appoint the highest level teachers, appoint a slate of a big portion of the legislature. Incredible powers.

If you were looking for a formula that would help you create corruption, we helped provide it to the Afghans. If you were looking for an environment that could be created that would encourage corruption, we helped provide it to the Afghans.

Well, everybody makes mistakes. But the important thing is, after you have made them, recognize them and correct them.

Instead, this administration came in and really doubled down and bet on the top-heavy, corrupt Karzai administration. As a result, synagogues really can't be found in Afghanistan. Christian churches-- you would be hard-pressed to find a church in Afghanistan, not that they are not there somewhere.

But the Taliban, one of whose leaders has been on national television in Afghanistan, on behalf of the Taliban,

citing shari'a law and, basically, announcing if you have been an opposing the Taliban, if you have not actually supported us, then everyone knows when the Americans leave, which will be this year, then we, the Taliban will be back in charge here in Afghanistan.

So under shari'a law, you must come to us, admit your mistakes, ask forgiveness, and ask for our protection, swear allegiance to the Taliban. We will forgive you and we will provide you protection. But if you fail to do so, then you will be fodder for death.

So, we have helped create a situation in Afghanistan, under this administration, where now, if you are not going to be a radical Islamist, your life is going to be miserable, which were the conditions in Afghanistan before we went in.

We have set up a situation in Afghanistan that will be ripe for further Taliban development, further Taliban training, and planning for a more glorious 9/11 attack that can and would kill more Americans.

And although that would most likely occur after this President leaves office, it would only be the mainstream media who would not recognize that it was this administration that made this possible.

Yes, the Bush administration would have contributed some by the government so centralized that was set up. But all but the most deaf and blind to the mistakes of the current administration would say the Bush administration would have allowed it to get to this point in Afghanistan, where Christians and Jews have to fear for their lives, where moderate Muslims have to fear for their lives, and where those who fought for and with America will likely be killed.

Now, knowing some of these people, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you they are not going to go down without a fight. So most likely, our President, here in the United States, by siding with the bullies, is likely to contribute to a massive, ugly, destructive civil war in Afghanistan.

But it is one of the situations that has led our allies around the world to say, wait a minute. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan fought for America. They fought for you. They defeated radical Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan. They were defeated. They were overrun.

That last incredible battle where General Dostum--and I have talked with him personally about it in Afghanistan, how he knew that they couldn't send tanks up to this last fortification of the Taliban because they could get blown up and they would block the way up.

He knew that he couldn't send massive numbers of infantry until, eventually, they prevailed because they are fighting uphill against artillery, rocket propelled grenades, and gunfire, and they wouldn't have a chance, no matter how many they sent.

He felt the only chance was if they put the 1,000 fastest, most courageous, best horseback riders they had on horses and sent them uphill into this Taliban stronghold. And they did, and these 1,000 courageous freedom fighters, Muslims who wanted freedom from these cruel, uncivilized, brutal beasts called the Taliban, they wanted them defeated, and they went after them.

Riding as fast as they can, they head up the hill, rocket propelled grenades, artillery, gunfire coming their way, and they lost 30 percent of the 1,000 riders.

They didn't slow down, they didn't stop, they didn't watch and see as someone fell. They knew their only chance of victory was to keep heading up that hill to the fortification. Around 700 got there and wiped out the Taliban, destroyed the last fortification, the last stronghold of the Taliban, and there was victory in Afghanistan.

Now, all these years later, 12 years later, with an administration that keeps helping the bullies of the world and hurting those who are oppressed in the world, the Taliban is poised to take back over.

Our allies are wondering, why did we trust you? Why did we fight with you?

You said when we defeated the Taliban for you that we could trust you, we could give you our weapons because we had nothing to fear; the United States would always stand with us and make sure the Taliban would never take back over.

Now, 12 years after we trusted you, we put our lives in your hands, we gave these weapons to you, you are turning your back on us in Afghanistan who fought for you and with you, lost family, lost limbs, fighting for you and with you, and now you are going to walk away and leave this country to fall back in the hands of the Taliban.

We are not going to let it happen without a fight. But we can't believe you would do this to someone to whom you said, hey, trust us, you can trust us, and we did, and now the current administration is turning its back on us, calling us war criminals.

Other allies around the world see this, and they say, wow. You know, we can't say this to Secretary of State Kerry. We couldn't say it to Secretary of State Clinton. We couldn't say this to President Obama, but we can say this to you. We trust you, but we are wondering if we are going to be the next allies to be thrown under the bus.

People around the world are saying--it seems to be pretty clear--you can't trust the United States, or you will pay with your life. That is not the America that gained the trust and respect around the world from everyone except the radical Islamists and some of the mainstream media.

The America that became the most free, the most affluent nation in world history has also been the most generous nation in world history, and what we have done and given and lost on behalf of other people--not to create an empire, not to build an empire, not to force people to speak English and to follow American ways--but so they could be free to choose the way in which they should go.

Countries historically have not done that, and we have, and now, that generous nature has been used by this administration until it has become a vice, a vice that would allow our allies to be killed, to be oppressed and persecuted because we are going to let the bullies take over.

Not only did we watch and let bullies take over in other parts of the world, but we saw the Arab Spring that, in the not-so-distant future, would become a Christian and Jewish winter--a bleak, miserable winter for Jews and Christians and secularists.

We demanded that the leader of Egypt be ousted--never mind that this administration had agreements with the Egyptian leader--the President. We turned our back on them--and how about after the Soviet Union fell and the United States, particularly the Clinton administration, as I understand it, were the ones that guaranteed Ukraine that if you will give up the nuclear weapons that you hold and allow us to provide them to Russia--we know you don't want to give these weapons to Russia, we know you don't trust the Russians, but you can trust us, the United States.

President Clinton, as I understand it, worked this great deal with Ukraine: trust us, you can trust us--yes, let the Russians have the nuclear weapons that you possess, Ukraine; and we, the United States, will have your back, we will protect you. Russia wouldn't dare come against you because we will protect you. We will fight for you. We have got your back.

What this administration has done with the Ukrainians' back is to put a knife in it.

Well, you know, there were a lot of Russians in Crimea. Well, yes, there were. The Russians forced them in there and forced the Ukrainians out at one time. Gee, what a great way to claim this land is yours, by forcing the people out of there.

If you want to talk about earlier possession being the right to currently possess, you are going to be hard-pressed to find any Muslim that was a practicing Muslim 1,000 years before Christ, although you will find the Jews under King David, and you would find King David in the first 7 years of his reign in Hebron, leading Israel from Hebron.

This administration wants to say: oh, that is not Israel's land--the people that came along and worshiped Mohammed 1,600 years after King David ruled in this land, they are the ones that should have the land.

Really--that is this administration's position--seriously? What about the prophecies in the Old Testament that, in the mountains of Sumeria, there would be fruit, there would be grapes, there would be fine wine?

For decades, since Israel came back into the land, it was promised over 3,000 years ago. People are saying, well, you can't grow grapes there in those mountains. We don't know. The prophets really blew that one. You can't grow grapes in that area of Sumeria, except that I have been in that area of Sumeria where the prophet said that Israeli grapes would grow and provide great wine. I don't drink alcohol, but the grapes were amazing, and they are growing where the prophet said they would.

So how could land that was in Israel's possession, that was prophesied would be lost by the children of Israel, but God would return them to the area, and there would be fine grapes and fruit grown in that area, how could that be somebody else's prior claim when they were longer there than anybody still, any tribes in existence today?

Perhaps that is Israel's land, but not according to this administration. This administration is anxious to help those who are the most brutal in all of Israel.

So even though we have gotten used to seeing this administration turn its back on an ally in Egypt in favor of a radical Islamist Muslim brother, Morsi, who was in charge--and who, by the way, sent his wife to have a baby in America, who could be brought up and taught to hate America, just like Alamoudi, who is doing over 20 years in prison for supporting terrorism. His wife came to America and had a baby. They have got an American citizen.

Actually, it was rather interesting. I found out today that Osama bin Laden told his wife to come to America to have her baby. He wanted her to have an American citizen that they could raise up and teach to hate America who, because of their citizenship, would be able to come in and out. Fortunately, she ended up in Saudi Arabia, as I understand, before the child was born.

These radical Islamists may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They know as long as we have open borders and welcome people who are pregnant that hate us, they can get in and have baby American citizens and take them back to their country and, over their life, teach them to hate America.

I have talked about it for a number of years. There have been the naysayers, and at some point, they will wise up and see, wow, this has been happening for many years.

Well, the same administration that has condemned Israel at different times for not being willing to step up and do what we told them to do, the same administration that has left the leader of Israel sitting, waiting for the President for long periods of time while he went and ate and yet chastised him, well, you stay here and think about it, like a child, and when you come to the agreement I told you to, basically then I will get back together with you.

Like a child--really? We treat our allies like that?

Well, Prime Minister Netanyahu should be thankful because the way this administration treated the ally leader in Egypt was to have him destroyed--his position, get him out of office, out of power, subject him to torture by the locals.

Look at the ally that this administration had in Libya. Qadhafi was not a good man, but he was scared so badly after we entered Iraq that he opened his doors: okay, guys--America, you tell me what I can keep, what I have to get rid of. I don't want you to invade me, so I would rather be your friend. You tell me what I can have in the way of weapons.

He really and truly did give up whatever we told him to, and he became an ally. I have even met Qadhafi's son here at the Capitol before--while President Obama has been President. Apparently, he had meetings here in Washington with the administration, with people on Capitol Hill, and yet this administration not only turned on their ally that they had in Qadhafi--who had supposedly given up his terrorist- supporting ways--and this administration supplied weapons into Libya to al Qaeda, to other rebels who were not al Qaeda, but to al Qaeda, to al-Shari'a, to other radical Islamists to take out Qadhafi.

Some have contended, if we had not gone in and bombed Qadhafi's caravan as he was trying to get away, they would not have caught him, and he would have gotten out, so it would appear that the United States contributed mightily to the torturous death of Qadhafi.

I am not saying he didn't deserve a rough death after what he had done to so many, Mr. Speaker. I am just pointing out that this administration had made agreements and discussions with him as an ally, and they turned on him, threw him away--and not only that, but they helped bring about his personal death and destruction.

When you deal with al Qaeda, when you deal with radical Islam, the Taliban, it is like handling a snake, a poisonous snake. Eventually, it will bite because it is a snake. That is what it does.

Now, in areas where this administration helped rebels, being a Christian or a Jew is the quickest route to death. This administration, sadly, has helped contribute to situations in the world where there is now more terror if you are a Christian or a Jew than there has been in centuries.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little bit surprised that as Hamas--who does get some of our money. Money is fungible, and we are sending it to the Palestinians, and every dime of it ought to be cut off as long as they have a relationship with Hamas; but yet, because we are sending money that is being used for textbooks and things like street signs that are named for people who have killed innocent Jews, Israelis, Christians, we are contributing to what they are doing.

Then this administration, through the FAA, stuck a knife in Israel once again by having the administration, through the FAA, ban U.S. flights to and from Israel's main airport for a second day.

As even CNN reported, ``The FAA's ban on U.S. flights to and from Israel's main airport for a second day marks another blow to that country's economy and a success for Hamas militants, experts said Wednesday.''

As one said, quoted in the CNN story:

It is a big hit to the Israeli economy and to our pride,

the director of the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel said.

But he and other Israeli officials insisted their country's

sophisticated antimissile system makes Ben Gurion Airport a

safe place, even though a Hamas rocket from Gaza fell 1 mile

away from the airfield, prompting the FAA temporary ban on

U.S. flights.

``We knew about that rocket,'' said Israeli Government

spokesman Mark Regev. ``We were tracking it for about 3

minutes, our air force. We could have taken it down, but

because we saw that it wasn't going to hit inside the

airport, we let it through.''

For some Americans, Gaza conflict strikes close to home.

The FAA ban marks something of a victory for Hamas--as well

as prudent decision to protect commercial airlines, one

expert said.

But his quote included, ``What is the objective of

terrorists? To incite terror in people.''

That was Tim Clemente, a retired FBI counterterrorism agent talking about Hamas.

Clemente said:

I think because they probably got lucky with this one

rocket that came close enough to Ben Gurion to make it seem

like the threat was legitimate.

Well, the truth is, maybe Mr. Clemente didn't know the Israelis were tracking it. They could have shot it down, but there have been so many. What? A couple thousand of these rockets have been sent in the last 15 days into Israel, they cannot afford to knock down ones that are not going to harm people or do damage, so they didn't take it down. They could see the trajectory. They knew where it was going to hit.

Yet the Obama administration decides to inflict even more damage on Israel by harming them economically. Oh, we are lifting bans. We are working with Iran, even though Iran said they want to wipe out the Little Satan, Israel, and the Great Satan, the United States. They made it clear, and they have never, ever ceased to pursue that dream of wiping out Israel and the United States.

Oh, we will give them some money. We will let them have proceeds, but when it comes to Israel, we are going to slap them around like a little kid again even though they have the sophisticated weaponry to knock down rockets and they let one go because it is not going to hurt anybody. This administration seizes on that to declare a ban on U.S. flights to and from Tel Aviv.

Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, described the missile

landing near the airport as one victory in the ongoing war

between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. The resistance success in

stopping the air traffic and isolating Israel from the world

is a great victory for the resistance, Barhoum told Al-Aqsa

Television.

Great victory for Hamas. Great victory for radical Islam. They have gotten the United States administration under President Obama to ban air traffic into Tel Aviv, so we are sticking a knife in our friend.

It is not bad enough that Hamas is launching rockets nonstop into Israel, that they have made clear no matter how badly Israel wants a cease-fire, they are not going to stop the rockets, they are hoping they will kill innocent people because they have made clear before that to them, to these terrorists, they don't think there is an innocent child in all of Israel because ultimately they will be in the military, so they are doing the world a favor, they say, or they think, by killing every Israeli they can.

And what does this administration do? It says let's help Hamas by sticking, taking a stab into the heart of Israel's economy.

Here is an article from haaretz.com:

Will the threat to Israel's only international airport be a

game-changer?

Whether or not flights in and out of Israel are suspended

for any length of time, the suspension of flights by several

major air carriers is Hamas' first major achievement of this

conflict.

Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that the United States is the one who gave Hamas, the radical Islamists, their first big victory. It wasn't Israel that gave them a victory. Israel has defended itself, and that is all they are doing.

The article says:

With a single rocket, which evaded the Iron Dome missile

defense system and exploded between two houses in the Tel

Aviv suburb of Yehud, Hamas might just have achieved what it

failed to do with nearly 2,000 rockets fired at Israel since

the beginning of this round of warfare 15 days ago.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that Israel tracked the missile, saw it wasn't going to hit anybody, and they let it go. It was not a mistake. It was something they saw would be harmless, and they let it go, the Israelis did.

But the article says:

The decision of the United States' Federal Aviation

Administration to advise the three U.S. carriers flying to

Israel, Delta, United, and US Airways, to suspend their

flights to Israel for 24 hours, could just be just a

temporary blip, another inconvenience caused by the current

security situation. If the suspension is extended

indefinitely, for as long as the rockets are flying, and if

it spreads to the airlines of other countries--a number of

European carriers have already followed suit and Korean Air

suspended flights already last week--it would create an

intolerable situation for the government of Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu.

Further in the article it says:

The rocket falling on Yehud did not change that situation.

One factor that could have changed the FAA assessment was

probably the downing of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777

over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, with the deaths of all 298

crew and passengers on board.

Tens of thousands of Israelis planning to fly abroad,

tourists who were to leave, and those who were scheduled to

arrive here in the next few days will have had their plans

disrupted. The national carrier, El Al, however, will

continue to fly, and since there have been many cancelations

already, it will carry many of those who were set to fly on

foreign airlines.

But the psychological effect on Israelis will be

significant, and this could have a longer term implication

for Israel's economy.

The last time there was a wide-scale suspension of flights to Israel by foreign airlines was not in 2001 after 9/11 when there were continued threats against Israel or 2002 with continued threats against Israel or 2003 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8. No. There were no flights suspended from the United States under the President George W. Bush administration, even though the threats at that time were probably more severe than now that they have such an effective Iron Dome. There were days before the effective Iron Dome that Israel was probably more at risk than they are with the Iron Dome, but Bush didn't call a suspension. But this administration has.

The last time there was a wide-scale suspension of flights

to Israel by foreign airlines was in early 1991, when Iraqi

scud missiles were falling on Israel during the first gulf

war. Israelis then did not travel abroad as often as they do

now, and that conflict did not happen during the summer

vacation period. More significantly, the local economy was

not integrated into the global markets as it is today, with

hundreds of international companies having research

centers in the Israeli high-tech hubs and thousands of

companies here totally reliant on export markets. It took

Israel's economy many years to break down the reluctance

of foreign corporations to invest and work in Israel--a

few days or a couple of weeks with limited air travel

probably won't change that, but it may well create a

temporary feeling of siege.

This may prove to be a game-changer in a conflict which is

now entering its third week. It could provide further impetus

for the government in seeking a speedy cease-fire with Hamas,

but that seems doubtful.

It is much more likely that, faced with the prospect of

more rockets cutting off Israel off from the international

air routes, the government will be inclined to order a much

more devastating blow, a wider ground operation to occupy the

rocket-launching sites or even directed at Hamas' underground

headquarters, with dreadful implications for the people of

Gaza living above.

And that will be the fault of this administration by failing to put pressure on Hamas but instead putting pressure on the more reasonable people who have just tried to defend themselves and have made clear if you stop the rockets, we stop attacking.

All we are seeking is peace. Hamas holds the peace in its own hands, and with that hand, it keeps trying to murder Israelis. And then you end up having discussions in mainstream media--not that hardly anybody is watching. But on CNN when one commentator asked another, I think it was Wolf Blitzer, in effect, gee, these Hamas, they don't have near the weapons that Israel has, so are you seeing any let-up of Israel since they clearly have more fighting power than Hamas?

I am sorry. That is just really a stupid question. If somebody is coming at you with a rock with the intent to murder you and you have a gun, are you supposed to stand aside and say: Yeah, beat me as long as you want to until you kill me. I can't use a gun because it is more powerful than your rock?

Of course not. You can use self-defense when someone has murderous intent.

Israel does have the ability to go in and clean out the weapons in Gaza. I have pointed out to Prime Minister Netanyahu and other leaders of Israel that going back to the very inception of Israel--the very inception--before there was a king, even before there were judges, there has never been a time in Israel's history when Israel gave away its land trying to buy peace. Not only did they not get peace, that land they gave away was used as a staging area from which to attack it. Southern Lebanon and Gaza Strip are just more modern examples.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand until I went to Israel for the first time why in the world Israel would be willing to give away more land. But when you are there, you see it among the people. They were tired of suicide bombers, and they were tired of rockets. Look, if you will just leave us alone, we will give you land. But hopefully Israel has learned a lesson that even though you are tired of the rockets, you are as tired of the destruction from Hamas and from radical Islamists as you were from the PLO, you can't buy peace by giving away your country, not part of it, not all of it.

As long as you exist, they will want to kill you, eradicate you, and wipe you out. They have said they will create a worse holocaust than World War II, and I think they are quite serious.

What this administration ought to do for the good of mankind is to recognize that in Hamas are some of the most heinous war crimes in current days because Hamas is willing to take schoolchildren, the sick, the afflicted, and families and put weapons in their homes, their schools, and their hospitals, hiding them under, hiding them in, and then when Israel defends itself by taking out the weapons, they get to claim: Oh, gee, look. You killed innocent civilians. Shame on you.

The Hamas leaders ought to be tried for war crimes, convicted and killed.

They ought to be put to death in a war crimes system of justice for using children and innocent people as shields. And this administration ought to be leading the cry against Hamas' exposure of its children and its people. But unfortunately, because some of the

American money we have spent is capable of being used to fund schoolbooks that teach the children to hate Israelis and hate Americans, hate Jews, hate Christians, you actually have families that say sure, you want to hide your weapons in here, gee, if we are taken out by the Israelis, then we are martyred and we will be heroes. What kind of sick thinking have we contributed to in the region?

It is time to cut off every dime that America is giving to the Palestinians, to Hamas, anybody working with Hamas, anybody having any relationship with Hamas. It is time to take President Bush's words that you are either with us or you are against us. If you are doing business with Hamas, if you are helping Hamas, if you are friendly with Hamas, then you are our enemy, and then we ought to enforce that.

Israel is standing in defense not only of itself but of the United States of America because the radical Islamists represented in Hamas don't just want an end to Israel. Anyone who wants the destruction and end of Israel wants the destruction and the end of the United States of America, and it is time that somebody in this administration recognized that. I think there are military leaders that recognize that, and some day they are going to grow a pair and tell the President of the United States that he is helping the wrong side, and God bless him when they do.

We even have Jewish self-loathers in this country and in the media-- which there have always been--who want to beat up and vilify Israel when the country just wants to defend itself. But we know this has happened as long as there have been the Jewish people. I mean, going back to World War II, there were actually Jews who went and identified where other Jews lived for the Germans. So is it any surprise that you would have some Jewish people, self-loathing Jews, who would ridicule Israel when it is just trying to defend itself?

Here is another article, ``World suspension of Israel flights a `great victory': Hamas'':

The success of Hamas in closing Israeli airspace is a great

victory for the resistance, and is the crown of Israel's

failure.

That is Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri. Well, he should give credit to this administration. This administration is the one who gave it to him.

And then here is an article from Reuters. Netanyahu asks Kerry to help resume flights to Israel. Well, good luck with that. As long as they think they are hurting Israel, they will probably keep it.

Sure, the President has already got his Nobel Peace Prize, he got that before he really got started. But Secretary Kerry doesn't have his yet, and the only chance he will have of bringing any peace to the Middle East from his perspective is if you put pressure on the only reasonable group over there, and that is the Israelis, because they are the only ones that recognize that human life is valuable and we ought to try to save as much as we can. They have shown great restraint in the Gaza Strip. They shouldn't have to. We should clean it up for them.

Another article by Andrew McCarthy, ``Palestinians Chose Hamas and the Mass Murder of Civilians, Including Their Own.'' He posted this July 22:

Today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of

Palestinian woe after Hamas's familiar barbarism has provoked

an Israeli military response. It thus bears remembering that

the Palestinian people chose Hamas. Whatever happened to all

of those Democracy Project paeans to self-determination?

Hamas is Palestinian self-determination. Hamas was not forced

on Palestinians. Hamas did not militarily conquer Gaza. No,

Hamas swept parliamentary elections freely held in the

Palestinian territories in 2006--thrashing its rival, Fatah,

which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of

Israel.

Anyway, Andrew McCarthy quotes from The Wall Street Journal:

The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a

terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel as

their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas

began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more

powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation. What

did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have

understood on election night that their lives would now be

suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be

miserably low. Children would be without a future. Staying

alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered

anymore. To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists

and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas

and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending

attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave.

On some basic level you forfeit your right to be called

civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist

organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood

on their hands, and allow them to set up shop in your living

room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to

look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent

civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets.

It also calls your parenting skills into serious question.

In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her

child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows

closed, a social worker takes the children away from the

demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their

children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an

interview on MSNBC, where they can call Israel a genocidal

murderer.

He says it is just a warmup for Jew hatred that pervades the Charter's Article 7, and then he quotes:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the

confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the

setting out of Martyr Izz-a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in

the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it

further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and

the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948

war, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in

1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become

distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by

those who revolved in the Zionist orbit, aiming at

obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered

the pursuance of Jihad impossible, nevertheless, the Hamas

has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise,

whatever time it takes. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon

him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight

the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks

and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding

behind me, come on and kill him. This will not apply to the

Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.

Anyway, Andrew McCarthy said:

This is what Palestinians voted for. The highlighted

section of Article 7 comes straight from Islamic scripture,

from the authoritative Bukhari and Muslim collections of

hadith (the sayings and doings of the prophet Mohammed). It

foretells an eternal struggle until the end of time, when,

with Allah's intercession, the rocks and trees will help

Muslims battalions find and kill every remaining Jew.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous time. Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks the help of his former ally, the United States, not the stabbing in the back by the ally, the United States. I have asked my office to try to set up an appointment with Prime Minister Netanyahu if he would see me this weekend. I know the Sabbath is coming up, but I would find a commercial way to fly in there because I believe in the Israeli people and their ability to keep me safe despite the efforts of the United States in consoling their enemy.

Just as my friend Dana Rohrabacher came to me several years ago and said, look, the U.S. State Department is saying we cannot go into northern Iraq, the Kurdish area, for more than just maybe a meal because if we do, they won't protect us. They say it is too dangerous. Well, it was the safest area in Iraq, and the Kurdish people were begging for our help. Well, we went in. We were protected 3 days, and I know and I would put my life in the hands of the Israelis. I trust them and I wish the rest of the United States would trust them despite this administration.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 24, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, in Israel right now, there is a battle for peace. They are being embattled by a group who teach their children, in the educational materials we help pay for, to hate Jews, to hate Israelis. They teach the people to hate Israelis as well. They name streets and holidays after people who kill innocent people.

It is time to cut off every dime of American money going to anyone who has any kind of relationship with Hamas or those killing in the Middle East, and especially in Israel.

It is time to bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is time for the United States, if we are not going to stop Iran's nukes, then let Israel do it. A friend will not put another friend in this kind of jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from South Carolina. He understands what is at stake here. I would like to ask him a question if he has got time to answer one question, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask my friend from South Carolina what it would mean to the people of South Carolina if we could get back to $2 a gallon gasoline or less.

It is.

I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I do appreciate the hour spent on talking about energy, because if you hit a big rock in the right way, you just might get oil or gas out of it, and it would bring the price down in no time.

I do wish to talk about our southern border, but I was inspired by my friend, Mr. Duncan, and it brought back a history lesson from east Texas where I live.

In 1930, a man named Dad Joiner--``Dad'' was not his given name. His parents didn't give it to him. But, anyway, that is what he went by, Dad Joiner. He just knew there had to be oil in east Texas. He tried and he tried and he tried. He ran out of money. He had no more money, and he had the men. He could drill one more well. He thought he knew geology. He thought he had figured out there had to be an east Texas oilfield, and since he knew he could only drill one more time, Dad Joiner set his sights on the one place there had to be oil because he knew if he didn't strike it there--he was broke--he probably would never have another chance to do anything and be broke rest of his life.

This big old rig was on wooden skids, and they were dragging it toward the spot where he knew there had to be oil. The people in my district there in east Texas, they are praying people. They were praying people back in the 1920s and the 1930s. The Depression had just begun, and here you had Dad Joiner just sure there had to be oil.

Well, one of the skids broke. He didn't have money to fix it. He knew he couldn't get to the perfect spot there had to be oil for his last attempt, so he didn't have any choice. He had to drill where the rig broke, where the skid broke, broke down, so he drilled there and he struck oil. He found the East Texas Oil Field that, until North Dakota and west Texas got so productive, for a while during World War I, it was the largest known oilfield in the world, and then the second largest for a long time after that. But it turned out if he had gotten to that spot he thought there was sure oil, he would have missed it, would have missed the big East Texas Oil Field. It would have been American tanks and vehicles running out of gasoline in Europe during the Battle of the Bulge instead of German. But we had gasoline, and we had the oil we needed because east Texas was producing.

But if that skid hadn't broken where it did, none of that would have happened. And so as it turned out, all through the 1930s, when people were looking for jobs, many people were told, well, they found oil down in east Texas. There have got to be jobs there.

People flooded down to east Texas, and they got jobs. They didn't go to the government. They didn't look for government to dictate what to do in their

lives. Many people went to east Texas, and they found jobs.

The sad thing is there are areas all over the country that could be doing the same thing, including New York upstate where they have got some of the same gas formations in Pennsylvania where things are going much better than their areas of New York, because New York doesn't allow that drilling and, therefore, they have condemned people to suffer a desperate economy instead of allowing it to thrive and flourish.

In the meantime, you look across our border at our neighbor Mexico. Mexico has tremendous natural resources. We import a good bit of their oil. Canada has oil. We import oil from there--not as much as we would if the XL pipeline had been constructed giving more people jobs, giving more in the world a chance to have North American oil, but the President stands in the way for political gain, it would appear, because what else is there? What else is he gaining from keeping people from having jobs and cheaper oil and gas?

But in Mexico, we also know they have got hardworking people. We know because I am told constantly, if you want somebody that is really willing to work hard, long hours, do whatever it takes to finish the job, then you do well to hire a Hispanic. Generally speaking, some people say, oh, you are a Hispanophobe or whatever they say. I look at the Hispanic culture, generally one that loves God, is devoted to family, and has a hard work ethic. That is what America used to be. That is what America used to be. It is what I would love to see America doing again, back loving family and not saying that fathers are unneeded, unnecessary, and unwanted, not saying that the village is a better family than the foundational family of father, mother, and children that nature designed--and some of us believe nature is God.

But there are, in Mexico, incredible natural resources. So why is Mexico not one of the top economies in the world? Or at least it could be top 10, if not top 5, because they have got hardworking people and they have natural resources. Well, the answer is pretty clear. It is because the law is not enforced fairly across the board. There is graft and corruption. Capital, as it is said--that is money that is being invested--capital is a coward. It goes to where it feels safest.

There is money being invested in Mexico, but because of the drug cartels, because of graft and corruption, and because of the way people are seeing mistreatment even of police, capital is not flowing like it should to Mexico. The jobs are not in Mexico as they should be.

Mexico ought to be one of those shining lights on a hill where people are struggling all over the world wanting to get in. Of course, if you try to get into Mexico illegally, unless, of course, you are coming to the United States, you certainly don't get treated very well. If you try to buy land in your own name as a foreigner in Mexico, you are not going to be treated very well. You have got to have someone from Mexico buying with you. There are a lot of things in Mexican law that, if we placed it in American law, many Mexicans would be just insanely furious because we dared to put in our laws what Mexico has in its laws.

So, Mr. Speaker, I pose the question: Who is the better governmental neighbor? A government that forces lawful gun dealers to sell 2,000 or so guns--weapons--to people that they know will have them in criminal hands in no time in Mexico? Who is the better neighbor? One that is a government neighbor who throws a little money here and there but never really comes in and helps deal with the drug cartels that are a threat to its own existence as well as Mexico's?

Mr. Speaker, I heard Bill O'Reilly just before I came over here tonight debating with an individual who was saying that we should let everyone in that wants to come, basically. As Bill O'Reilly properly pointed out, there are children all over the world--South America, Africa, Asia, islands all over the world--who are in poor conditions, even squalor, and would love to come to this country.

We had a rally just out here on the west side last week by hundreds of North Koreans. They didn't come over here and say: We demand that you allow us to come into your country illegally because we have it so bad in North Korea. No. What they were saying is that America can bring great pressure to bear on an evil government in a place like North Korea. They are begging that, since there is not room in the United States for every child living in difficult circumstances to flood into America, they are asking an appropriate thing: put pressure on North Korea's Government so that we can help them make a more free North Korea. Help them by putting pressure.

But if you look at the record of this administration around the world, what has happened? It broke my heart to see, in the last few days, Mosul there in Iraq, where so many Americans gave their lives fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, fighting for freedom in that area, now the last known Christian in Mosul after nearly 2,000 years, going back nearly to the time of Jesus Himself, has had to leave.

The country that we, Americans, freed at the price of great treasure and American lives and limbs because of the poor foreign policy handling, the bungling of this administration, the failure to reach a status of forces agreement which was basically teed up and handed to it by the last administration, was fumbled, and now, as a result of this administration's ineptness, Christians around the world are being persecuted in greater numbers than ever before.

It was once thought that it may be the U.S. legacy. Mr. Speaker, just down the hall, you have seen it many times, the massive mural, the painting of the famous prayer meeting that the Pilgrims had in Holland before they went to England, and then from England came to America. You see the word ``Speedwell'' on the ship where the prayer meeting is being held, an open Bible where you can see the page is open to the New Testament of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You can read that on the page. It is exactly as that particular type of Bible read, the same print, and they were having this prayer meeting, asking for God's guidance and God's deliverance. They went to England. The Speedwell began taking on water, and so it didn't get to make the trip to America. It was a much smaller ship, the Mayflower, that ended up bringing Pilgrims to America.

But even back then they were praying that this country to which the Pilgrims were coming would be a country where Christians would have the freedom to worship without persecution, and that Christians in this new country to which the Pilgrims were coming would be able to spread freedom, the freedom that our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence says, the Divine Providence, as it says, that blessing that was given to us by God as an opportunity to spread freedom and with freedom the chance to freely acknowledge God or reject him, not at the point of a sword, not at the end of a gun, but either freely accept or reject the promises of Jesus, because in true Christianity, it reflects the freedom that God has given each one of us. It can't be forced on anyone. It is a free choice. But with free choice comes great responsibility, and that is why in George Washington's resignation that he sent to the 13 governors, the last part has a prayer, and the prayer ends with the words from Washington that he hopes that we will follow the example of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without a humble imitation of in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. He signs it ``the humble servant.'' What an extraordinary man.

This country has been so richly blessed that a good neighbor would make sure that in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, all through Central America, South America, we would help any nation to help themselves, that we would help them to have that freedom. That is what America used to be about, although there are some who would say America has always been about being divisive, derisive, dismissive. Look, America has been an exceptional country because of the freedom that people recognize came from the Divine Author of our blessed religion, that came from our Creator, that came from Divine Providence, which is why our Constitution itself was dated in the year of our Lord 1787.

This country is at a crossroads, and it is not a pretty one. Yes, I have spent

a lot of time on our southern border in the last couple of months. I have seen these beautiful children that break your heart, and I wonder why this administration will not help us by helping our neighbor rather than just throwing our borders open. And then this administration has the nerve to say, well, you know, the numbers are down in recent weeks.

Well, gee, do you think, Mr. Speaker, it might be because Texans have realized they are going to have to pick up the slack that this administration refuses to do? Our Border Patrol is overwhelmed in some ways. And yet we read an article here from Ryan Lovelace that says--and it is dated July 21, National Review Online--that:

President Obama is encouraging Immigration and Customs

Enforcement officers to slack off on the job, former border

cops tell National Review Online. Some ICE officials think

the Obama administration has intentionally neglected to give

them orders to support efforts to resolve the crisis on

America's southwestern border, says Ronald Colburn, former

national deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. As a result,

the wave of unaccompanied children from Central America is

unfolding while ICE officials cool their heels.

``They are sitting still at their desks--reading

newspapers, playing video games on their government

computers--because they are not being tasked with work, and

they feel like it is coming all of the way down from the

top,'' Colburn tells NRO. ``These are guys that do want to go

out more, but basically they are not.

Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, down on the border, they needed help. They still need help. The Border Patrol a few weeks ago, driving on those dirt roads, as I was honored to take Glenn Beck down in the dark with some of his staff, people from Mercury One, as I told his staff: Unless you let me take him in the dark down these roads, you never really understand what is going on.

One night some of us for an hour and a half we didn't run into Border Patrol, and we finally found out why. The drug cartels were told, the drug lords control different parts of the borders, and you don't cross without making sure that they get paid, or they will seek you out in America. So you make sure that you do things in accordance with what you are told, and that means making sure that the drug cartels get their money. And it means, as a border patrolman told me this past weekend--as a Hispanic, he speaks good Spanish--he is constantly being told: Well, we left Central America to get away from gangs.

And as he said: I tell them, You may tell that to some people and have them buy it, but you and I know that is not true. You and I know that it was the gangs that brought you up here. The gangs got paid to bring you to the United States, so don't tell me that you fled Central America to get away from gangs when the gangs brought you here. He said 90 percent of the time the people acknowledge that is true, but say we were told to say when we got here that we were fleeing gang violence.

Well, not everybody in this government is ignorant of what is happening. The fact is there was not a spike in violence before the huge spike of people coming to America, to the United States. There was not a huge spike in violence in Central America, but they came because the President began promising, you get to stay if you come. The government should leave charity to the people. And in this country, the people are the most charitable of any nation in the history of the world. The government doesn't do charity very well. Look at what is happening in our Veterans Administration hospitals. That is not charity. That is medical assistance that was earned. It is not even charity. This is what was promised to our military. We will provide you good medical help if you need it, if you serve in this manner. And this government can't even keep our promises to those who have earned good medical care.

So how much worse do you think it gets if we are trying to keep promises that were not even actually made, just one administration thinking they can turn Texas blue and the country blue if they bring enough people in here, promise them that they are the party that likes to give away things, and as a result get them voting their direction until they realize that is the kind of philosophy that wrecks a country.

It is time Americans woke up. There is so much suffering in this world in Central America and South America, and a good neighbor would help them stop the violence where it is, help stop the violence in Nigeria, radical Islam, help stop the violence of radical Islam around the world. This President was perfectly willing to blow up al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in Yemen. How was he an American citizen? Well, his parents came over on a visa and had him while he was here. That made him an American citizen. They took him back home, taught him to hate America, and even though both the Bush and Obama administration tried to work with him, he was still radicalizing people, so they blew him up. Wouldn't it be just as well to blow up people who have sworn they are going to destroy America? Wouldn't it be just as well to blow up the nuclear technology being developed in Iran by people who have promised in effect it will be the new gas chambers; instead of at Auschwitz they will be in Iran, and they will be delivered to a theater near you.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Americans to wake up. We must secure our borders. I never said I want them closed. They should be secure so people come legally.

And all this stuff that we have to fix the Wilberforce bill or we can't secure our borders is baloney. This administration can secure our border without any change in the Wilberforce bill. They have to provide additional hearings, but they can do that. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to finish tonight by directing your attention to an estimate from a group I am not always pleased with, but this administration generally is very pleased with them, and that is the Congressional Budget Office. I don't put a lot of stock in their estimates. And especially their estimates of what things are going to cost over time, but when they tell you how much a bill allocates to be spent this year, that is something you can trust. And so with all the talk about how important it is, we have got to have the House and the Senate pass our bill, it is an emergency, we have got to get this bill passed, oh, Mr. Speaker, you have to do this to help fix our problem at our border.

Well, you know why that is all lies? It is right here in the CBO study, the estimate. It tells you exactly what this administration is saying it needs to spend between now and September 30, the end of the fiscal year. It says the budget allocation that is already done, it has already been appropriated, was $1.83 billion, but what it wants additionally to be spent this year by the end of this fiscal year is not the 3.7, is not the $4.3 billion that it is asking for, this incredible emergency this administration is saying it has to have to get this big bill that will save our border, it is asking for $25 million, with an m, for this year. That is it. And it doesn't go to the border--it goes to Health and Human Services.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all of this is a ruse. They don't need this bill and the $25 million for Health and Human Services. They don't need all of the money that they are asking for in 2015, 2016, 2017 to go to groups that no doubt will be the new ACORNs of the future. They say we don't need anything other than $25 million, and we are not giving a dime of it to Homeland Security. They have all they need.

Mr. Speaker, this is a ruse. This administration can secure the border without this ridiculous claim for money. And if the administration needs help, we will get it. But in the meantime, they need to secure the border.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my dear friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

I know we have a good friend here on the other side of the aisle who was recently quoted as saying something along the lines that Mr. King and I have never met an immigrant that we didn't think was a criminal, something of that sort, and I like the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. I think he is a good guy. I think he has a big heart. But the truth is escaping him on such grandiose claims. He doesn't know my heart. I know he is a good guy. He has a big heart. But he doesn't understand the role of government.

When I looked at one of the most beautiful little girls I had ever seen. It was a Saturday night in the wee hours. She had been drug clear across Mexico. She was asked about home. Well, were you anxious to leave home? She starts crying. She didn't want to leave home, she said. She misses her family. But some adult decided that because the administration's policies are luring people here with the promise that they will most likely be able to stay, then people are coming and the children are not afraid of violence in their home country. Some adults may be. But they are adults making decisions to subject a beautiful child like that and so many of the others that our border patrolmen are processing, our border patrolmen and -women are processing out there, especially in the McAllen sector, which is a rough area.

It was interesting seeing my first tarantula in the wild. I have seen plenty of rattlesnakes before in that area of Texas, but I haven't seen any in the last month that I have been down there. I know they are there. The border patrolmen tell me they are there. But I had never seen a tarantula in the wild like that. It was interesting.

But parents are choosing to send their children, bring their children, in some cases put their children in the hands of drug cartel human traffickers hoping that the tremendous money they pay will get them to the United States rather than make them sex slaves. Some make it, some don't. Some die on the way. Some are raped. Some are abused. And it is all because there is what, under the civil law, might be called an attractive nuisance.

We learned in law school that if you have a swimming pool and you have no fence and a child comes over and drowns in your pool because you didn't have a fence, then you would be liable for civil damages for having an attractive nuisance that lured a child to his or her death. Well, this administration has created an attractive nuisance under civil law.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know the United States is not a nuisance. It has been a force for good because it has applied the laws of the Judeo- Christian heritage. That is why George Washington, in the resignation he sent to the 13 Governors, as the first and only general commander to have led the military in revolution, won the revolution, and then resigned and went home, asking nothing further.

But at the end of his resignation that he sent out to the Governors, he had a prayer for the Nation, praying that he hoped we would never forget those who have served in the field. And I am grateful that both sides of the aisle repeatedly are grateful to our military for their service.

I have, in past years, heard someone say, you know, no liberal ever spit at anybody in uniform. Well, they just don't know; because I served 4 years in the Army after Vietnam, and it was not a good time to be in the Army as far as accolades for your service. I have been spit at.

And when I went through basic at Fort Riley, Kansas, there was a standing order from our commander going through training that we were not to ever wear our uniform off post because--though Kansas is one of the greatest States there is, with wonderful people--there were people who didn't like the military. And if they found you as one or two together, then you would likely get beat up.

They had had instances, and we were ordered--that is what we were told--we were ordered not to ever wear uniforms off post or in basic. Every now and then, even at Fort Benning, Georgia, there would be indications, orders, don't be wearing your uniform off post this weekend. So it was not a good time. And I thank God that people have realized the importance and value of our United States military men and women who take an oath and are willing to lay down their lives for their friends and for their fellow Americans.

But government has a different position from individuals. And that is why some Christians get confused and say, well, I am a Christian. I am supposed to turn the other cheek. I am supposed to love my fellow man. I am supposed to reach out and help sojourners. All of that is true. The beatitudes that Jesus gave are the kinds of things we need to be doing for anyone who is a Christian, and I would humbly submit for anybody who is an atheist, Buddhist. Buddhists practice many of the beatitudes and are very noble in doing so. But for a government, it is different.

The government's role, even when it is composed of Christians, is to make sure that the law is enforced fairly and impartially. Romans talks about the government being an agent for good, for encouraging good, but if you do evil, be afraid because the government is not given the sword in vain. If you do evil, the government is not supposed to turn the other cheek. It is supposed to apply the law fairly across the board.

So when an adult child of one of the wealthier families in all of east Texas who was before my court--and my predecessor had repeatedly given her probation--I couldn't give her probation because I knew I would not do that to anyone else in her situation. So I sent her to prison because I had to be fair and impartial despite knowing the parents, the family, and knowing that that family brought most of my contributors, the biggest contributors I

had, into my courtroom the day of sentencing.

Well, it would be nice to do special favors for friends, and I realized that day there may be nobody in this courtroom that ever supports me for office again, and if that is the way it is, so be it. But I had faith in my friends that they would understand. Some didn't, most did. But it is the job of the government to apply the law fairly across the board, whether it is a very wealthy person, as the girl I sentenced, or whether it is someone of no means whatsoever, the law is supposed to be applied impartially.

In that case, it was some years later, I heard that she had served her time and been released and that she got involved in her father's business, but he had passed away while she was in prison. I knew her parents hated my guts and would probably never speak to me again, but I had heard she got off drugs, cleaned up her act, got involved in the family business after she got out, and was doing well.

When I was walking the neighborhood, I walked by the parents' house. And I thought, well, they may still hate me, but I want to let them know how proud I am of their daughter that has gotten out of prison, has gotten drugs under control and was clean and sober. I knocked on the door. It took a while for her mom to come to the door. Eventually she did. I didn't realize her sight had gotten so bad. She asked who it was. I said, it is Louie Gohmert, and she immediately opened the door and said, please, please come in and sit down.

We sat down there in the foyer of their beautiful home. She said, I feel a bit guilty. And I said, I don't know why you would feel guilty. She said, because I owed you an apology and a thank you. And I said, you don't owe me anything. I just stopped by to tell--I was hoping your daughter would be here to let her know how proud I am that she was able to overcome her addiction. I know it is a daily fight, but that she is doing so well. I just wanted to encourage. I was hoping you didn't still hate me like I knew you once did. And she said, no, my husband and I were visiting our daughter. In one of our trips to see her in prison, we realized you gave us our daughter back. You saved her life.

I didn't do anything special. I just stood up to those who wanted me to act partially and give special favor to very wealthy friends. I couldn't do that as a judge because I had the role of government. I had to treat people impartially and fairly across the board, and that is what I did.

Someone once raised the issue that perhaps judges--and I know they had gotten it at a seminar--raised the issue that maybe your judge-- since judges, even though they don't select the grand jurors, they select the grand jury foreman, the one that leads the grand jury-- raised the issue, especially in death penalty cases, that judges have been unfair racially and that there would be racial disparity in their appointments.

So I got a subpoena to appear to talk about my appointments. But then the criminal defense lawyer got my grand jury records and found that there was a great racial disparity in my appointments of grand jury foremen, men and women both, that I had appointed, and the great racial disparity was that I had appointed significantly more African Americans to be grand jury foremen, men and women, given the racial components of our district. And so I was notified I was no longer needed and was not wanted to testify.

Well, I didn't pick grand jury foremen because of their skin color. I could have cared less. I looked at all of those people, the 12 that were on the grand jury each time--and I knew so many of them--and I picked people I knew were upright, good, and smart leaders. And each time I selected grand jury foremen, I would ultimately have people come to me that were on the grand jury individually and say, you really made a good choice of your grand jury foreman.

Well, it was because I did so fairly and impartially without any regard for their status in the community. They were good people, they were leaders, and I knew they would do a good job leading the grand jury without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, or gender. It didn't matter. It was who would be the best. That is what government is supposed to be about.

Mr. Speaker, it breaks down a government's effectiveness when the leaders of a government use partiality to make decisions. It may have been humorous, but, as it is often said, humor usually has a little element of truth, but I sarcastically and cynically sent out a tweet yesterday that since basically we knew the President--according to the United States CIS, they said that the President had given amnesty to 553,000 or so people who were here illegally, and that there had recently been another surge, we were told by sources like The New York Times, of another 300,000, and then we hear yesterday that 38 people were being deported. And so my cynical tweet was, in essence, that the Obama administration had dramatically lowered the chances of anyone coming in illegally being able to stay from 100 percent to 99.9955 percent, and that should scare people.

Dana Loesch responded that the administration must have found 38 Republicans, which is rather funny and amusing. But the little element of truth is that this administration has been partial, and they have been unfair.

This administration, through its Internal Revenue Service, has gone after conservatives and Republicans even to the point of demanding to know the contents of their prayers and demanding to know information they had no business knowing. Actually, they were violating the law and committing crimes by turning over information to other entities. That was a violation of the law, and they did so knowingly. Crimes have been committed, and it is important we have a special prosecutor because this Attorney General has made clear his Justice Department is about ``just us.'' It is more a Department of Injustice.

So it is time to make a change.

Through all of this, the story yesterday from The Hill, by Alexander Bolton:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, on

Tuesday asserted the southern border is secure despite the

massive surge of illegal minors from Central America that has

overwhelmed federal agencies. ``The border is secure,'' he

told reporters after the Senate Democrats' weekly policy

lunch. Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat from New Mexico,

talked to the caucus today. He is a border State Senator. He

said he can say without any equivocation the border is

secure.

Well, it is not. And anybody who will be fair and impartial and with the least semblance of objectivity who has eyes to see and ears to hear will go to the border, as I have a number of times now, and find the border is not secure. That is how you have 550,000 people that this President gives amnesty to.

Then this article from NetRight Daily by Robert Romano:

Last September, the National Council of La Raza issued

comments in favor of a Department of Housing and Urban

Development regulation. Under the regulation, in October the

Obama administration will be empowered to condition

eligibility for community development block grants on

redrawing zoning maps to create evenly distributed

neighborhoods based on racial composition and income.

Mr. Speaker, this article is exactly what I am talking about. The Bible warns against, and wise people throughout time have warned against, if you want to have peace in a nation, you must have a leader or a government that is fair and impartial across the board, that you do not look at people's race, you don't look at their income, you do as I had to do to that very rich lady when I sent her to prison. Why? She was white, and she was rich. But I knew anybody else in her circumstance I would have sent to prison, so I sent her. That is why perhaps she was able to turn her life around.

One of the saddest things I ever heard during a sentencing was during her sentencing. They put on quite a dog and pony show, some impressive evidence about the family and the upbringing and she never really had discipline growing up, never had to make up her bed, study for school, and all kinds of things.

At the end of the hearing her lawyer basically said: Is there anything left you want to tell the judge?

She looked up at me with tears in her eyes because she knew what I was going to do because I was going to do what I would do to anybody in her situation with the priors she had, the

chances she had already had, she looked up at me with tears in her eyes and said: I just wish someone had told me no before today and meant it.

It was tragic. Nobody had told her no before today. She was raised so wealthy. She said I was the first one who ever told her no because I was being fair and impartial and treating her like any other defendant.

Well, this government, this administration, wants to look and be unfair and partial and make decisions based on the color of people's skin, rather than on the content of the character, and in fact, this administration is taking us away from the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.

He is the one who said those fantastic words. He had a dream, and part of the dream was that people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

We have made so much progress in America, and the President that went abroad and criticized America for being divisive, he has divided this country more than any President in my lifetime--along gender lines, along racial lines--by playing partial politics.

It looks, from this article, as if it is going to happen again:

In 2012, HUD dispersed about $3.8 billion of these grants

to almost 1,200 municipalities.

According to La Raza's comment in favor of the regulation,

Hispanic families often do not know their housing rights and

have cited fear of deportation as reason for not reporting

rights violations.

This is telling. By La Raza's own analysis, then, HUD

implementation of the racial rezoning rule will benefit those

who have cited fear of deportation--that is, low-skilled,

low-income illegal immigrants, either those who are outright

illegal the moment they set foot in the United States or who

have simply overstayed their visas. After all, who else would

fear deportation?

Therefore, one of the sure effects of HUD's regime will be

to flood unwilling communities with a significant percentage

of illegal immigrants.

While the current relocation of thousands, including

children, from detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border

has garnered national headlines and the ire of elected

Republicans, including Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of

Illinois, and Governor Dave Heineman, Republican of Nebraska,

the HUD regulation has largely flown under the radar.

But it is every bit as important. It is not enough to

arbitrarily implement amnesty, whether through refusal to

enforce existing law or congressional action. The Federal

Government wants to draw the maps of where the new residents

will live, forcing local communities to make room whether

they like it or not.

It is no secret that Republicans, with their low tax

message, tend to do better among the middle and upper middle

classes, while Democrats with their social welfare regime

tend to do better among the poor. The political effect of the

HUD rule will invariably be to gerrymander Republican

districts at the local level.

Take a Republican State like Texas as a prime example of

how this might work. Houston, currently controlled by

Democrats, has accepted $38.5 million of these community

development block grants. Harris County has accepted another

$10.3 million. Dallas, another Democratic stronghold, has

accepted $16.6 million, and Dallas County took $2.1 million.

Austin, too controlled by Democrats, took $7.5 million of the

grants.

Republicans at the State level cannot block these grants

going to these municipalities, and now, thanks to the HUD

rule, by virtue of accepting these grants, bureaucrats in

Washington, D.C., will get to redraw zoning maps along racial

and income boundaries to include more affordable ``units and

combat discrimination.''

It has all the hallmarks of a master plan. Too

conspiratorial? It does not take a cynic to see who the

winners and losers will be in implement the racial housing

quotas.

In the case of La Raza and illegal immigration amnesty

proponents, the likely beneficiaries of the HUD rezoning rule

will be Democrat parties across the country. Both U.S. and

immigrant-born Hispanics favor Democrats by nearly 2 to 1,

according to Gallup.

What emerges is a plan to resettle as many as 20 million

illegal immigrants in specific communities as a pretext to

tilt the political scales on the national and local political

scenes to favor Democrats.

Fortunately, the House of Representatives has already

acted, passing an amendment to the Transportation and HUD

Appropriations bill by Representative Paul Gosar, Republican

of Arizona, in a close 219 to 207 vote to defund

implementation of the regulation.

Anyway, I keep coming back to true peace in a country can come from a government that treats everyone impartially, and the great genius of America has been free enterprise, the ability of somebody like Darrell Issa that is a captain in the United States Army, who comes up with a brilliant idea of a door lock that would go up and down automatically, which idea was apparently stolen, as I recall, and then he figures, well, I can spend 20 years in litigation or so, or if I can come up with something smart then--I can come up with something else smart, and he comes up with the idea of the automatic car alarm, and my friend Darrell has done quite well with that.

This is America. It is the genius of American free enterprise. Let people profit when they have good ideas, when they work hard and do well. America is a stronger place to be.

But the results of failing to enforce the law fairly and impartially as it is written, also brought about this headline today from Breitbart, ``Released Alien from Border Crisis Arrested for Alleged Murder, Kidnapping in Texas.''

An illegal immigrant who was released by U.S. authorities

with a notice to appear has been arrested for the alleged

murder of a woman and kidnapping of children on U.S. soil.

The alleged crimes occurred after the man was released.

It goes on in the article and talks about the AP actually reported this, but they neglected to say the man was an illegal alien. It is time for the AP, for the media, for this administration, to start following and enforcing the law, and this country will be a better place in which to live.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate that recognition.

First of all, I would like to direct attention to the Middle East, to our dear friend and ally, Israel, and the fact that I pointed out to Prime Minister Netanyahu twice, a few years apart, that going back to the very inception of Israel as a nation more than 3,000 years ago, there has never been a time when Israel gave away land trying to buy peace, that that land was not ultimately used as a staging area from which to attack it.

It has been true all those years, the original founding of Israel, the promised land, going through the division of Israel into two kingdoms, northern and southern, and then the rejuvenation really of that nation in the late 1940s.

No matter which President, no matter which party the President was from, no matter which Secretary of State was pushing to get a Nobel Peace Prize by trying to bring people together, anyone that pushed and forced Israel to give away land ended up bringing about attacks on Israel because they gave away land that should have been Israel's.

Southern Lebanon has been the source of so many attacks and kidnappings, intrusions into Israel. The Gaza Strip had so many Israeli families living peacefully, greenhouses, methods of taking care of themselves.

In an act--a unilateral act by Israel to attempt to secure a bit of peace, Israel gave away the Gaza Strip, now governed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that the United States through this administration is funding because we are funding the Palestinians and they have the relationship now with Hamas.

So we are taking American tax dollars from many people in the United States who do not believe it is a good idea to curse Israel and to supply money to its enemy, so Israel can be attacked, and yet, that money is being taken and given to them.

They can say because money is fungible, where we are not actually using the money you give us to attack Israel, and they can also claim they are not actually using the money that we give them to teach hatred in textbooks and all kinds of ways actually, including the naming of holidays after barbarians who have committed attacks on innocent people and killed innocent people. They name holidays after them. They name streets after them.

Here in the United States, we tend to name holidays or streets after people like Martin Luther King, Jr., who subscribed to peaceful means of protest, who would never encourage killing or attacks to achieve what Hamas and the PLO have utilized.

It is time to cut off the money. Until they quit teaching hatred, they quit utilizing funds to attack Israel, you cut off their funds. You cut off the teaching of hatred, and you have got a shot at some semblance of peace in the Middle East.

In the meantime, Israel is being attacked--every day, the rockets flying, hoping--the Palestinians hoping that maybe they will kill some innocent Israeli people.

Wouldn't that be great, they are thinking, if we could just kill maybe some children, maybe blow off some legs and arms? What a great accomplishment Hamas and the PLO can be thrilled about.

Of course, Hamas took over from the PLO in governing, but the area is no more peaceable, and it is time to cut off all American funding to any area that subscribes to the shooting of rockets to kill innocent people, as is going on in the Middle East, enemies of Israel attempting to kill innocent Israelis.

There was an attempt by Israel to enter into an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with Hamas, but according to The Jerusalem Post story, by Yaakov Lappin, that collapsed Tuesday when Gazan terrorists continued to fire rocket barrages on the south, center, and north of Israel.

A fragment from a mortar shell killed an Israeli man, Dor Chanin, 37. Chanin had come as a civilian volunteer to distribute food to soldiers at Erez.

It is time to quit aiding and abetting the attacks on our friend Israel. It is time to start helping them.

And when it comes to the disastrous effort to negotiate with terrorist leaders in Iran--they are developing nuclear weapons. They are developing the ability to develop nuclear weapons because they have their centrifuges spinning. And I think those who say they want enough nuclear material to produce several nuclear weapons at the same time, they are not going to just do one. They are going to wait until they have enough to do several so that they can spread out, be difficult to track and be difficult to stop before they utilize them to destroy Israel, as the Little Satan, as they see it, and the United States, as the Great Satan.

It has been described in one of Joel Rosenberg's novels far too accurately: Even though Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads to the United States--``the Great Satan'' they call us--they really don't even need those. They could put them on a cargo ship, a yacht, whatever, and bring them over--have one in New York, have one in Chicago, have one up the Potomac. And they could pretty well devastate American economic powerhouse cities. If they put one in New Orleans, the Houston ship channel, there goes most of our refined gasoline.

It is time for America to wake up. This administration is not adequately protecting us, and that is why our Attorney General has now finally admitted this month, in an ABC interview, that, in effect, he is extremely concerned and in fear more now of a terrorist attack than he has been at most any time in his time as Attorney General. And this is a guy that knows terrorism. I mean, he has helped terrorists in his role prior to working for this administration. He is quite familiar with

what they are capable of doing. So for him to say that, people ought to take notice.

Of course we have our Secretary of State, John Kerry, in an article of July 15 from The Weekly Standard by Jeryl Bier. The headline, ``Kerry: I Get `A Little Uptight When I Hear Politicians Say How Exceptional We Are.'''

Heaven forbid that we should realize the capability of America and that there is no other nation in the history of the world that has fought, has lost lives of our military, has spent tremendous amounts of our treasure not to create an empire, but simply to bring liberty and freedom to people we don't even share languages with, we don't share religions so much with. Nations haven't done that. America is an exceptional nation, and we are losing that exceptional status.

So perhaps I will make our Secretary of State feel much better and be much prouder as I say that under this administration--as has been pointed out to me by Africans in Nigeria, by Africans in Togo--the United States has gotten much weaker in world opinion under this President. So that should make our Secretary of State feel very, very pleased because a Member of Congress is not claiming to be exceptional. We are. But really, I am claiming that Nigerians and others who were so pleased, as they told me, that you elected your first Black President have now grown scared as they have watched America, under this President, get weaker and weaker and become far less exceptional in the eyes of the world as we once were.

One of the problems has been that this country has been under assault, has been under an invasion through our southern border. As border patrolmen will attest, the Tucson sector of our 2,000-or-so-mile border on the south had traditionally been where there were more people coming into this country illegally.

We have an area in Arizona where there is a national park on the American side, where the sign has been seen--and I have had a picture of it here on the floor--during the Obama Presidency that simply directs American citizens, warns them not to use this area because there are criminals and drug activity in the national park. So American citizens are encouraged to use an area north of the interstate because this administration has just pretty well relegated that area to criminals from outside of this country. That would mean that is a failure to adequately provide for our common defense, and it might be support for Andrew McCarthy's book title, ``Faithless Execution.''

Now, I feel like the appropriate thing to do is to pass the resolution that I filed a year ago here in this House that goes through explaining how the President has failed to secure our country, has failed to secure our borders. We don't want our borders closed. I certainly don't. Immigration is a wonderful thing. There is no country in the world where they have five times our population, or less--no country allows 1 million people or more to come into their country legally. We do.

We love immigration. It is a great thing. ``E pluribus unum,'' the Latin phrase meaning, out of many, one, has been a part of the Great Seal since the 1770s. It is on the ribbon that runs through the beak in the eagle's mouth on one side of the Great Seal.

I was taught, growing up, that our melting pot is one of the many things that has made us so great. People come here, assimilate, speak the same language, love the same country, and become Americans.

Well, we have seen hyphenated Americans become the order of the day in recent years. And I so look forward to the day, if it ever arrives-- and I hope and pray it does--when, once again, we are Americans.

I know on 9/12/2001, as I looked around our courthouse square, the hundreds of people there--all races, both genders, lots of national origins--but that day, we were all Americans. There were no hyphenated Americans, not on 9/12. Through the tragedy and the hate and the death and the sorrow of 9/11/2001, on 9/12, we saw our Nation shine, a compassionate nation, a caring nation, but also a nation committed that we would not be struck again.

And now--I mean right now--our Attorney General, under this administration, refused to prosecute what a Federal district court said were the named coconspirators of those convicted of supporting terrorism, which was echoed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. These were front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood. There was plenty of evidence to support that they were coconspirators with the convicted defendants in supporting terrorism, and this administration, this Attorney General, refused to prosecute them.

Under this administration, they even got a heads-up from Russia, you have a Muslim coming back in named Tsarnaev who has been to a terrorist area. He has been radicalized. And Russia warned not once, but twice. And this administration that has removed information about radical Islam from its training materials for the different departments--and I have reviewed some of it that they have removed.

We were told that most of it that they removed from the FBI training materials. Well, people who have not been allowed to fully see and be trained on what radical Islam is were sent out to the mosque where Tsarnaev went regularly, not to ask questions about has Tsarnaev talked about Qutb that wrote ``Milestones'' that Osama bin Laden credits with having brought him along the road to terrorism, to violence. They didn't know the questions to ask. So the only reason we had the FBI sent out under this administration was for the outreach program.

They were so ignorant that while the outreach program was going on, what was really happening and what had happened at that mosque and who had been radicalized and who had not, that the Director of the FBI did not even know that the founder of the two Muslim mosques there in the Boston area were founded by a man named al-Amoudi, who had helped the Clinton administration and then helped the Bush administration until he was found to be supporting terrorist activity. He was arrested just right out here at Dulles International Airport, and he is now doing over 20 years in Federal prison for supporting terrorism. He was the founder of the Islamic Society of Boston, which founded those mosques.

The FBI Director didn't even know. They didn't go out there and talk to anybody about whether or not Tsarnaev had been radicalized. But lo and behold, they said, hey, we talked to Tsarnaev himself, and he didn't admit that he was radicalized. And we talked to his mom, and she didn't admit that he was radicalized. So apparently they thought he was good. And people died and lost limbs in Boston.

Instead, we have seen spying on American citizens to an extent that it is hard to believe we have reached here in America, where you have the NSA getting everybody's phone logs of all calls they make--and this is all reported in public formats, in the public media--where you have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was established to protect us from unscrupulous banks and banking habits and practices. That was done when we had a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. They set it up where that Bureau would never have to be responsible to Congress at all. We could never have oversight. They would get their money from the Federal Reserve so they could run independently. And what have they done? Well, they have been gathering debit and credit card purchase and use information on Americans.

Some of us think that if they really want to protect us from unscrupulous bank practices, they ought to wait until we tell them that we have been treated unfairly and then go after the criminal. That is really what the Constitution Bill of Rights anticipates. You don't go gathering everybody's personal information, except on probable cause. You get a warrant.

But not now. This administration has the CFPB that is gathering information in the name of protecting us. I don't want that kind of protection. I want them to leave us alone and quit drawing and gathering all the personal data on people in America. It is none of your business unless there has been a crime, and then, and only then, your gathering should be based on probable cause.

We have got the ability of the United States Government to use drones, thermal imaging, and all kinds of technology to spy on American citizens

like never before. We have the ability, as this administration has shown, to be concerned about an American citizen in Yemen who was radicalized, who was a terrorist, even though he had met with people in this administration, met with people in the prior administration, and had led prayers here on Capitol Hill of Muslim staff members. Wouldn't it have been interesting if this administration had decided to capture him during one of his numerous trips into the United States instead of blowing him up in Yemen? It might have been interesting to find out what he had to say about the people he worked with in this administration and the prior administration on Capitol Hill.

Well, how, one might wonder, could an American citizen be radicalized to hate Americans so well? If you go look at his life, his parents were not American citizens. They came into the United States on a visa for college. That is when he was born and taken back to Yemen. In Yemen growing up he learned to hate America.

How many people has this happened to? We know the Muslim Brother who was leading Egypt and weaponizing the Sinai, which is still an area of devastation because of all the weapons Morsi made sure were there. Morsi's wife had a daughter here in the United States, an American citizen, and obviously he didn't care a whole lot for America.

So I had a resolution a year ago that just went through all the whereases explaining that there is no need to pass any bill through the House and Senate to secure our border or to do immigration reform until the President actually goes through the effort of securing our borders. He has got the money. Some people have already forgotten that Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano just announced one day that even though Congress had appropriated $4 billion to provide a virtual fence in areas that a fence would be difficult, she just decided that was not practical, too expensive. So she would not do a virtual fence. And so what happened to the $4 billion? What happened to our security? Well, we didn't get secured, and we didn't get the virtual fence. There was clearly some wasted money in that area. But we still have got to get control of our border.

But when you have a President who has not done anything significant to secure our border but has, in fact, pronounced a new law, the initials of which are DACA, he just pronounced a new law that had not been passed by Congress but had simply passed the lips of our President. Here is the new law. Here is what you can do to get amnesty. And he pronounced amnesty in what USCIS has announced has been over 550,000 cases. Our President pronounced an amnesty law into effect that provided amnesty already to over 550,000 people who had come in illegally.

The New York Times and others have said that just in very recent months, we have had an additional 300,000 people come into our country illegally. And, this week, we get the report that 38 people have been deported. Well, if you do the math, that means that those 850,000 who came in illegally who had a 100 percent chance of getting to stay here because of this administration not enforcing our law and not enforcing our border, that 100 percent chance of getting to stay here got dramatically reduced. Because of this administration's wonderful efforts, it has now been reduced from a 100 percent chance of staying here to a 99.9955 percent chance of staying here. And that should certainly scare anyone who had started planning a trip into this country illegally, that their odds of staying here had dropped from 100 percent clear down to a 99.995 percent chance of getting to stay here.

I still come back to the resolution I filed a year ago. Until the President shows he is going to secure the border, we shouldn't pass anything. As our own Speaker has said, we can't trust this President. When the Secretary of Homeland Security can just say, I don't want to spend $4 billion you guys appropriated for a fence, I am going to do something else. Really? Well, I guess you can do that if you are a bit lawless.

But if we are going to be a nation of laws, then laws that have been duly passed by Congress and signed by other Presidents should be enforced, otherwise we become like the countries that people are fleeing.

It was rather emotional Saturday night to be down right near the river where children and adults were being processed--processed meaning they have to ask each one of them numerous questions, normally in Spanish. And there are some articles of clothing they are not allowed to take in to the detention area. And when she was asked, were you glad to leave home, she began to cry. She didn't mention she was so glad to get away from all the violence. She didn't mention that things were so terrible at home she couldn't stand to stay, she looked so forward to coming to America. She cried. She missed her home. She missed her relatives that were there. Break your heart. One of the most beautiful little girls I have ever seen. It is a wonder she didn't get drawn into sex trafficking. She was a gorgeous little girl. And I know beautiful girls. My wife and I have had three.

Border Patrolmen have talked about, and it has been reported, dead children. Their bodies have been found, one washed up. As this administration continues to lure people into America, that has now been admitted by this administration, that the President's own amnesty bill that he pronounced into law has been luring people up here. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson admitted that in an op-ed that he wrote for Spanish-language newspapers. It is time to stop luring young children and adults into the United States into the arms of human traffickers. It is time to stop.

Of course, I mention there is one way that we could stop very quickly the massive invasion that is going on because the ability to stop an invasion like we are seeing now was even anticipated by our Founders, and they put it in the third clause of section 10 of article I of our Constitution. That says:

No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any

duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of

peace, enter into any agreement or compact which another

State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless

actually invaded.

Not by a foreign army, it doesn't say that; not by a military, it doesn't say that; just invaded. And there is a great law review article from a Michigan law journal that discusses this provision. It has not been utilized before. There are no cases that we can find that have utilized this. But perhaps it is time to use it now.

But it says, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The Attorney General himself has said the threat of another terrorist attack is scarier now than it has been. And we know that there is an increased number of what are called SIAs, those who would be special interest aliens that come from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. They are coming in from nations where there are leaders who want to destroy us.

It is worth trying to make sure we don't have terrorists coming through our southern border because we know there are lots of people coming through that don't get caught. Even though, as one of the border patrolmen said here when I was down there: It is interesting--we used to chase them, and now they chase us. Talking about people coming in illegally.

But not all of them chase the Border Patrol. If someone is paid megabucks to be brought into the United States, it can be done, while Border Patrol is spending an hour, hour and a half processing a massive number of groups coming in, 10, 12, 16, 18, 27, and they are having to process all those, and we have such a limited number of border patrolmen, plenty of opportunities to bring in anybody the drug cartels have been paid to bring in with whatever they are bringing.

So we have a resolution. It hasn't been filed yet, but it says:

Whereas this provision in the Constitution, therefore,

recognizes the continued right of individual States to use

force in self-defense if ``actually invaded, or in such

imminent danger as will not admit of delay'';

And whereas an unprecedented, organized, mass invasion of the United States is occurring along our southern border;

Whereas before this invasion Marine Corps General John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM, in testimony before committees in each House of Congress, the House Armed Services Committee in

February, and the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, warned of the security threats to the United States from criminal networks and terrorist organizations penetrating the United States through our southern border and since the invasion he has warned that the situation poses ``an existential threat to the United States'';

This general who has been overseeing our military in our southern area says that the threat to our country is a threat to our very existence. Our continued existence is at risk with what is going on at the southern border. This resolution goes on:

Whereas, credible sources have reported plans for an even

larger invasion;

Whereas, between June of 2012, when the Obama

administration unilaterally implemented the Deferred Action

For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) through March of 2014,

approximately 550,000 illegal aliens received temporary

deferred action, according to USCIS;

Whereas, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh

Johnson admitted that DACA was in fact luring people to cross

the U.S. border, whether they were eligible for the deferred

action or not, in an opinion editorial he wrote for Spanish-

language newspapers;

Whereas, a court order signed on December 13, 2013, by U.S.

District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for

the Southern District of Texas found as factual that ``The

DHS, instead of enforcing our border security laws, actually

assisted the criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal

goals.'' The U.S. Court also found that a private citizen

doing the exact things that DHS is doing ``would, and should,

be prosecuted for this conduct.'' Additionally, the Court

found that ``The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the

United States' borders laws,'' and that the ``DHS is

rewarding criminal conduct,'' and that ``these illegal

activities help fund the illegal drug cartels which are a

very real danger for both citizens of this country and

Mexico'';

Whereas the State of Texas reported it has identified,

between October of 2008 and April of 2014, a total of 177,588

unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county

jails who are responsible for at least 611,234 individual

criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993

homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults;

Think about that, Mr. Speaker: 177,588 criminal aliens booked for crimes in Texas. People are being killed in America and specifically, according to these figures, 2,993 that we know of by criminal aliens in this country. And they have committed at least 7,695 sexual assaults.

You want to talk about a war on women, this administration will not defend the women of America from criminal aliens by the thousands and hundreds of thousands. Well, we know thousands, and we know people are coming in by the hundreds of thousands illegally, and this administration wants to talk about other people having a war on women when they will not defend the women that are being sexually assaulted by illegal aliens in this country. In Texas alone, we know of 7,695 such assaults:

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security, through the

General Services Administration, issued a solicitation in

January, 2014, which proves the falsity of statements by

officials in that Department, that they had no knowledge that

this mass invasion would occur;

Whereas in 2014 there has occurred a sharp increase in the

number of Special Interest Aliens apprehended illegally

crossing the United States border, being from terrorist-

sponsored or affiliated countries such as Syria, Afghanistan,

Pakistan, Nigeria, and Somalia;

Whereas Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in an ABC

news story in July of 2014 that there exists a clear and

present danger of imminent terrorist attack from ``a

situation that we can see developing'' and ``more frightening

than anything I think I have seen as Attorney General'';

Whereas the Commander in Chief of the United States appears

to be either unwilling or unable to exercise his

constitutional responsibility to defend this country from

imminent danger or invasion;

Resolved, it is the sense of the House of Representatives

that all Governors of the States along the southern border,

and other States willing to assist them, are urged to

exercise the right of self-defense against invasion or

imminent danger as will not admit of delay as provided for in

article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Some would say, How would you pay for that?

Well, how about for one thing we eliminate the child tax credit for people who are here illegally that are getting back much more, many thousands more dollars, than they actually pay in?

How about--and we are told a hundred billion or so is sent by people who are illegally in this country to their home country--how about, for allowing people to be here illegally, we put a 5 percent tax on that $100 billion going out of this country? We could pay for whatever we need very quickly.

Well, we have a bill that has been filed. It has gotten a lot of acclaim, and in the remaining minutes I would just like to look at some of this bill that my good friend, Senator John Cornyn, and my good friend, Henry Cuellar, a fellow House Member, have filed. We have a copy of what is being proposed. It has been sent to different folks on Capitol Hill. And it does, at page 2, take a shot at changing the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It makes a shot at fixing that. How ironic that Wilberforce, the champion of ending slavery in all of the British Empire, had this bill named for him that was supposed to help stop sexual trafficking, but as a result of this bill and the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as a result of that bill countless children have been lured into sexual slavery.

We can't even be told a number, but we are told that it is definitely happening. As the drug cartels are paid to humanly traffic people up, they find people who would make attractive sex slaves, and so an effort to stop sexual trafficking has actually helped create more. But anyway, the first few pages deal with that.

It does say on page 4 that such person may not be placed, talking about unaccompanied children--which, by the way, having been to the border a number of times, it is clear to me there is no child coming across the border unaccompanied unless they are teenagers. The children you see are accompanied by somebody. And even if the coyote leaves them right before they go into the custody of Border Patrol, they were accompanied right up until that time. But unaccompanied minors under this proposed new bill may not be placed in the custody of a nongovernmental sponsor or otherwise released from the custody of the United States Government until the child is repatriated unless the child is the subject of an order under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

It goes on, the next section, 102, defines the term ``asylum officer,'' which means an immigration officer, and it puts some pretty tough conditions, including has had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications. So that means we are going to have to have people who have been doing this a lot. You couldn't have fair judges sent there if they haven't had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications. That seems a little unnecessary.

Anyway, then it sets deadlines, 7 days and 72 hours shall issue an order, but then it does indicate if it is impractical by reason of an alien's mental incompetency for the alien to be present, the Attorney General shall prescribe safeguards to protect the rights and privileges of the alien. The alien shall be given the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government, shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine evidence, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.

On page 8 is Withdrawal of Application for Admission. In the discretion of the Attorney General--and that is the guy that hasn't been enforcing the law as it is, who is currently in contempt of Congress, who has been obfuscating on Fast and Furious and on other serious crises in our government, has at least been complicit in failing to bring forth evidence and to prosecute people timely, including the IRS scandal, and now we are going to give him a lot of discretion here, that is a matter of concern.

Anyway, it says based on a preponderance of the evidence, the judge has got to find that the alien is likely to be eligible for any form of relief of removal. Anyway, basically what it is saying is that in general, an applicant for admission must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien is likely to be eligible for any form of relief from removal. So if they just say, well, there is a good chance we are likely to be eligible, not that we are going to prevail, but it is just likely we are going to be eligible, then they get to go around that requirement.

If an immigration judge determines that the unaccompanied alien child has

not met the burden of proof required under the subsection, the judge shall order the alien removed unless the alien claims an intention to apply for asylum or that the alien has a fear of persecution. So we have some rigorous steps in here in this bill, and they will be ordered to be removed, unless, of course, if the alien claims an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. Well, that lets him sidestep some of those requirements.

Page 11, if the officer determines credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be held in the custody of the Secretary for Health and Human Services. Really, I thought that had been one of the problems created by prior law, of giving custody to Health and Human Services. For heaven's sake, let's leave custody with the people dealing with the immigration issues. Let's leave it in Homeland Security. Let's not be transferring people to another department because we have seen what HHS does. They transfer them all over the country, and there are consequences there because now we find out that under a HUD requirement, those people may be eligible for housing which will allow the government to rezone your neighborhood.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 16, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, the World English Dictionary defines ``invasion.'' Among the definitions is: invading with Armed Forces; but it is: any encroachment or intrusion; the onset or advent of something harmful, as in a disease; pathologically, the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues.

Under Random House Dictionary, the definitions include: the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease; entrance, as if to take possession or overrun--and it gives the example, the annual invasion of the resort by tourists--and also, infringement by intrusion.

It comes from Middle English from the 1400s. That is where we get our word ``invasion'' in the English language.

It is important because, in the Constitution, under article I, section 8, it says that Congress has the authority to call for the military during times of invasion. That is the Congress has that power. That is why it is in article I.

Then, as I mentioned yesterday, you have article I, section 10, which the third clause--there are three little clauses or sections there. They are not a numbered section, but the third sentence says:

No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any

duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of

peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another

State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless

actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not

admit of delay.

We know that the invasion into France by the Allied Forces consisted of about 150,000 troops, about 150,000 people, was the biggest invasion in history.

Since then, we come up to the year 2014, and The New York Times reported that just in recent months we have had 240,000 adults and 52,000 children--now it is being reported that it is closer to 60,000 children. Initially, as I understand, the article said since April, just 2 months, we have had nearly 300,000 people invade the United States through Texas. Then it is now being reported that there are 300,000 people making their way up from Central America to the United States.

Now, the administration and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, they are coming because of this massive violence that they have been facing. Well, there is more violence there than there is in much of the United States. Perhaps it is comparable to Chicago. So, if they are wanting to come to a country where there is less violence, maybe they don't want to come to a country that includes Chicago. Perhaps if Chicago maybe had more gun control laws, maybe it wouldn't be so violent. That is my first thought. Then I realize, wait a minute, Chicago has more gun control laws than about anywhere else in the country, yet massive murders.

So, obviously, if people are coming to America from Central America, they don't want to be sent to Chicago. They don't want to be sent to a place where there is more violence than where they have been living. But we are told that is why they are coming.

Well, actually, when I was on the border a couple of weeks ago, and I will be there this evening, the people that I saw interviewed, the people that were there that I talked to with the help of an interpreter, they said nothing about violence they were coming from. They had gotten word that this President, this administration, was going to allow them to stay and not send them back.

That is why those who had parents who had been illegally in the country--like one little girl, her mother had been here since she was 1 year old. But now that they have gotten word in Central America that if you come illegally into the United States, the Department of Homeland Security is not providing security to the United States. No, they are providing security involved in human trafficking, becoming complicit in the criminal and illegal activity going on.

They actually have given up their role there on the border of homeland security and now they are involved in destroying our security. They are transporting, along with Health and Human Services--forget the word ``health.'' Do you really want people in charge of your health that right now, as I speak here on the floor of the House of Representatives, involved in transporting people all over our country with disease like tuberculosis, H1N1, which can be fatal, who knows how many kinds of flu that people may not have been inoculated for, scabies, lice, all kinds of disease that the Department, formerly called ``Health and Human Services,'' is now engaged in spreading bad health and disease around the country. Thank you so much Health and Human Services.

So we are in a time when the administration in charge is engaged in more lawlessness than any time in my lifetime. They are engaged in actually violating the hippocratic oath if the national leaders were doctors and took that oath.

It says, First do no harm. Yet harm is being done by this administration as they are spreading people around the country that are coming here in massive, invasive ways.

And our heart goes out to them. When I see these children down on the border in the middle of the night, what kind of parent sends their child, or even sends word back home, Hey, I've got a good job. I've been working here illegally for a number of years. And even though I haven't done anything for my child over the last several years, now that the U.S. is giving benefits like feeding, providing health care, giving lawyers to people that come in--especially children--bring them on up.

We may bring in lots of people.

There is story today from The Washington Times, ``Obama Seeks Brisk Passage of Border Children Funding Bill.'' Of course, he wants to do that, because it would subsidize lawyers for illegal immigrants.

People are fond of referring to the Constitution and saying, Well, we have

got to make sure people have their constitutional rights. Well, guess what? The Constitution does not guarantee the same rights to everyone. It does not guarantee the same rights to immigrants who come in legally. For sure, it does not provide the same rights to those who come into our country in violation of our law from the beginning.

It does not provide all of the same freedoms and liberties to our members of the military. As a former member of the United States Army, 4 years on Active Duty, I find it extremely offensive that an administration will seek to coddle terrorists who have killed Americans in cold blood--and been thrilled that they did so--and have written that they were thrilled that they did so, and they hope they have a chance to kill many more Americans. They coddle them and give them more rights than we do our own United States military members who are willing to lay down their lives to save this country.

That's right. Under our Constitution, article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to provide what rights the military will have and what discipline will be utilized. That is how it was constitutional for Congress to pass the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I can assure you that in the military you do not have the right to freedom of assembly when and where you want to. Otherwise, I would have indicated that to my commanding officer at 4 in the morning when he wanted me to be out there to go 20 miles at 5.

I would have indicated a lot of things if I were able to have freedom of speech in the Army, because there were times when my superior commissioned officer gave orders that I thought were absolutely stupid, but you don't have all those same constitutional rights everybody else does. It depends on who you are and where you fall under the Constitution.

When it comes to immigration and naturalization, that is a power reserved for the United States Congress. As my old constitutional law professor David Guinn says, there is only one court in the entire Constitution that is created. Every other court owes its entire existence, jurisdiction, and actually, ability to remain in existence to the United States Congress.

That is why it is actually amusing when I hear people who are fairly smart, some of them educated in the Ivy League--despite perhaps the education that they missed out on getting as good as they might have gotten from somewhere else, like Texas A&M--and they think under the Constitution everybody gets the same rights. They do not.

I have heard people even from the holy Ivy League schools who say that everybody has the right to be in a U.S. District Court. Well, that is interesting because there is no right to even have a United States District Court. If Congress decided to eliminate all District Courts and create some other kind of court system, we could do that. That is totally up to us. We get to set up whatever tribunals--the word that is in the Constitution--underneath the Supreme Court that we care to, or not set it up. It is up to Congress. That is the authority of Congress.

So the President thinks we need to provide lawyers for illegal immigrants, and that is so interesting. I am sure that it is the perspective he gets. I know from Ed Klein's book there were indications that his able adviser, Valerie Jarrett, according to the book, is quite concerned about who is going to be the last person to give our President advice, because he is so easily swayed. So they try to make sure that he is not last advised by someone that disagrees with Valerie Jarrett or Michelle Obama's position.

Well, unfortunately, he was just at a big fundraiser in Dallas held for him by lawyers. Lo and behold, he says he wants lawyers to be paid for out of this $3.7 billion. Isn't that something? There are lawyers that are providing their services for free to illegal immigrants.

There is no constitutional requirement for someone coming into this country illegally to get a lawyer. It is not there. It is not even in the shadow of a penumbra. It is just not there.

Well, the President wants money for that. And when you break down what the President's wants money for, there is even money in his $3.7 billion--not for the military so that we can provide for the common defense--for leadership training for those who have come into our country illegally.

Yes, that is right. We need to train them for leadership so they can be good community organizers. And maybe if they learn well at these leadership training courses and they really pick it up well, maybe they, too, can be a worker at a place like ACORN, a place where they can train people how to vote Democrat, a place where they can make sure that they take voter registration forms out to other people who came in illegally.

Madam Speaker, what is happening in this country is outrageous beyond measure.

There are those who say, Well, sure, it is a certainty that these people--we are told about 78 or 80 percent of the people coming are adults and 20 percent or less are actually children--are coming to avoid violence, yet there has been no big spike in violence. So why all of a sudden this huge influx?

And though the administration officials say with a straight face, Well, we are just totally surprised, then we see from January they were requesting transportation in the near months for tens of thousands of children that would be coming in.

So forget what is said orally. Look what they have done. They have induced, lured, encouraged people to flood into our country in an invasion, and then they have prepared for the invasion, and now they say if you don't give us $3.7 billion, we are going to let it keep happening.

They don't use those words, but they might as well, when there is a far simpler solution.

If you want to really get down to the bottom of what is going on, Madam Speaker, you can look at a map of Central America. These countries where most people are coming from, over a thousand miles up through Mexico, risking life and limb to travel that far--so-called unaccompanied children that couldn't possibly come that far without help--right on their borders you have Costa Rica, you have Panama, you have Nicaragua.

You don't have to go 500 miles to reach one of these countries. There are some places of violence in those countries, but there are also some places of peace in those countries.

So if this were really all about escaping violence, and you really cared about a child, the last thing you would do is send them over a thousand miles and put them in the hands of drug cartels that may sexually abuse them, sell them into sex trafficking, or use them as drug carriers. They could just send those kids to a neighboring country where they speak the same language and where they could be cared for.

This is not about people running to America to get away from violence.

Also, we shouldn't be granting asylum to people that are lawfully in Mexico. We saw the article this week where Mexico has worked out an arrangement with Guatemala where they will have legal passage through Mexico in order to come into the United States illegally. That would mean that Mexico and Guatemala are conspiring to violate United States law.

Well, if they were in the United States, that would allow pursuit of those countries through RICO, but since they are countries, it is a different situation. But that is a criminal enterprise when you conspire with another to help violate United States law.

An article here from The Washington Free Beacon says, as of July 10, ``Unaccompanied Alien Children Program Cost $263 Million.''

For the 57,000 children that are here, you could take the $3.7 billion and give them each $67,000, and we would be a lot better off. Because that $3.7 billion, if we do what the President wants, doesn't actually stop the invasion that is going on. We are going to have to be spending that over and over and over again.

So I am not advocating we give everybody that comes in $67,000. I am just pointing out it would be cheaper to do that than what the President is proposing.

A story from Breitbart says, ``Health and Human Services Secretary: Beds for Illegals Can Cost Feds Up to 1K.'' Well, I am staying at a cheap motel in McAllen tonight, and I know it doesn't cost me a thousand dollars for the bed I am staying in.

There is a time for Congress to say, Enough is enough, Mr. President.

Initially, we didn't want to believe that anybody would intentionally lure people into the United States. We hoped that it was a reckless or a negligent act and not intentional. But look at the evidence. It hasn't been stopped. Even with $3.7 billion that is requested, there is no way, for what that is being called for, that it is going to stop the invasion that is occurring.

That is why I am hoping that my Governor will utilize article I, section 10, which allows a State that is being invaded--in our case, more than twice as many, just in recent months--more than twice as many than invaded France on D-day, with a doubling of that coming en route, on their way here now.

Under article I, section 10, the State of Texas would appear to have the right to use whatever means, whether it is troops, even using ships of war, even exacting a tax on interstate commerce that it wouldn't normally be allowed to have or utilize--they would be entitled, in order to pay to stop the invasion.

Texas could, under article I, section 10, engage in agreements with, say, Arizona, New Mexico--I don't know that California would agree as they are too busy sending jobs to Texas right now. The States could enter a compact to work together to stop the invasion.

Actually, if Texas just simply did what Woodrow Wilson did after Pancho Villa's thugs killed a bunch of American families--he crossed our border to kill them. One of my least favorite Presidents in our history, Woodrow Wilson, sent this new thing called the National Guard down.

You can read all kinds of different versions of how many National Guard troops he sent to the border. Whether it was 19,000 or 159,000-- whatever it was--he sent thousands of National Guard troops to our border, and it was secured, and nobody came in that President Wilson did not want to come in.

He also sent General Pershing into Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa. He caught some of the lieutenants. He never caught Pancho Villa. I am not advocating an invasion into Mexico. I am advocating strongly that we stop the invasion into the United States.

Do you want to talk about compassion for children? My children have now finished college, but I go to schools all over Texas. I look in those precious little faces, just as I have looked at the precious little faces of people coming in illegally, but those whose parents are paying taxes, who are law-abiding, know their schools are having trouble, in many places, staying afloat.

Many school districts are in desperate trouble financially, and now, we are going to add hundreds of children in some places whose parents are not paying taxes and who are not paying property taxes to support the schools in many cases.

You are going to overwhelm those schools because you refuse to do the job the Constitution requires and that an oath was taken to faithfully execute.

We owe this country an obligation to protect it and to protect those little children whose educations will be impaired because you have to slow them down to bring other students along who don't speak the language.

Right now, in Texas, I am told that, basically, you need to speak Spanish. You really do. Why is that? Because the President is allowing so many people in the country illegally, without stopping the invasion--and we are being forced to educate those folks.

When you talk to people, as I have, down around the border--border patrolmen, constables, and others who find dead bodies--and particularly landowners find dead bodies--one border patrolman tells me, when he finds the dead body of a child, he goes home and weeps.

What are we doing, Mr. President? We are luring people here, and children are dying because they think, gee, they are not enforcing the law. This President is not enforcing the law. He is not protecting the country. The security is down, so we can go rushing in.

It is not to avoid violence. They might go to a less violent place around them. It is to come and get the benefits. The trouble is, now that we are a welfare country, more and more people will overwhelm the system, and it does move us toward being a Third World country.

Now, I have taken a lot of abuse for saying that this action also includes an effort to turn Texas blue. People have said: How outrageous is that, that you might think that a President or an administration might actually take action or refuse to take action just for political gain?

Let's see. Here is an article from RedState. A friend there on November 12, 2013, points out:

Headed by a former field director of Obama for America,

Battleground Texas' whole aim is to turn Texas from a so-

called ``red State'' to another California--that is, almost

singularly controlled by liberal Democrats.

According to O'Keefe's video, Enroll America, a ``501(c)(3)

organization whose mission is to maximize the number of

uninsured Americans who enroll in health coverage made

available by the Affordable Care Act,'' is sharing data with

Battleground Texas.

So they are actually using government money to turn Texas into a State that votes more for Democratic candidates.

Another article from a Democratic group says:

The Lone Star State is changing. From top to bottom of the

ballot, we can change the face of Texas politics together.

It goes on to point out how Texans are carrying this movement and that its success could change the face of Presidential politics in this country as we know it. With 38 electoral votes at stake, a blue Texas would be a surefire road to the White House.

For the first time that I am aware of, we had a President who didn't decide to stop his campaign apparatus after he got elected for a second time and who has expressed the intent of turning Texas into a Democrat voting State.

Madam Speaker, the motives have been widely expressed. It is time to stop the invasion, and we have the power to do it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 14, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.