Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, ``these are the times that try men's souls.''

Having been to the border a couple of weeks ago, going to the border tomorrow and next weekend, I know from my experiences there that it is a traumatic time for so many. But I keep coming back to what a West African told me a few years ago when my wife and I were in West Africa with mercy ships, there in the harbor in Togo, caring for people there.

A number of the West Africans had wanted to meet before I left. They knew I was a Member of Congress. And the oldest, a very wise man, after we had a lovely time visiting, said, Well, we wanted to meet with you so that we could give you a message to take back to Washington. He said, we were so excited here in Africa when you elected your first black President of the United States. He said, but since that happened, we have seen America get weaker and weaker. And basically, he was saying that we know, as Christians, where we go when we die. But our chance of having peace in this life can only come if America is strong. So he implored me to go back and share here in Washington that Africa wants a strong America, that Africans who love peace want and need a strong America.

When I was in Nigeria recently visiting with heartbroken, devastated mothers of daughters who were kidnapped by radical Islamists, they wept as they would talk about their experiences. Three girls who had been captured and had been able to escape, their tales of the horrors of radical

Islam were sickening, especially for a father of three girls.

But again, the message there in Nigeria that was conveyed--different people, different ways, different words but, in essence, just as the elderly African gentleman had said a few years ago: Please stop getting weaker. You are hurting all of us. We need a strong America.

Mr. Speaker, a strong America means an America that abides by the law and does what is talked about throughout the Bible, about being impartial and fair. And that means enforcing the law impartially, that no matter who you are, we must enforce the law across the board. That means, whatever your age, wherever you are coming from, you must abide by the laws, just as the people who are American citizens do. It means that if we do not keep America strong economically by not spending more than we have coming in, have national security through our military and through our different departments and branches that are supposed to keep us secure, if we don't apply the law across the board and make sure that people attempting to come into this country have the law impartially enforced, we will not stay strong. We move into that Third World category where the law is unfairly enforced. It is enforced against different people to different measures.

And as someone, like me, who has been a judge and has had to look civil litigants and felons in the eye and tell them what the law required, even at times when I disagreed with the law but I knew it was constitutional, I applied the law because it is what must be done to keep America strong. Because when we begin to play favorites, we weaken America. When we cut our Defense Department just down to the nub and require them to do so many things with much less money, we are hurting our security. We are not remaining strong.

When we have a Fed that is creating money--and, as I was told at the Fed one day, oh, we can't possibly print all the money we are creating; we are just adding digits--they are cheapening the value of the dollar, and it will pay a toll someday. That weakens us.

We have got to abide by the law, and that means the President of the United States must do so. It means the Attorney General of the United States, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer, as Attorney General, must apply the law fairly, not unfairly and unjustly, and showing great partiality, as this Attorney General has been doing in his coverups, in his aggressively going after political enemies of the President, in his refusing and wholly failing and refusing to go after the IRS to investigate. It is very clear: the smell gets worse daily from those involved in the scandal at the IRS. And this Attorney General does nothing.

The message continues to go out around the world that the once great America no longer stands firmly on the Constitution, stands firmly on the law, and enforces it across the board.

The chairman of the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte, put together just a little note indicating things that the President can do without Congress doing anything more at all, things that this administration can do. And as my friend Chairman Goodlatte points out, President Obama's policies have caused the crisis at our southern border. And he has tools at his disposal to fix it.

Here are several steps the President can take now to stop the surge at the border. Number one, send the strong public message that those who enter illegally will be returned. He can use the bully pulpit to make clear, you are not coming into the United States illegally. You come through our ports of entry, and you must come legally, or you will be returned from where you came.

Some have been coached, apparently--we hear and read--to claim asylum once you are here. Well, even under the Wilberforce bill, you don't get asylum if you are coming in from a country where you are not at risk.

Another point from Chairman Goodlatte: Stop abusing prosecutorial discretion authority. Over the past 5 years, President Obama and administration officials have abused prosecutorial discretion, a tool that was meant to give the executive branch flexibility in individual cases. Instead, he stretched this authority beyond all recognition to shield entire categories of people, not researching individual cases to determine whether prosecutorial discretion would require non- prosecution, just exempting massive numbers of people. That is not discretion. That is mass amnesty. And this President has been doing it, and it has to stop. The message sent to the world is that if you get in the U.S., you will not be deported.

Stop releasing convicted criminal aliens from detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--and I don't blame them. I know too many ICE agents. They are good people. They want to do the right thing, but they have a Commander in Chief that is directing them to do the wrong thing. They have released over 36,000 criminal aliens from detention who were removed or were in removal proceedings or had been ordered removed. That is 36,000 criminal aliens.

You know, Texas has statistics indicating there have been over 100,000 criminal aliens responsible for over 600,000 crimes against American citizens. And what does this administration do? It protects and encourages criminality by failing to enforce the law. Implement tougher standards for credible fear claims.

Apparently, this administration is happy to just accept someone saying the words ``credible fear.'' That is not a credible fear.

They can detain asylum seekers until their claims are proved valid. Instead, this administration just gives a slip of paper that people coming in illegally think is their ticket to stay in the United States illegally. And it makes sense for them to think that because it tells them, they must report to a court in the United States at some point in the future. How can they report to the court if they don't stay in the United States illegally?

The President can also restore agreements with local law enforcement agencies and allow them to enforce immigration laws. That was our history. The Supreme Court, which is not concerned about precedent so much as they were supposed to be, decided that Arizona had to allow lawlessness because this administration was allowing lawlessness.

The administration can employ diplomatic resources to stop the border crisis. Let's look, for example, at these numbers. Well, for fiscal year 2014, El Salvador, which appears to be happy with thousands and thousands of its people coming illegally through Mexico to America--now we read that Mexico is actually complicit with some of these countries and is encouraging them, virtually, to come to America illegally. El Salvador, for fiscal year 2014, is supposed to get $22,281,000 and for fiscal year 2015 is supposed to get $27,600,000.

We are increasing by $5 million the amount of money--at least the administration wants us to. Give $5 million more to El Salvador--for what reason? Well, gee, I don't know. About the only thing they are known for right now is sending people illegally into the United States.

So it would seem to reasonable people, reasonable minds would think that, if El Salvador is costing America a huge hunk of what the President says needs to be $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis that El Salvador is helping cause, then perhaps we ought to stop sending them money when they are costing us even more money.

So let's get this right. We are paying El Salvador to cost us billions of dollars in return. That doesn't seem to be a very good investment.

How about Guatemala? Gee, fiscal year 2014 has had $65,249,000 appropriated to be given to Guatemala, and I have been down to the border in recent weeks and heard people say they were coming from Guatemala. Of course, they don't say, ``We are coming from violence.''

Violence seems to be down, certainly not up. It is certainly not spiking, so it

makes it clear that the reason that there is a huge spike in people rushing to America is because this Obama administration is making clear to Central America and South America that, if you come, you get to stay.

Why? Because they are not interested in what words politicians are saying here in Washington. They are more interested in what those politicians in the Obama administration are doing, and what they are doing is allowing hundreds of thousands of people to stay in America once they get here illegally.

For fiscal year 2015, apparently, this administration thinks that Guatemala is costing America what this administration says is a need for billions of dollars. Gee, they are doing such a good job of flooding us with immigrants, this administration is now asking, for the upcoming fiscal year, that we increase the $65 million to $77,107,000.

Then there is Honduras, $41,850,000 in foreign assistance to Honduras. We have got people flooding up here from Honduras. So what does this administration do? Since Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--their policies are actually causing people to rush to America because this President won't stand firm and enforce our borders and our laws.

The administration says let's give them an extra $7 million for next year. Let's take $41 million to $48,176,000.

Even Mexico, our dear friends in Mexico, they just, in foreign assistance, were supposed to receive $206,590,000, $206,590,000 this year. Now, it is understandable that this administration would have a guilty conscience when it comes to Mexico because it was this administration--it was this Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department that forced the sale of 2,000 or so weapons to criminals they expected to go to the drug cartels in Mexico that we know have caused at least one American agent's death--Brian Terry--and suspected hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

If I were a Mexican official, I would be outraged at this administration. This is no way to perpetuate a strong America for future generations.

People say: What about the children? Well, let me tell you about a 16-year-old that came to me in tears. She said that she was driving there in Tyler, and an illegal alien without a driver's license and without insurance slammed his car into hers, and it totaled her car.

Since the family of this poor child consisted of this girl and her single mom and she and her mom, as she explained, were struggling to pay their bills--and to get by, she was working after school, and her mom was working all she could.

Even with her mom working as hard as she could and with her working after school and trying to study, they couldn't afford to pay for comprehensive on her car. All they could afford was liability, as the law requires. You have to have at least liability, in case you cause an accident.

Her car was totaled. The illegal alien's car was damaged, but he was able to drive it away--was allowed to drive it away because this administration says: Hey, States, you can't enforce immigration law, it is only us that can do that, and we are not doing it.

That is what this administration's actions clearly show. For this poor child, she says: What do I do? We can't afford another car. We couldn't afford comprehensive insurance. We can't afford--we still have to pay that car off. How are we going to get by? We can't buy me another car, which means I can't get to work, which means I can't pay my bills; and my mom, she is doing all she can. She is heartbroken because now it means we can't get by.

Why? Because this administration's cynicism and cavalier attitude toward our laws and our border are allowing people to flood into this country illegally; and because this administration fights so hard, legally using every measure it can to keep States from using their own law enforcement to protect themselves, the States are not able to arrest illegal aliens.

So you wonder how many people have to suffer in this country before the law will be enforced and it will be impartially applied across the board.

How many times do we have to do damage to people in other countries who want to come legally, who have been spending money and time, year after year, to apply to come legally, when we are sending the message and doing them damage psychologically?

We make it clear: look, you ought to be cheating like these other people. Do you want to get in? Come illegally because this President won't send you back. It doesn't matter what he says. Don't look at his lips. Don't listen to his words. Look at what they are doing. They are not sending people back.

Think about all the children in American schools around this country--because this administration, to their credit, is trying to be fair and impartial with all the disasters they are causing, they are shipping people with disease, people who will not be able to help pay for their educations, they are shipping them all over the country, and it is going to cost the local communities and those States all over the country because this administration will not enforce the border.

Well, it is interesting, looking at one provision of the Constitution I haven't heard anybody talk about--we have been talking about it in my office. I have been talking with some friends about it. I called my constitutional law professor from Baylor University. He is looking at it. Well, what do you do?

Did the Founders ever think about what a State could do when the Federal Government refuses to protect them and the State is being invaded?

Mr. Speaker, what would you call it when about 300,000 people come into your State in a matter of months--short months--and then the report comes that there are 300,000 or so people in the pipeline on their way up, and then we get the story in the news that Mexico has reached an agreement to facilitate more people coming from Guatemala?

Hey, we will let you come. Just come on. If you are going illegally into the United States, then consider free passage through Mexico.

That would seem to be a bit of a conspiracy between countries conspiring to help violate United States law. So what is this administration's response with regard to Mexico and Guatemala? Let's keep sending them millions of dollars.

Every dime ought to be cut off from any country that does not help the United States enforce our own laws, but if the United States, the Federal Government, the Obama administration won't enforce the laws, what is a State to do?

Well, if you look at article I, section 10, the third clause down there--the third provision in section 10--apparently, they anticipated times--I can't find that it has been used yet--but times when the Federal Government has not or will not or cannot protect a State from an invasion, then it says--the actual wording:

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.

There is a disjunctive ``or'' for another provision, but if a State is actually invaded, this says, basically, that the State can start putting taxes on things--traveling and interstate commerce--in order to pay for its ability to defend its borders.

It can call up troops. It can even use ships of war, even in times of peace. It can enter agreements with other States, say, New Mexico or Arizona, if they were interested, or even with a foreign country. If this is an invasion, Texas could enter agreements with Mexico directly, if there is an actual invasion.

So, Mr. Speaker, what do you call it when 300,000 people, twice as many as invaded France on D-day, come into your State so quickly and you get word 300,000 more are on their way up, and you know that those little children sitting in schoolrooms are going to have people forced in the rooms without any more money to provide for them?

So people ask: What about the children? It would seem that our oaths here in Congress should require us to provide for the common defense and to provide for those within our jurisdiction, that we should not encourage other countries against the will of the American people or against the will of any State to force them to assume hundreds of thousands of people that will bankrupt the State, bankrupt their schools, and do great damage to

their children and to their neighborhoods because the people are forced there by a government that refuses to follow the Constitution or the law.

We have interesting days ahead. May God give us wisdom and discernment to choose wisely.

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 10 p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 11, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honor to extend most heartfelt congratulations to the Tyler Junior College Apaches Baseball Team in completing an outstanding season which concluded with the team's triumph in the 2014 NJCAA Division III World Series baseball tournament.

Through hard work and determination, the TJC Apaches defeated Cumberland County (New Jersey) Community College in front of a wildly enthusiastic crowd with a final score of 6-3.

In spite of a rain delay which lasted two and a half hours, hundreds of devoted fans remained to cheer on the Apaches in a game which lasted until after midnight.

The TJC Apaches made history for their school by bringing home the second national baseball championship title, and the fiftieth national championship for TJC since athletics was first organized back in the 1940s.

The TJC Apaches exemplify what it means to work seamlessly as a team, with remarkable victorious results. Their sportsmanship, humility, determination, hard work, and skill are to be commended, admired, and emulated.

The national championship team was led to victory by an outstanding coaching and administrative staff including: Head Baseball Coach Doug Wren; Assistant Coaches Travis Chick and Josh Salmon; Training Staff Eddy McGuire, Jeff Derrick, MacKenzie Stilwell, Daniel Garcia, and Martha Rascon; and Student Support Staff consisting of Trenton Buchhorn, Talyn Callucci, and Chad Cunningham.

Great praise goes to the team members Manny Galvan, Tim Hunter, Daniel Brown, Dusty Lynch, Gunnar Quick, Cody Broussard, Kevin Kubeczka, Collin Lawrence, Justin Monsour, Dynas Doud, Brandon Webb, Garrett Johnston, Reid Russell, Kevin Williams, Anthony Soriano, Jarrett Dooley, Travis Johnson, Eric Polivka, Zane Otten, Will Abbott, Eric Stegent, Brandon Koncaba, Brent Ellerbee, Connor Wrye, Cody Brown, Kash Armstrong, Grant Freels, Jacob Hickman, Lane Norwood, and Tyler Gaines.

Tyler Junior College has a rich history of academic and athletic achievement, and once again students and staff have risen to the pinnacle of success under the expert leadership of TJC President Dr. L. Michael Metke; Athletic Director Dr. Tim Drain; Assistant Athletic Director Chuck Smith; and Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. Juan Mejia.

Accolades must also be given to the players' families and the entire community of supporters who reside in east Texas and beyond, who embraced the warrior spirit for which the team was named. Without these devoted fans' support and encouragement, the Apaches' road to yet another national championship would have been much more difficult.

It is with great pride that I join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2014 NJCAA Division III World Series National Champions, the TJC Apaches Baseball Team. Their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, it is an esteemed honor to recognize and congratulate the Brook Hill Boys Varsity Golf Team on capturing the top title as TAPPS AAA Texas State Champions for 2014.

The Brook Hill Boys Golf Team overcame a seven stroke deficit entering the second and final round at the course of Clear Creek in Killeen, Texas, to ultimately win the TAPPS AAA State Golf Championship for the second year in a row by twenty strokes over second place Midland Trinity.

The talented athletes at Brook Hill have brought home numerous championship titles to east Texas over the years, including the State AAA Golf Championship in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 under the experienced and skillful leadership of Head Coach Tim Moore along with the unwavering support of Athletic Director Wally Dawkins and Headmaster Rod Fletcher.

Senior Team Captain Jeffrey Yeager led the way to the championship crown, shooting a 169, ranking him as the 4th place medalist. Sophomore Nutchapon Pattamakijsakul was the 7th place medalist, shooting a 171.

Brook Hill varsity team members also included Matt Webb--182, Brooks Garner--178, Austin Savage--184, and Jacob Yeager--alternate.

It is a great privilege to extend my enthusiastic and most sincere congratulations to the 2014 TAPPS Division III State Golf Champions, as their back to back championship legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to direct attention to a robocall that was made on behalf of one of our Republican colleagues down the hall. I really hope that he had nothing to do with it because it was dishonest, reprehensible, played the race card, and attempted to divide people, and, in fact, apparently was conspiring to try to get people who were going to vote for the Democrat in November to vote for the Republican in the Republican primary runoff, which, under their State's law, is not lawful--not legal.

I certainly hope Senator Cochran had nothing to do with it, but it sounds like it helped him win his election. This is exactly the kind of thing that people in the House or the Senate should not be involved in, trying to mislead individual voters, trying to trick them into voting for themselves--because one thing is absolutely clear: if it requires trickery, deception, dishonesty, manipulation--unfair manipulation of people in another party to violate the law and vote for a particular candidate, then, very clearly, that candidate is not worthy of being elected to anything.

This past weekend, I was down on our border between the United States and Mexico along the Rio Grande Valley and along the Rio Grande River itself.

I had the impression, from the way some stories were written and some talk was going, that we actually had a situation on our border where people would come rushing across the Rio Grande River--even if there were law enforcement officers, Border Patrol officers--that it didn't matter. People were just rushing across, so anxious to get here.

Having spent the weekend on the border, what I learned was that, yes, people are very anxious to come into this country, but the coyotes that are bringing them--from what we learned apparently--paid by drug cartels to bring people across, those coyotes don't want to bring people across if they are going to get caught because one thing our Border Patrol and the Texas Department of Public Safety does very well is, if they catch a coyote transporting people illegally across our border, for example, in a raft--which is apparently the most frequently used method of getting larger numbers of people across--then they take the raft, and they destroy it--normally right there in front of the coyote--and help destroy his current illegal business.

The coyotes don't want to lose their rafts, their Jet Skis, or whatever they are using to get people illegally across the border, so they wait, even into the wee hours of the morning, which I was there to see firsthand. They don't want to be caught. They will wait until they feel like they have got time to get across and get back.

I have also heard plenty of times, from friends across the aisle, from people outside of Congress, who continue to say the same thing-- and I know they don't mean to be dishonest, they are very honest people--but they keep saying they are trying to get away from the horrible murders, rapes, and terrible situations in their home countries.

The thing is, if you look at the crime rates in those countries from which they come--in Central America, for example--you don't see a tremendous dramatic rise in the amount of crime. There is not a dramatic increase in areas where so many of these people are coming from, to come illegally into the United States.

So the question keeps arising: Well, then if the murder rate is deplorable or horrible as the situation is, if the violence has not dramatically increased, then why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of people coming across our border illegally?

The answer that this administration apparently refuses to acknowledge is that it is not because of a dramatic increase in violence in Central or South America, it is because the word has gone out in Central and South America that, if you can get to America, you will not be sent back.

In the wee hours Sunday night, Monday morning, there was one group of adult women--three adult women, some small children. These were very honest people. They spoke Spanish. They didn't speak any English.

Some say: well, I bet they are coming from Mexico, and they are being coached to say they are from El Salvador, Guatemala, South America, or other places.

These kids could not have been coached at their age to say what they did. They are very honest people.

When asked why did they come, the immediate answer was: well, we wanted these little children to get a good education.

Well, most everybody in the world--there are 6 to 7 billion people in the world--most want their children to get good educations; yet, if we have an influx of even 1 billion people into the United States, our country as we knew it will be gone.

It will no longer be a country where there is a rule of law, where capital investment feels safe, because you can't maintain a country unless you have the rule of law enforced. You can't just magically, one day, say: okay, now, today, we start enforcing the law as it is.

It doesn't work that way. If you have raised a generation or immigrated in a generation who believes that you just ignore the law when it is inconvenient, then you are not, all of a sudden, going to have a country that follows the law and attempts to enforce it across the board. It doesn't happen.

I have been told before that, gee, there may be a billion, billion and a half people in the world that would love to come to America. Well, when you have just over 300 million people in America and you are increasing the numbers here by giving out over a million visas a year-- more than any other country in the world, even though you have India or China with several times more people than we have in America, nobody is giving out more visas than we are.

Even though you have a country like Mexico that condemns the United States for our treatment of people coming in even illegally--and even those legally--what they don't bother to notice in their massive hypocrisy is the way they treat people that legally or illegally come into Mexico.

If we began treating Mexican nationals coming in illegally into the United States the way Mexico treats American citizens, they would be screaming, going crazy every day; but it is because we are a more fair nation than Mexico is.

Of course, it doesn't really help Mexico when we have an administration, as this one, and a Justice Department, as the one run by Attorney General Eric Holder, which not only has an effort to get 2,000 or so weapons--guns--into the hands of criminals in Mexico with drug cartels, but then also engages in covering up evidence of exactly what happened during that horrible, horrible project by the Justice Department that actually put a couple thousand guns or so in the hands of criminals, resulting in deaths that would not have occurred otherwise, and yet, still, they cover it up.

Clearly, it is not, under Attorney General Eric Holder, a Department of Justice. It has become a department of, number one, injustice; and a department of, number two, just us.

Oh, sure, as long as the Internal Revenue Service is only going after conservative groups or Christian groups or religious groups, that is fine. As long as it is only going after groups that vote Republican, that is fine. It is okay.

Oh, and you want to try to catch us? Well, our hard drives crash, and our emails disappear, and, gee, we have no idea where they went. Why? Because we are in a country where the Department of Justice becomes a department of injustice and a department of just us, where as long as you support ``just us,'' you are good. Violate the law, it is fine; we will make sure you are not prosecuted--but it is perfectly fine to go after people who vote Republican, perfectly fine to go after groups that may not support the President's position on things.

Now, right down the hall, in the Senate of the United States, we actually have United States Senators who are wanting to destroy First Amendment freedom of speech rights.

There are United States Senators, all from the Democratic Party, those that are pushing this, that are actually pushing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will allow Congress to take away people's right to make speeches.

It is incredible that they don't even realize that, if the amendment to the Constitution--a bridge to take away freedom of speech rights, if it were to become part of the Constitution, and the American people got so mad at those Democrats pushing it that they gave the Republicans the majority in the House and the Senate and even gave them a veto-proof number, then you could actually have Republicans saying Hillary Clinton can't publish her book anymore.

I was just talking about this with my good friend, Senator Ted Cruz, and he was talking about some of the language that is being pushed in the Senate.

Senator Cruz made the point that if this gets passed, you could have Congress--if there were enough Republicans in there--say that Hillary Clinton's book is illegal, it is contraband, and she can't do it anymore.

NBC and ``Saturday Night Live'' like to do satire about political officials, and some of them are pretty funny. But, actually, under the amendment that we have United States Senators of the Democratic Party pushing, Congress could actually tell NBC, the National Broadcasting Company, that they can't do political satire anymore.

Why would senators who like our Constitution think it was a good idea to take away free speech rights? I think they don't mean harm. They don't mean to harm our Republic.

It is because we have now gotten into an environment here in Washington, D.C., where the IRS can go after people they disagree with politically. And heaven help some candidate or some Republican that stands up and says, We have got to eliminate the IRS, because you can pretty well count on them coming right after him or her. If you say those kind of things, the IRS is about self-preservation. They will come after you if you say negative things about them. Because, like the Justice Department, it is ``just us.''

We have got to protect ourselves.

So it is serious business. The environment is such here in Washington where some Democratic Senators have actually come to the idea that it would really be nice if we take away freedom of speech rights and give Congress the ability to say, You can't publish that book. You can't do that political satire on TV. No, you can't do that film because we don't like it.

These are people that are supposed to be enlightened and be against censorship, and yet they are pushing an amendment that will allow Congress to basically go back to Orwellian ideas or all of those that have been written about in history when Big Brother gets so big, have book burnings. It seemed like that happened in the 1930s and 1940s.

It has become dangerous here in Washington, where you have educated people that haven't thought through their constitutional amendment they have signed onto enough to realize just how dangerous it is to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

They have bought in to a Justice Department that is ``just us,'' a Senate that is ``just us,'' an administration that says, Hey, if Congress doesn't do what we want them to, forget Congress. I will write my own laws and we will just ignore Congress.

That is a dangerous concept if we are going to continue what the Founders referred to as ``this little experiment in democracy.'' It is a dangerous time.

And then we have questions that were asked by Pete King of Secretary Johnson about what is going on at the border. He is asking:

If you're a parent in Central America, in effect, this can

look like a free pass because you're making the situation

more humanitarian, you're making more facilities available,

as Mr. Fugate said, you're providing foster families, all of

which is understandable. That's our obligation as human

beings.

But on the other hand, if you're a family in Guatemala or

El Salvador, this, in a way, is a free pass.

Well, Secretary Johnson ends up saying:

Well, a couple of things. First, I'm convinced that the

principle reason these kids--from everything I've heard,

everything I've seen, and from my own conversation with these

kids, the principle reason they're leaving is the push factor

from the country they're leaving.

This is Secretary Johnson with Homeland Security saying this.

He says:

The conditions in Honduras, for example, are horrible. It's

the murder capital of the world. There is this disinformation

out there that this is permisos. That's what we're hearing.

Permisos, free pass, like you get a piece of paper that says,

Welcome to the United States. You're free.

``That's not the case. When you're apprehended at the border''--he says ``irregardless of age.'' My late mother, an English teacher, would have jumped on that and pointed out for Secretary Johnson that irregardless is not an appropriate word. It is either regardless or it is not.

Anyway, our Secretary didn't have an English teacher for a mother. It is a common mistake.

He says:

Irregardless of age, you're a priority for removal. So

they're given a notice to appear in a deportation proceeding.

The way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to

give that child to HHS, and HHS is required to act in the

best interest of the child, which most often means placing

that child with a parent who is here in the United States.

But there is a pending deportation proceeding against that

child.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, parenthetically, he references the 2008 law which requires the Department of Homeland Security to give the child or children to Health and Human Services.

We were in a hearing yesterday where I was told I was wrong about that. I was just quoting Secretary Johnson in my comments, as well as other people in this administration, who said, Look, we don't have a choice because the law from 2008 requires us to immediately provide the children to HHS.

Anyway, Mr. King comes back and says:

But if I were a parent in Guatemala, wouldn't I see that as

being a free pass? I mean a child, a 5-year-old child getting

an order to show up in immigration court, you know, are you

going to actually deport that child?

To me, it's a free pass, from their perspective.

Then, these astounding words from Secretary Johnson. He says:

Congressman, I don't see it as a free pass, particularly

given the danger of migrating over a thousand miles through

Mexico into the United States, especially now in the months

of July and August that we're facing. A lot of these kids

stow away on top of freight trains, which is exceedingly

dangerous.

I spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 who spent days

climbing on top of a freight train, a box car, and these kids

sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. They can't

hold on any longer. It is exceedingly dangerous.

Well, Secretary Johnson is saying that because it is dangerous to come through Mexico, then it is not a free pass that he is handing out to people when they get to America.

Having been on the border in the wee hours, let me tell you, to those little children, to the adults bringing them, it is a free pass. That is why they came. And this is open territory. Anybody can be standing there. Because

once these the coyotes get them across the river, then they go looking for somebody to turn themselves in to.

I was there when there were different groups being processed out there in the open air; daytime, nighttime. So they are asking them questions, as their job requires, such as, Where are you from? You have got to get their names. They don't have any identification on them. They are strictly taking their names as they give it to them.

One adult woman who had a couple of little girls with her said, Well, I'm not the mother, but I'm the cousin of the mother. Well, where's the mother? She's got a good job in Miami.

She came in illegally some time back and she has been working in Miami. So since they can now come and stay here, this was the time to start bringing the kids in.

The other two women were mothers of the other children there and they were explaining that the fathers of those children were working. They had good jobs in North Carolina. And since all they had to do was get into the United States and Homeland Security or Health and Human Services would transport them--our government is now becoming human traffickers--they have become the human traffickers and take them to North Carolina, where the fathers have good jobs working illegally over there. But, again, since they saw it as a free pass, then this is the time to try to hurry into the United States.

What was particularly telling, Mr. Speaker--I don't have it with me here on the floor today--is that there was a request, a solicitation from the Obama administration back at the end of January that actually says that we anticipate in the next short months that we may have 65,000 children come across our border.

Now why would they think that? Because there were only a fraction of that many the year before, and then a fraction of that many the year before that. So why would they think all of a sudden there are going to be over 60,000 children coming in in the months ahead?

Well, they knew. The word is out in Central America and South America that if you just get to this country, the Obama administration is giving you a free pass.

The women in the last group that the Border Patrol were talking to out there after they had turned themselves in, they had not heard the word ``permisos,'' but they knew they got a free pass. They knew they got to stay. And they said, We're here because we want these children to get a good education.

And since we know they can stay--in effect, that is what they are saying--now is the time they come and get a good education.

Well, we want everybody to get a good education. Unfortunately, if we in this country take tax dollars from Americans who are working and tried to pay for the education of every single child in the entire world--which I would love to do--but if we do that, it bankrupts this country and no child gets any kind of education.

It is a dangerous time. It is a dangerous situation for these children to be coming across our border. In those areas the bush is thick, the river is swift. It is deep there where so many of them were crossing.

And yet because this administration has the word out and it is being sent out by drug cartels--being advertised, is what we keep hearing-- the drug cartels have the best of all business worlds. They actually will charge $5,000. One lady got a real deal. She got two kids and herself for $5,000. For others, it is generally $5,000 a person. For some, it is $8,000.

The drug cartels charge people to bring them up across Mexico into United States. And if they find an attractive girl, they may pull her off into sex slavery and make money off of her. Having three daughters myself, that idea is just abominable.

Then, because of the masses of people that are coming across in greater and greater numbers, we have Border Patrol and ICE that are pulled away from their regular jobs. They are not out there looking for the drugs.

So you have got drug cartels making money by charging people to bring them into America, and then that causes a problem for us to enforce our border against drugs, and they can get more drugs in.

There is a war against the United States being staged by the drug cartels, and this administration better wake up and better start doing its job. I know my friends here on the Republican side, if the administration will start enforcing the law and enforcing our border and protecting us from the massive amount of drugs that are coming in, and enforce the border, we will get an immigration reform bill done so fast, people will be amazed how quickly we get it done.

There is no sense at all doing an immigration reform bill right now when the President is ignoring the enforcement of the law the way it is. The President needs to enforce the law as it is. Once he does that, then we can talk about amending it.

In the meantime, very quickly here, I had a quote from the President on June 11. He was saying:

I mean, the truth of the matter is, that for all the

challenges we face and for all the problems we have, if you

had to choose a moment to be born in human history, not

knowing what your position was going to be or who you were

going to be, you would choose this time. The world is less

violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has

ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is

better than it has ever been. It is more educated than it has

ever been.

Then I thought about this cartoon, Mr. Speaker, and I will finish with this. In effect, we borrowed the cartoon here, but it is like the President has gone off a cliff, and all of the way down, he is able to say, ``We are doing all right so far.''

The day is coming when the country will not do all right--when there will be a crash--because we failed to recognize the dangers on the way down.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, right now, as I speak, there are thousands of unaccompanied minors, many of whom are 15, 16, and 17 years of age, but nonetheless, they are classified as minors, under 18, and our Border Patrol is being overwhelmed.

Our ICE agents, who are supposed to deport people improperly here, are being overwhelmed. As one ICE agent said yesterday, Chris Crane, that is the union president for the ICE agents, he said, basically:

We are having to change diapers, and so there is no

criminal interdiction going on. We are not able to do our

jobs because of the thousands of children that are coming.

I saw a report today from CBP, the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and they were saying the interviews they are doing yield results from the children saying that they are coming to America now because of a new law that the President has that allows children to come in and stay here if they just get here quick enough.

It has caused a national emergency. So what $41,492,000 does is provide for 1,000 National Guard troops. We know in the amendment we cannot legislate, but in order for the money to be available for the National Guard troops to assist on the border, the money needs to be available, and, therefore, we are asking that the money be moved from one account over into an account that could be utilized for National Guard troops to help with what has been termed by so many people as a humanitarian crisis.

Why is it a crisis? Because people in the administration are refusing, and failing to refuse, to do the job and faithfully execute the laws of this Nation. They have done a terrible job, and it is a great injustice to all those children who have been sent by aunts and uncles, by parents, and by others. Just get to the border, and if their parents are sending them, we get reports that the parents are hoping once they get in then they can bring the parents in in order to take care of them.

There are other reports, as we have seen from a Federal judge in south Texas, that the Department of Homeland Security is now engaging in human trafficking. It is part of the lure of these thousands and thousands of children every week coming in, that if they get to the border and either one of their parents or any relative is in the country, then DHS will engage in human trafficking and try to take them wherever in the country they think their parents might be, even though they may be here illegally.

So this money is to help with a Federal problem that should not be costing the States. It is a Federal problem, as the Department of Justice has indicated through our Attorney General's suing States like Arizona and saying that you can't deal with this problem, this is a Federal issue, you must have hands off.

Well, the locals need help. This will provide help. And that is why I am asking to move $41,492,000 over in the DOD budget so that we can help with National Guard troops when and where they are needed.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, it is only the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, accounting that would say moving $41,492,000 from one account by that same amount into another account is having more in outlays than is being taken from one account. I think it is fuzzy math that the CBO is engaged in. To most of us, if you move $41,492,000 out of one account and you put that same amount in another account, it is not causing more outlays than we were removing from the account.

But I will leave that to the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, anticipating the fuzzy math from CBO that taking $41,492,000 from one account and putting that same amount in another account would not be considered equal, I went ahead and have another amendment that reduces the one account by $57 million, over $15 million more than we are transferring into the account that could be used for National Guard troops, so that, according to the fuzzy CBO math, the reduction will equal the increase.

But with that said, no matter how fuzzy the accounting is here in Washington, there is a massive problem on our border, and for this body to turn away when we can force the President's hand--he is not faithfully executing the laws of his office, he is not enforcing the immigration laws, and he is not enforcing the border. We can force his hand by making the proceeds available, the $41,492,000, to get the National Guard, make them available for this purpose, and then we think the outcry from America will force the President's

hand to get these people there, and the Governors will have a stake in this claim, but it is a Federal problem.

I continue to insist on this. Americans across the country are watching what we are doing. We need to be responsible and faithfully execute the laws of this country, and that is without regard to whether or not the President does. We have an obligation to get this money where it is needed. We believe this will do that, and so, Mr. Chairman, we move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I certainly do.

Because under the math of CBO, as fuzzy as it is, by reducing one account by $57 million, even CBO says, yes, that takes care of equalizing the outlay of $41,492,000 in the account to increase that for the National Guard. So it should have been addressed with the first amendment that I made. But this second one certainly addresses the fuzzy math that CBO provides. This does not increase the amount of expenditures over what is being taken from another account.

Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

My inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman.

Can the Chair tell me how reducing one account by $57 million is not adequate to cover a $41,492,000 increase in another account? It is $15.5 million more we are reducing than the amount we are increasing.

So my inquiry is, please, Mr. Chairman, explain how the increase of $41,492,000 is more than the $57 million reduction.

The rates are addressed, Mr. Chairman, by this $15.5 million amount. That is covered. Even CBO admits that. So I don't know where the chairman is getting his numbers. They are certainly not supported even by the fuzziest of math of our CBO.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as read, this would transfer $35.956 million into an account under the bill that specifies, ``shall be for National Guard counterdrug program.''

We have spoken with people on the border. They know the problems they are having. They need equipment.

This amount would allow eight UH-72 helicopters to help with drug interdiction on the border. It is not like there are not enough helicopters to go around. There are 100 National Guard helicopters. This would only be utilizing eight of them, putting them in a place where they could be used on the border to help with the problem.

Mr. Chairman, right now, with so many of our ICE agents and so many of our Border Patrol engaged, as ICE agents said yesterday, in changing diapers instead of being involved in interdicting, as they should be, they need this equipment. This would be National Guard equipment that would allow them to participate in stopping the drugs that are flowing.

It is very apparent, from what is going on, that we even have drug cartels that are taking advantage of the situation. As ICE agents have explained, they are using this time--with all of the attention toward the children and the humanitarian crisis on the border--to step up their game in getting drugs into the United States.

According to the figures from CBO and from the figures we have gotten from the committee, this will not create an increase in outlays and should be in order in that regard.

I would like to point out that, since 2012, aircentric operations have resulted in an almost 70 percent increase in detection and interdiction, compared to the ground-based operations.

So this could make a real difference in providing for the common defense, which is our duty here in Congress, as well as the duty of the executive branch. This would make their job easier.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention that the committee has given to the issue and that, in the past, the National Guard may have had extra funds that were moved and able to be used elsewhere, but these are recent developments that have been going on even since our Appropriations Committee has been having hearings, and so this is such a dramatic problem that it is escalating every day.

I would like to correct the record. Actually, this proposal will not purchase any new helicopters. There are

100 National Guard helicopters. This would just pay for the use and the crew and the maintenance and upkeep of eight of those they already have. It won't purchase any more. I wish we could get helicopters that cheaply.

It will keep eight of them in use with the drug interdiction on our border right now because there is an invasion going on at our southern border. It is an invasion, and it is increasing, as I say, every day.

With that request, I don't think it is asking too much to have eight helicopters that have already been purchased--they just need crews, equipment, and upkeep--to help in the interdiction of the invasion in which drugs are being brought across our border in the south.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the Appropriations Committee for the appropriations process. I think we are all better when we have open amendments and have a chance to have everybody have input. It is a nasty process, but it is a good way to do it.

Input is important, because when you don't listen to proper input, you can end up having a judgment, as did the Pelletier case where a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts took away custody from her parents, and finally a victory yesterday as the court, Judge Joseph Johnston, wrote in his ruling:

Effective Wednesday, June 18, 2014, this care and

protection petition is dismissed and custody of Justina is

returned to her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier.

His first statement there is:

I find that the parties have shown credible evidence that

circumstances have changed since the adjudication on December

20, 2013, that Justina is a child in care and protection

pursuant to G.L. c. 199, 24-26.

Clearly, the only thing that had changed was not credible evidence. It was a judge who finally did his job, which was not to take parents' kids away from them.

It reminded me of comments made by a daycare director in the Soviet Union back when I was an exchange student during college days. The daycare director was bragging that the children belonged to the state, that parents are only temporary caregivers that serve at the whim of-- she didn't say ``whim''--but basically at the discretion of the government.

Back then, in the Soviet Union, if you ever told your child anything negative about the Soviet Union--the Soviet Government, Soviet leaders--and they found out, they would whisk in, take your child away, and as the director said, give them to more deserving parents.

It appears that is really what happened in the Pelletier case. Some bureaucrats refused to consider all of the evidence as they should have and decided that they would play God for a while and give custody of this poor child to the State instead of her parents who gave every indication of loving her and caring about her, trying to do the right thing for her. Instead, the State caused great damage. Unfortunately, that happens too often in many

different areas when the State thinks they know better than the people personally involved.

What gets even worse is when you have a Federal administration that believes they know better than the law, that they don't have to follow the law because they are better than the law, which would make them right on par with Chavez in Venezuela or pick out the dictator. They are right there, because they know so much better than anybody else in the country. That is why they are called dictators.

One of the most shocking things about the lawlessness of this administration is that they could have spokespeople with straight faces come out and say: We really don't know what is causing this wave of humanitarian crises on the border. We just really don't understand why this wave is coming now.

Well, all they have to do is review some of the reports from Border Patrolmen, ICE agents--particularly the Border Patrolmen who have been interviewing these kids, especially the older ones, 15, 16, 17: Why did you come to the United States illegally now? And the Border Patrol reports so many of the children just say basically the same thing: It is because of your new law that is going to let us come and stay legally. It is the new law that we get amnesty, that all we have to do is come.

It is incredible the humanitarian crisis that this administration has caused. There is some blame to go around for Republicans as well, that have entered into this discussion about providing amnesty, providing legal status when, if they would simply listen to the people in the field on the border and understand the trauma that they have been going through trying to protect this country, they would find out, as Chris Crane has said before, he said again yesterday, when people in Washington talk about amnesty or legal status, we see a massive influx of people coming because they want to get here for the legal status, the amnesty. That is why it is so critical that we not talk about any kind of legal status or amnesty being awarded to anyone, that we wait until we have a President, hopefully a change in this President's heart so he will start enforcing the law and start faithfully executing the laws of the country.

It is unconstitutional for anyone in the United States, including the President, to say: I don't like the law the way it is. Congress hasn't changed it, so here's the new law.

One rather shocking thing is when the President said, you know, that Congress hadn't fixed it so here is the new law on who is going to be allowed to stay and be given legal status that we are not going to throw out. Here is the new law; here are the new requirements.

I couldn't believe conservative news media, liberal news media, they are all reporting the same thing. Gee, here is the new law. Here are the new requirements that the President just pronounced into law.

Fortunately, there are many levelheaded folks that understand that we are supposed to act within a Constitution, who pointed out you can't just stand up and say, ``Here's the new law.'' You actually have to have it pass through Congress. Yeah, it is a tough thing to do, and that is exactly what the Founders intended, because they knew the easier it was to pass laws, the quicker Americans would lose their liberty.

Ever since the 17th Amendment was ratified, the States lost their check and balance over the Federal Government not usurping the power reserved to them in the 10th Amendment. Some have incorrectly reported that I want to repeal the 17th Amendment, go back to selecting Senators by State legislatures making the selection. There were some abuses there. Some legislators figured out how to game the system through the Senators they selected. All you would have to do is say: All right. We are going to select you to be our Senator, but here is our laundry list of things that we want.

So it was susceptible to being abused as well, but the point should not be lost that there has to be a way for States to regain the check and balance over the Federal Government usurpation of rights of the various States, the powers of the State.

If the States still had the check and balance over the Federal Government, you wouldn't see a report like John Roberts of FoxNews reported this week. ``Wave of humanity,'' he reports: ``Border Patrol overwhelmed by flow of illegal immigrants.'' He says:

At daybreak in this border town, two women from Guatemala--

one with a small child strapped to her back--wait patiently

on the levy overlooking the Rio Grande.

They have been instructed by the ``coyote'' who ferried

them across the river for an exorbitant fee--as much as

$1,000--to simply wait for the Border Patrol to pick them up.

After processing, they will likely be given a notice to

appear before an immigration judge and a bus ticket to

wherever in America they may have friends or relatives.

That's the way it goes, day in and day out, in what has

become ground zero of the latest immigration crisis.

Thousands upon thousands of people from Central America

exploiting the porous border of the Rio Grande Valley to

enter the United States.

To quote:

``If we don't send the message that they can't just come in

and stay here, it's gonna continue, this wave of humanity,''

said Texas Representative Henry Cuellar. Cuellar is a

Democrat, but an outspoken critic of how President Obama has

handled this crisis.

Another story from Brandon Darby from Breitbart reports:

Vice President Moran invoked the case of Robert Rosas, a

Border Patrol agent who was ambushed by illegal immigrants in

2009 in southern California. In that instance, Agent Rosas

was dispatched alone to check on a sensor activation.

Breitbart News has covered that issue extensively and

revealed that one of the men involved had been on supervised

release from U.S. authorities. The illegal immigrants wanted

Agent Rosas's night-vision equipment, so they lured, trapped,

and murdered him, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

``A repeat occurrence of an incident like this is what we

fear, especially now without full staffing in the field,''

said Vice President Moran.

Shawn Moran is vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, the NBPC. He stated:

``The administration was already putting budgets before

securing the border. Our jobs are immensely dangerous as we

interrupt cartel activity on U.S. soil. Their border security

policy failures have already reduced the number of agents

securing the border, and now they have fewer agents out there

to back each other up. The lives of Border Patrol agents

should not be pawns in the political games of Washington,

D.C., and this administration is literally risking our

lives.''

The loss of Agent Rosas is an example of what happens when an administration is lawless. It breeds more lawlessness, and that is exactly what we have now on our United States border in the south. The story says:

Though Border Patrol are often heavily grouped in urban

areas along the U.S.-Mexican border, they are often alone in

desolate rural areas--and most of the U.S.-Mexico border is

desolate.

It is really tragic what is happening, and this administration wrings its hands--well, some do. Some play golf. Some wring their hands. Some make sure they have got a good grip on their 7 iron, but others wring their hands about the losses of life and the tragedies occurring on our U.S.-Mexico border.

A story from the LA Times, Molly Hennessy-Fisk:

The call went out on Border Patrol radios just before

sundown one day this week: 31 immigrants spotted illegally

crossing the Rio Grande on a raft.

No sooner had the migrants been found hiding in the

mesquite brush then another report came in: a woman and boy

were walking up riverbank.

The Rio Grande Valley has become ground zero for an

unprecedented surge in families and unaccompanied children

flooding across the Southwest border, creating what the Obama

administration is calling a humanitarian crisis as border

officials struggle to accommodate new detainees.

Largely from Central America, they are now arriving at a

rate of 35,000 a month. Anzalduas Park, a 96-acre expanse of

close-cropped fields and woodland that sits on a southern

bend of the river, has turned from an idyllic family

recreation area into a high-traffic zone for illegal

migration. The number of children and teenagers traveling

alone from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is expected

to reach up to 90,000 across the southwest border by the end

of the year.

This story was written June 13. We have information that that number hit 60,000 by May, and originally 60,000 was expected to be the top. So I think it would be a good estimate to expect if we got more than 60,000 and they are coming faster and faster, and that 60,000 was hit by early May or the 1st of May, I think you can pretty well count

on more than 90,000, perhaps more than 120,000, and that is this year.

As these teenagers and others are given legal status, then their parents, they will be able to be anchors to bring other family members in with them. So you are talking about just in 1 year adding maybe 1 million people when you start looking at all the other ways people are coming in.

We bring in over 1 million people with visas legally every year. No other country in the world does that. Countries a number of times our size don't allow that many visas. We do because we are an open country. But we understand there is an obligation. You have to maintain some kind of semblance of order.

At a time when you have got tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people coming in illegally, and you don't know who they are, you have got drug cartels that are taking advantage of that, as ICE and Border Patrol are pointing out. They are taking advantage of it, they are moving more drugs than ever. As some have said this week, we--Border Patrol, ICE agents--were changing diapers while they are stepping up the number of drugs they are bringing in.

So how is this all happening? It comes back to the administration. If you have an administration that is lawless and refuses to enforce the law, as this administration has, you are going to reap the whirlwind.

There is another story from U.S. News, from Hidalgo County, ``Migrant Surge Jams Border'':

Sergeant Dan Broyles once had to battle through the spiky

thicket of border vegetation here to find an immigrant

illegally sneaking into the country.

But all he had to do on a recent day was to wait in plain

sight along a dirt road, as a group of Salvadoran migrants,

including a 7-year-old girl with a pink Hello Kitty backpack,

deliberately walked up and surrendered to him a mile north of

the Rio Grande.

``They're all giving up,'' said Sergeant Broyles, 51-years-

old, a Hidalgo County Constable's official whose main

responsibility is supposed to be serving court papers. As he

waited for Border Patrol agents to pick up the migrants,

another group was coming up behind them.

And on and on and on it goes.

It is what happens when an administration refuses to enforce the law, refuses to follow the law themselves. When you have an Attorney General that obfuscates and is complicit in the hiding of evidence and keeping evidence secret of what happened with a couple of thousand guns being forced by the government to be sold to people that never should have gotten them in the operation called ``Fast and Furious.'' We have known about it for a number of years, but we have always felt like even in the John Mitchell Department of Justice, even when there was illegality somewhere, even at the top with the Attorney General, that there would be good people in the Department of Justice that would stand up and say: This is wrong, you are going to destroy our country because we are supposed to be the department that ensures justice across the country.

It seems like what we are doing here in the DOJ is going after political enemies of the administration instead of being fair across the board. The rest of the world notices these things, and they notice that we are not being fair and just and righteous, as we once were. All the time this humanitarian crisis, illegal immigrants flooding into the country from our south, and the administration saying: We don't know why this is happening; why are they rushing here?

Well, then here is a story this week:

The White House to honor young illegal immigrants. The

White House will honor 10 young adults on Tuesday who came

into the United States illegally and qualified for the

President's program to defer deportation actions.

I might remind, Mr. Speaker, that this is the President's program where he decided to change the law unilaterally, without Congress, to say he didn't like the existing law, so he pronounced new law into existence.

The story from Rebecca Shabad says:

Each person has qualified for the government's Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which delays removal

proceedings against them as long as they meet certain

guidelines.

They were honored as ``Champions of Change.''

So the White House is glorifying people that came in illegally and then is shocked that more people want to come in and be glorified for coming in illegally.

There is another story from Reuters of New York:

A New York lawmaker wants to grant many of the rights of

citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and noncitizen

residents, including the right to vote in local and State

elections, under a bill introduced on Monday.

So let's give benefits, let's give a place to stay, let's give food, let's give legal counsel, as this administration is doing all, and let's give them incentives. Let's give them the right to vote so that they can vote for more people to come in illegally. Because once you give the right to vote to people who have not respected the law, and you give them that right to vote before they can be educated on the importance and the responsibility of maintaining a republic--madam, if you can keep it--you are going to lose that republic, you are going to lose the ability to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It becomes lawless. Might makes right.

A story from Breitbart this week:

Pro-Bono Lawyers: Most Unaccompanied Border Children Eligible for Amnesty.

A story by Sylvia Longmire:

Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act, the

federal government transfers custody of illegal immigrant

children who are apprehended alone at our borders to the

Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee

Resettlement. Their primary goal is to reunite them with a

family member or legal guardian already here in the U.S.

So, as U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has said, now we are engaging in human trafficking.

This is a good lesson in how you lose a great nation because you refuse to enforce your laws. This country has never had perfect laws, never will have perfect laws. They are made by man. But the thing we are supposed to internally perpetually strive for is making them better and better.

You don't have to study all that much history to understand that no nation ever lasts forever. They never have, they never will, not in this life.

So the question is: How long are you able to sustain a great nation? Some have gone for hundreds and hundreds of years. The United States has never been, will never be, an empire like the Greek or Roman empire or the British empire because the United States has never been imperialistic.

When we go in and fight for freedom, Americans die for freedom, people still speak their same language, still have their same currency. We help them to set up a government. Well, it is time we quit nation- building.

Now Iraq. So many of us warned about this, and after my last visit to Iraq, Dana Rohrabacher and I pointed out problems to Prime Minister al- Maliki, and he didn't like it. We each pointed out promises that were made and had been broken, and he didn't like it. Even 3 or 4 years ago, it was very clear to us that Maliki was either going to totally sell out to the Iranians, who had been killing Americans who were there, or he would get knocked off, just like in Afghanistan. President Karzai is either going to have to sell out to the Taliban or he is going to be killed, or he can take money that people say he has not actually embezzled that maybe some of his family has, take off with the money and try to live on that somewhere outside of Afghanistan.

We don't have to nation-build. We should just make it clear to a country: Look, you can pick whatever government you want, but when you are a threat to us and you announce you want to destroy us as the great Satan, destroy Israel as the little Satan, and you are working on the bomb that will do that, then we need to take your government out. We need to take out all of your areas where you are working on nuclear weapons and keep bombing until we have satisfactorily done that, and then let the nation pick whatever government they want. But if it is one that wants to come after us again, as the Khomeini administration has, then we need to take them out too.

The problem is this administration has been floating ideas of working with Iran, which had been killing American soldiers the entire time that U.S. soldiers were in Iraq, providing IEDs, providing weapons, providing the means

and people to help kill Americans, and which has made clear they want to wipe our country off the map, wipe Israel off the map, and this administration has people who say: Let's work with Iran to control Iraq.

That is sheer insanity. Who is thinking of these things? Allies of the United States all over the world are asking: Are we the next ally to be thrown away as the United States continues to embrace its enemies and throw away its friends?

Take your pick of the way nations have been lost over time, great nations have lost what freedom they had, what self-control they had. Look at the way they have been lost. Some have lost it internally. They spent too much money on themselves, overspent, they lost the country, became a bankrupt nation. Or sometimes they let their defense down and people came in and overwhelmed the nation. Or sometimes they were attacked by armies who destroyed their power, their government. Everywhere you turn, it appears we are taking the steps--this administration and Congress is not doing enough yet to stop them--but it appears the administration repeatedly is taking all of those roads that lead to destruction.

You cannot keep punishing your friends, rewarding your enemies. You cannot keep encouraging your enemies and allowing them to develop weapons that will destroy you. You cannot leave your borders open when people have made clear: We are bringing drugs in, and we are coming in with weapons now. We are taking over gangs in your cities. We are going to destroy you from within.

You can't keep doing that. Then, all that time, we are cutting spending on our defense to keep evil out. We are still overspending.

Sure, we have given some and helped wonderful companies like Solyndra and paid $600 million or so for a Web site for ObamaCare and friends of the administration when we are told: gee, you could have done a better Web site for $4 million.

Sure, we have spent it on all kinds of things like that, but the spending of future generations' money has to stop because you can lose the country just in that way as well.

Just when you think the lawlessness of the administration could not get any worse--just when you think, wow, it is absolutely incredible-- it is very clear now that this administration's Internal Revenue Service was using IRS laws to persecute political opponents of the administration, so they could not be effective and do again in 2012 what they did in 2010.

Guess what? It worked. At first, we were told: No, they were going after liberal groups and conservative groups the same way.

Well, now, we know that is not true. They were going after conservative groups, and when any administration has IRS officials that send out questions asking about the content of your prayers, it is time to start firing people right and left.

Since that hasn't happened, it tells you that there is a disease running through this administration, a cancer that needs to be stopped.

We know that the Attorney General himself is in contempt of Congress, and we know that he sat there and told me that I was not to ever think it was a big deal for him to be found in contempt, when he knew that a year before he told ABC it wasn't a big deal to him because he didn't have any respect for people in Congress that voted to hold him in contempt. He couldn't even get his story right when he was testifying before Congress.

He needs to go. Since the administration has refused to move out an Attorney General who has repeatedly failed to do his job, has repeatedly failed to do justice, has repeatedly allowed the law to be used to go after political enemies while protecting political friends, while they have refused to go after people who believe that this country ought to be part of a great radical Islamist caliphate--and we protect those people.

Not only do we protect them, according to Egyptian periodicals that were controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, they bragged about the people in this administration who were in positions of power, amazingly--maybe it shouldn't be that amazing--but eventually, truth does have a way of coming forward.

Yes, we have the IRS, at this point, losing emails. Of course, that triggered ideas in my head because there are criminals laws about obstructing Congress. There are criminal laws about obstructing investigations. There are criminal laws about IRS agents abusing their positions.

So anyone anywhere in the administration that is in any way assisted or encouraged in any way the losing or the reported loss of emails-- this active coverup that is going on--they committed a crime, and it isn't just a 6-month statute of limitations, and they should be worried.

So the IRS, despite the laws regarding redundancy, despite the requirements that they are to keep records, they haven't done so.

There was a great letter that was sent by an attorney for True the Vote, one of the persecuted conservative groups. Cleta Mitchell, the attorney, writes to the counsel for the IRS and says:

As you know, True the Vote filed its lawsuit in the above-

referenced matter on May 21, 2013. By the time True the Vote

filed its suit, the Internal Revenue Service and its

employees and officials were on notice of the commencement of

several congressional investigations.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the

House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance

Committee have each provided notice to the IRS of their

ongoing investigations into the IRS and, specifically,

defendant Lois Lerner and her activities related to the

issues involved in the True the Vote litigation for over a

year now.

Late Friday, the IRS apparently advised the Ways and Means

Committee that the IRS has ``lost'' Lois Lerner's hard drive,

which includes thousands of Defendant Lerner's email records.

However, several statutes and regulations require that the

records be accessible by the committees and, in turn, must be

preserved and made available to True the Vote in the event of

discovery in the pending litigation.

Those statutes include the Federal Records Act, Internal

Revenue Manual section 1.15.6.6, IRS Document 12829, 36 CFR

1230, and 36 CFR 1222.12.

Under those records retention regulations and the Federal

Records Act generally, the IRS is required to preserve emails

or otherwise contemporaneously transmit records for

preservation.

Therefore, the failure for the IRS to preserve and provide

these records to the committees would evidence further

violations of numerous records retention statutes and

regulations or obstruction of Congress.

Federal courts have held, in the context of trial, that the

bad faith destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an

issue gives rise to an inference that production of the

evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible

for its destruction.

It then cites a Federal case. That is called the doctrine of spoliation.

The fact that the IRS is statutorily required to preserve

these records, yet nevertheless publicly claimed that they

have been ``lost'' appears to be evidence of bad faith.

18 USC 1505 makes it a Federal crime to obstruct

congressional proceedings and covers obstructive acts made

during the course of a congressional investigation, even

without official committee sanction.

It cites authority for that proposition.

Further, by letters dated September 17, 2013, True the Vote

provided notice to counsel for the individual IRS defendants

in this litigation. The individual defendants are: Steven

Grodnitzky, Lois Lerner, Steven Miller, Holly Paz, Michael

Seto, Douglas Shulman, Cindy Thomas, William Wilkins, Susan

Maloney, Ronald Bell, Janine L. Estes, and Faye Ng.

True the Vote's September 17, 2013, correspondence reminded

you and your clients of the individual defendants' obligation

``not to destroy, conceal, or alter any paper or electronic

files, other data generated by and/or stored on your clients'

computer systems and storage media, e.g., hard disks, floppy

disks, backup tapes, or any other electronic data, such as

voice mail.''

We identified the scope as encompassing both the personal

and professional or business capacity of your clients and

involving data ``generated or created on or after July 15,

2010.'' See attached letters to Ms. Benitez and Messrs.

Lamken and Shur.

As the D.C. District Court has found, ``a party has a duty

`to preserve potentially relevant evidence . . . '' once that

party anticipates litigation.'' ' ''

It cites the authority for that.

In fact, ``that obligation `runs first to counsel, who has

a duty to advise his client of the type of information

potentially relevant to the lawsuit and of the necessity of

preventing its destruction.' '' It ``also extends to the

managers of a corporate party, who `are responsible for

conveying to their employees the requirements for preserving

evidence.' ''

By letter dated September 25, Ms. Benitez acknowledged

receipt of our ``litigation

hold'' letter and vociferously objected to our having the

temerity to send such a letter, ``rejecting'' our

characterization of documents to be preserved.

Indeed, Ms. Benitez, you indicated that you took great

offense at having been put on notice to preserve and maintain

documents related to the issue of this litigation.

You further advised, however, that you would continue to

advise ``your clients as appropriate and, as always, will

abide by my legal and ethical obligations.''

The public reports released late on Friday, June 13, 2014,

stated the IRS now claims to have ``lost'' the emails of

defendant Lois Lerner.

I have got to inject. Ms. Benitez apparently wasn't being honest. She apparently didn't know how to properly advise her clients and properly abide by the legal and ethical obligations that she had.

This letter goes on:

These reports are particularly astonishing in light of your

representations, Ms. Benitez, that you would ``advise your

clients, as appropriate, and would abide by your legal and

ethical obligations.''

The ``lost'' emails, from press reports, appear to cover a

time period from January 2009 to April 2011.

We are deeply troubled by this news and are concerned about

the spoliation of information and documents pertaining to

this case and the apparent failure on your part to, a,

protect and preserve all potentially relevant information

and, b, to advise us of such failure and spoliation when you

first learned of it.

We are even more concerned after receiving your assurances

that you would ``abide by your legal and ethical

obligations.''

Accordingly, we hereby request that you advise us of the

following.

Then it goes on with demands. They are quite reasonable.

It says:

In addition to seeking responses to the questions in this

letter, we also seek your consent to immediately allow a

computer forensics expert selected by True the Vote to

examine the computers that is or are purportedly the source

of Ms. Lerner's ``lost'' emails, including cloning the hard

drives, and to attempt to restore what was supposedly

``lost'' and to seek to restore any and all ``lost'' evidence

pertinent to this litigation.

We also seek access to all computers, both official and

personal, used by any and all of the defendants from and

after July 1, 2010, in order to ensure preservation of the

documents of all defendants in this action.

We wish to resolve our concerns amicably; but, absent your

consent, we will file such motions as deemed necessary and

appropriately asking the court to require that you respond to

the questions contained in this letter and to permit such

forensic examination described herein and for such other

relief as may be appropriate for this egregious breach of

legal authority and professional ethics.

Anyway, the judge in that case needs to go ahead and order all kinds of sanctions against the Internal Revenue Service. It needs to order all kinds of sanctions against the attorneys and the employees involved in that litigation who have failed to produce what was required.

The judge needs to make clear that justice, including from our own so-called Justice Department, will not permit this kind of lawlessness. It is outrageous. It is simply outrageous.

Just when you think the ignoring of the safety of American citizens couldn't get much worse by this administration, they brag that they are bringing a known terrorist to New York City. Nobody on the left seems to be terribly bothered by the fact that they say they are putting him on a slow ship to the U.S. when they should have put him on a fast plane to Guantanamo Bay. It is better kept than many prisons I have been to that actually meet the requirements of the law, including the requirements of liberal judges. It is better than so many prisons.

Yes, they get to play soccer, and when they continue to throw feces or urine on our guards, then they do lose some of their movie time watching. When I was down there a couple of times, somebody lost movie privileges because he figured out a way to throw urine or feces on guards. There actually was a guard who yelled back at the person who threw feces on him, and he ended up being punished, I was told, by Article 15 because you are not allowed to respond when a terrorist throws feces or urine on you. They will take care of the adequate punishment, and they think it is enough to take away some of their movie watching time or television watching time or to maybe take away some of the time they get to be outside, playing soccer.

They don't need to be in the United States if they have committed an act of war against the United States, and the evidence seems to indicate clearly that this defendant had. I am very pleased and I applaud the administration for finally picking up this guy who was so available to international media that they could get interviews with him. Yet the administration didn't want to pick him up. If they had, they could have gotten him at any time. I guess, last year, they picked up this terrible terrorist in Libya, and when I was over there, the Libyans said his address had been on the Internet for a year. The U.S. could have gotten him any time they wanted to--they knew where he lived--but the administration finally decided to do something about it, so they did.

This is an article from CBS News: ``Benghazi Suspect Expected to Face Criminal Charges in D.C. Federal Court.'' When Americans say someone who commits an act of war against the United States should be brought to a Federal district court because it is his constitutional right, it tells you immediately they don't know the Constitution because, under the Constitution, there isn't even a U.S. District Court created. How can somebody have a right to a United States district court under our Constitution when there is no U.S. district court created in our Constitution?

As David Guinn used to say, who was my old constitutional law professor, there is only one court created in the entire Constitution. That is the Supreme Court. Every other Federal court in America owes its existence and jurisdiction to the United States Congress. As Bill Cosby said his father used to say, ``I brought you in this world, and I can take you out.'' The Congress brought these courts into this world. We can take them out of this world. Nobody has a constitutional right to a U.S. district court. If you commit an act of war, you have got a right to a tribunal if we so choose, and we have. You may have a right to a military court.

I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, why in the world liberals in the United States think that someone who commits an act of war against the United States should have more constitutional rights than our United States military, and this administration thinks one does. How do you know? Look at what they are doing to our military. Go talk to some of our military members who have been put in prison. They say: We believed our lives were in jeopardy, that we were in immediate danger of death or of serious bodily injury, so we defended ourselves.

You shouldn't have because you hit a civilian or you hit somebody else or you hit somebody who was messing with an IED, but that didn't mean that he actually planted it.

There are all kinds of people we have in prison now who are serving our United States military, and they were not given near the rights that this person--this radical Islamist who wants to destroy America-- is now being told he is going to get.

So they say they are questioning him, but the Federal Government said that about the last suspect they arrested and put on a slow boat to the U.S., and there were people here who were saying this is great, that this may be the one guy they say they wouldn't mind having waterboarded in order to get all of the information out of him they could.

Then we hear from an international arms dealer who says: Yes, I was the one who negotiated the arms deal for the U.S. State Department. They wanted to get arms to Libyan rebels, and I proposed just their buying them, and then I would get them to the rebels. But they said: No, no, no. We don't want it that direct. So he says he bought the weapons for the State Department and got them to Qatar and then, from Qatar, got them to the rebels who were infused with al Qaeda rebels.

Anyway, the international arms dealer sent me a statement saying he wanted to testify before Congress because the people he worked with who were representing the U.S. Government and others were either dead or they were on a boat somewhere so that nobody could talk to them. He figured, if he could get his story out before Congress, then maybe there wouldn't be any need to kill him or to stick him on a boat

somewhere so he couldn't talk. That was what the statement of the international arms dealer has been--the statement that was sent to me-- and yet they want to bring here someone they say they are certain committed an act of war against the United States.

I heard on the news today that, gee, they have had evidence of this al-Shabaab involvement since the event happened. Since the event happened? That would mean all of the time that Secretary Clinton was out there--saying it was the video and looking family members of the deceased of Benghazi in the eye and saying: We are going to get the guy who did the video--she knew that the evidence was nothing of the sort, that the video had nothing to do with the loss of these four American lives.

There is no right of someone who commits an act of war against the United States to get an immediate trial. He is not entitled under our Constitution to get a speedy trial. He is not under our Constitution entitled to get a trial before a U.S. district court. He is entitled under the current law to go to Guantanamo Bay--where no one has ever been waterboarded by the way--and have a trial in that courtroom. I went through it, and I was impressed at how well equipped it was for trying terrorists, even to the extent of having bulletproof glass for the gallery.

There could be all kinds of horrible scenarios to arise out of this administration's insistence on bringing an enemy combatant--a warrior against the United States--who should be considered either an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. He shouldn't be brought. There are too many bad things that can happen. New York has suffered enough.

I do want to finish with this one article, published this week by Breitbart and written by Kerry Picket. I have talked for some time about a Texan named Mohamed Elibiary. I questioned our Secretary of Homeland Security about her giving him a secret security clearance when he clearly should not have met any of the requirements to get such a clearance. We knew that he had downloaded two documents from using his secret classification. According to reporter Patrick Poole, not only did he download them, but he offered them to national media for publication.

Mr. Elibiary has gotten so cocky now because I have been talking about this for a number of years. The administration has not bothered to revoke his secret classification, and he continues to be one of the top advisers to Homeland Security. It is our homeland security for heaven's sake, and he sends out this tweet on June 13 that says:

Kind of comical watching pundits on some U.S. TV channels

freak out about an ISIS caliphate. Easy, folks. Take deep

breaths and relax.

Kerry Picket reports:

Mohamed Elibiary, a member on the Obama administration's

Homeland Security Advisory Council, is at the center of a

controversy involving allegations that former DHS Secretary

Janet Napolitano gave him secret clearance, which led to his

downloading classified information. According to

Representative Louie Gohmert, Elibiary later shopped that

classified material around to a reporter.

Elibiary, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, who

regularly goes after the Sisi-led Egyptian Government, is

also an active participant on Twitter, and mocked the ``freak

out'' by U.S. talking heads discussing the terrorist

activities relating to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 19, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chris Smith. It turns out that he and I were in Nigeria around the same time. And I am so grateful for his work. He cares so deeply about life, about freedom, about religious liberty, as much as or more than anybody I know in all of Congress. I am so grateful to him for his great work.

It is heartbreaking to see people killed, terrorized, kidnapped, sexually abused, abused in all kinds of other ways simply because of their faith. That is going on in Nigeria and all over the world right now.

I yield to my friend.

My friend brings up an interesting point. When I was there last week, a couple of the Christian pastors from Nigeria that were working with the victims, one of them pointed out to me that one of his groomsmen was a Muslim and they are still very, very close friends. Another, who is a Nigerian woman who has done extraordinary work in trying to help victims, particularly Christian victims, one of her sisters that she loves very much is Muslim.

The point that they were making is that Christians and moderate Muslims have been able to live together for hundreds of years, even in Nigeria, but this radical Islam that has come in, especially in the north, is an abomination. It is antithetical to everything that Christians believe. As a result, they don't care how peace loving Christians may be; you either convert or they kill you.

Having visited with a couple of the three girls who escaped--there were a number of girls who were able to get off the truck during the night, and some others who escaped the school that night and were able to run into the woods in the dark. There were only five or six who actually were in captivity and were able to escape. I have met with three of them. A couple of them were talking about it, and apparently they were telling the girls, you either convert to Islam or your problems get worse--repeated sexual abuse, all kinds of other abuse. They would say: Just convert to Islam and your problems were over.

The trouble is, even when some of these girls at the threat of their very lives converted, which in and of itself is an abomination, their problems were not over. They were still being chided as potential sex slaves for the rest of their lives.

So it is something that ought to concern all peace-loving people everywhere. I have talked to Democrats, friends across the aisle. Republicans, I know, were upset with what is happening.

As I mentioned, these victims, I am not sure about the people my friend Mr. Smith met with in Nigeria, but the people I met with had no idea that the U.S. Government cared at all because they don't follow Twitter. And if you don't follow Twitter, you don't know that they have been doing #bringbackourgirls and making themselves feel very good. It didn't help the victims one iota. They didn't know. As we are told in Christian churches all our lives, they won't care what you know until they know that you care, and Twitter doesn't seem to convey that.

I yield to my friend.

I think my friend and I both agree, we are not asking the United States to go to war in Nigeria.

That is not necessary.

When you go back to Afghanistan, within 4 or 5 months, the Taliban was totally defeated without one American losing his or her life; and we helped them with the kind of thing the gentleman is talking about: training, aerial reconnoissance--we would drop a bomb every now and then where it was directed by our intelligence--all done without a single American life being lost.

Now, after the Taliban were routed, there were some CIA agents who were killed in one of the confinement areas, but that was after, basically, the Taliban had been routed.

So, as the gentleman points out, some training, but the first thing the gentleman named, actionable intelligence that they can act on. I notice that my friend didn't mention that we have got to provide more tweets in order to overcome Boko Haram. Actionable intelligence, give them training to help them do this.

We have done that in the Philippines. We have trained the Philippines to protect themselves; and they have come along so well, fighting radical Islam in the southern parts of the Philippines which, really, most people are not aware has been a real hotbed for this kind of radical Islamic activity. I think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been to the southern Philippines before 9/11. There are just these hotbeds, and the last thing we need is an area like Nigeria where they have been peace-loving and peacekeeping people, and now they are suffering from the abuses and the horrors of radical Islam.

We don't need to lose friends like that. And nothing breaks my heart more, traveling abroad, than to be constantly asked: Why do you appear to be helping our enemies and not helping your allies?

I don't know if the gentleman has heard that.

If that FTO--foreign terrorist organization--designation had been made earlier on, some might ask, what difference does it make? Well, clearly it could have made a big difference, because if the emphasis had been placed earlier on at just how much of a terrorist organization Boko Haram is they may not have had the power they did to do what they did.

I don't know if my friend is aware, but in talking to these mothers and the three girls that had escaped, as they talked about that night the girls said--and I had not heard this before--but they painted a picture much like my friend had painted of other locations and what Boko Haram and other radical Islamists had done. They came to the school, and it is a bit shocking that their intel was not better, but they kept asking the girls at gunpoint: Where are the boys? Where are the boys? It was a girls school, and they are: Where are the boys? Where are the boys? Well, there are no boys, and they didn't believe them at first. They wanted the boys to do exactly what the gentleman said--they were going to pull the boys out and kill them.

I said: So was it because some radical Islamists do not think that women should be educated? And they said: No, no, the point was it was a Christian school, so if you are a young man they will kill you, because men or women, you should never be educated in a Christian school even if you are not taught about the Bible at all. If it is a Christian-run school, whether it discusses the Bible teachings of Jesus and all, still you should be killed if you are a young man and abused horribly if you are a young woman. So they didn't even know that there were no boys there and were disappointed when all they had were the girls to take off and abuse them.

But just a horrible humanitarian situation. As the gentleman points out--although I have been called an Islamophobe, xenophobe, all kinds of things by people that want to portray something we are not--I was amused at the reaction I saw over my shoulder in Kabul when there were a few of us that went to meet with some Northern Alliance leaders I met with a number of times. Dana Rohrabacher first introduced me to some, had met others.

But we were going, and they weren't sure I was going to be able to get across the city to meet them, and I was determined, and I told the State Department: You see that gate out here at the Embassy? You are going to have

to take me down because I am getting in a car and I am going to see our allies. I was informed: We are not authorized to take down a Member of Congress. I said: Then you won't stop me. My friend Massoud is sending a car. Having lost his brother, his father-in-law, he knows about security, he will keep me safe, and I am going to meet him.

Well, they arranged for a car from the Embassy that was secured and we went. When we arrived at their compound and I got out of the car, I was surprised this big group of Northern Alliance leaders came rushing down, including General Dostum. But Massoud particularly, I really have high regard for him, came rushing out, they are rushing down the porch, and I notice my other friends from Congress are going: What's going on here, they are rushing to meet each other, are they going to hit each other or what is this?

We embraced when we saw each other. They are moderate Muslims. We disagree on religious beliefs, but they are the enemy of our enemy, and those people successfully defeated the Taliban, our enemy, they want to wipe our Nation off the Earth, and all the Northern Alliance want is to be left alone and let them run their own area. It can be done. Christians and moderate Muslims can live in peace, can embrace, can be in each other's weddings, as happens in Nigeria. But when it comes to radical Islam we have got to call it what it is.

I was a bit surprised to hear from some of the people from Chibok that they honestly believe that the governor is in cahoots with Boko Haram and, if not, is either sympathetic or very afraid of them. They also have grave concern that the principal of that school may have been complicit in assisting in having this happen. That could be an issue because they didn't have enough intel to know there were no boys there, so I am not sure. At least some of the parents were very concerned whether or not the principal may have been complicit. Perhaps the principal was just concerned for the principal's own life, who knows?

But they don't know that we care, and there are some very inexpensive things that will come back as ``bread on the water'' if we assist others in stopping radical Islam right where it is--as our friend George W. Bush used to say--where they get stopped somewhere else and not right outside or inside our own homes. That is not the place you want to be stopping them.

I am so grateful for the gentleman's heart and for his efforts.

The gentleman met with fathers. I didn't meet with fathers. I asked a pastor: Why do we not hear more and see more of the fathers of the girls who were abducted, kidnapped, and being brutalized? I was aware, and some of them had talked about, some people choose to leave their homes to sleep so that Boko Haram doesn't invade their home at night.

But some of them were explaining--and these are all mothers of daughters who were kidnapped; she had two daughters kidnapped--but that it is an interesting thing, a deeply troubling thing about evil. Sometimes people who do evil, they intentionally do things that make the victims feel guilty when it is not their fault.

One of the things that counselors constantly have to deal with, and I know from having prosecuted abusive women, you are constantly having to tell them no one deserved this, no one deserved to be beaten or harmed like you were hurt, nobody. There is no excuse, it is not your fault.

There were times that, as a judge, after sentencing, children would feel guilty, and I would say: You have got to understand, please don't leave my courtroom thinking you did anything wrong.

One of the things that some of the fathers and some of the mothers, they were telling me, they feel so guilty about, that night in the middle of the night, they get word the school has been raided and the girls have been taken. Some of the parents went running and they went all the way to where the school was. They had nothing. They were empty- handed. One woman was so appalled that her daughter had been taken she ran out and a little boy had to say: Ma'am, take my shirt, take my shirt, that she wasn't properly clad. But they were so worried about the girls they didn't think of grabbing anything. They ran.

When they got to the area where some girls were being held all of the Boko Haram had AK-47s, they had machine guns, weapons. These people had empty hands. They were told you either walk away or we kill every one of you, and they would have. They had shown that over and over. They killed people and didn't think twice.

They are thinking, well, if we kill us all here then we have no chance of helping our daughters, but we have got to get them free. We will all be killed right here, so will this do any good?

Well, now they are saddled with the guilt of thinking, maybe if we had gone ahead and ran at them and they slaughtered all of us out there, maybe the world would have listened and our daughters would be safe now.

They have no reason to feel that kind of guilt, none. But this is the kind of insidious evil that Boko Haram is engaged in. It is a travesty to anyone who cares about life or liberty and should be deeply offensive even to moderate or semi-moderate Muslims. They ought to be joining us in this call for an end to the existence of Boko Haram, to the Taliban, to all those who are so pervasive with evil.

This is one of the girls that escaped. It breaks your heart when you start hearing her tell her story.

Unlikely Heroes is the name of the NGO helping these victims. They are helping families. I don't know if you have heard, but just this week, Unlikely Heroes said they are now being contacted like never before from victims who were too afraid and felt like nobody cared and what difference would it make, and now, they are stepping up.

We don't have to go to war for them, but we can help direct their efforts--give them the intel, give them what they need. Then, at some point, we need to help bring pressure on the Nigerian Government to make sure that the people of Nigeria benefit from the massive amount of wealth that is going somewhere.

I sure don't see where it is going in Nigeria, but it is going somewhere. It is not being kept by the oil companies. It is going to somewhere, to somebody in Nigeria, and the people of Nigeria need to begin to enjoy some of the wealth with which their land has been blessed, and I hope we see that in our lifetime as well.

As my friend said, there is so much good in Nigeria.

We should not lose sight of that.

As a child growing up in Mount Pleasant, Texas, my mother's first cousins, Gene and Mary Leigh Legg, and their children-- Beth, Arnold Lloyd, and Linda Leigh--were missionaries to Nigeria. They would go to Nigeria for 3 years and then come back to Mount Pleasant for a year, and they would normally live close to my house. We were always close. We went to church together. We were at each other's houses all the time.

So I grew up vicariously learning the love of the Nigerian people that the Leggs had.

Mary Leigh later had a brain tumor. There was nothing that could be done. Since it was inoperable and they couldn't fix it and she was going to lose her life, she wanted to die there among the Nigerians that she had spent her adult life helping, but the Southern Baptist mission board said: no, we can't have a missionary dying out there in the field, you have got to come back to Texas.

So just a block or so from my house is where she was--we watched her--but she really wanted to die among the people she loved in Nigeria.

Gene later remarried. Jackie and Gene then were missionaries to Nigeria. Beth, Lloyd, and Linda Leigh never lost their love for Nigeria. Jackie and Gene are back in Henderson, Texas, but they still do anything they can for Nigerians.

So I have had the affinity. I have known of the love and the graciousness of the Nigerian people since my earliest memories. It also adds to the heartache when you see what the people are going through these days.

I hope and pray that the Nigerian leaders, the governors in the northeast area and principals of schools, if they are not complicit, they need to come out and make clear that they are an enemy of Boko Haram. Let consequences follow where they may because, when those leaders in those areas stand up and make clear that they do not stand with this kind of evil, then it will give great courage to others.

So I appreciate the gentleman so very much in his efforts around the world. There is much to be done.

The former Attorney General of Nigeria has also weighed in and is really working hard to combat radical Islam, and so it is good to see both government officials and former government officials like that weigh in.

There was a press conference we had with all these mothers and the three girls sitting in the back, but it was amazing to hear the comments of all of those Nigerians. All of their comments showed forth faith. It is amazing.

I doubt that I would have said the same things that I said there in a press conference here, but since this is a big group of people who were either committed Christians or Muslims that are moderate, peace-loving people, I pointed out to them that it was obvious Boko Haram means this for evil.

They mean to harm decent, innocent people just because they are Christians--some are moderate Muslims--but they meant it for evil.

This brought me back to a place a long way from my home in the U.S., but not so far from here in Nigeria--just northeast of here--a place called Egypt, where a brother ended up because his 11 other brothers sold him into slavery.

He cried. He wept. He was thrown into a pit. He was a slave. He couldn't understand why God had deserted him. He ended up being a slave and a servant and imprisoned.

Ultimately, he became the second most powerful man in all of Egypt. Because he was the second most powerful man, he was able to save Egypt during the famine that no one knew was coming, but God revealed to him, Joseph.

When his brothers finally realized who he was and began to weep, Joseph told them: you meant it for evil--because what they did was evil, but God used it for good.

Boko Haram means this for evil, but despite all the evil and all the suffering, God can still work this together for good.

I also looked in the camera there and I said: I have a message for Boko Haram. You think your hate for Christians is so powerful, no one can overcome it. Let me tell you, there is a stronger force than your hate, and that is the love of these parents for their children, that is the Christian love you find in Nigeria, and your hate will never be able, ultimately, to win the day over the stronger force of love.

I believe that with all my heart.

I believe that with all my heart, and I am looking forward to the day when love triumphs over the evil of Boko Haram.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to finish by commenting on the comments of our President, particularly in the context of what has gone on in the world.

The story says that, at a White House event on Wednesday, where the President took questions from Tumblr users, President Obama addressed what he will be doing in the future, but he made these comments that I just feel like we have to address in light of what my friend Mr. Smith and I have been talking about.

The President said:

I mean, the truth of the matter is that, for all the

challenges we face and all the problems that we have, if you

had to be--if you had to choose any moment to be born in

human history, not knowing what your position was going to

be, who you were going to be, you'd choose this time. The

world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier

than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever

been. It is better fed than it's ever been. It is more

educated than it's ever been.

With regard, though, to the less violent, one doesn't have to look too far to see the kinds of things that are going on in this world. The latest crime statistics indicate violent crime is up, though property crime has gone down.

Here is a story from January of this year from Reuters. This is Reuters. This is not a group that has ever been particularly kind to me. ``Religious Violence Across World Hits 6-year High According to Pew Study.''

The story says:

Violence and discrimination against religious groups by

governments and rival faiths have reached new highs in all

regions of the world except the Americas, according to a new

Pew Research Center report.

Social hostility, such as attacks on minority faiths or

pressure to conform to certain norms was strong in one-third

of the 198 countries and territories surveyed in 2012,

especially in the Middle East and North Africa, it said on

Tuesday.

Although this story says, ``except the Americas,'' we have commented numerous times here that, in recent years, it has come to be that there is really only one group in America that it is politically correct to be absolutely intolerant toward, and that is the Christian faith. It is okay to belittle the Christian faith. It is okay to belittle the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

It is the exact same position the President took when he was a Senator in order to become President because that was very important in his becoming President in 2008. He took the position--most people did-- that marriage

was between a man and a woman, and it is a Christian position. I mean, it is in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Jesus, himself, said that a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home, and the two will become one flesh, and what God has joined together let no man put asunder.

That is marriage, Biblical marriage. Anybody who retains the belief that Jesus had and that Moses conveyed as he got it from God was that it was between a man and a woman.

If you hold that position now, it has become widely accepted that, gee, you should lose your job, that you should lose money, that you should have the Nation turn in hatred upon you and your family. Heck, some people want you to go to jail. They want you prosecuted. They want the IRS--they want everybody--after you just because you believe the same thing that Senator Obama said he believed before he became President and that Jesus said was actually the law of God and that Moses said was the law of God. Yet, nowadays, if you take that Christian position, you are a hate monger, and we want to destroy you, which is in direct opposition to the quote that was so often stated during the Revolution. It was attributed to different people. I think more people attributed it to Voltaire:

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the

death your right to say it.

It used to be that on college campuses they would invite different people so they could get good arguments and good debates among the students. Now they don't want anybody who doesn't fit the cookie- cutter, liberal mode of whoever is in charge at the university. For heaven's sake, who would have ever dreamed at Brandeis University's founding that, when a Muslim woman stood up against the evils of radical Islam, she would be refused to be allowed to come to the university.

It is time we stand up for freedom, liberty here and everywhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been going on in the last 24 hours--a lot of surprises--which help make life interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to attention, again, the human tragedy that has arisen in Africa--and Nigeria specifically--as I was there at the end of last week for a couple of days meeting with some of the mothers of girls who were kidnapped.

There was an excellent story in The Blaze done by Sara Carter today where she says:

Precious and Hope--two girls' names--ran for their lives

through the thick brush of the Nigerian forest. They could

feel their hearts pounding, their bare feet scraped from the

rocks, and their legs throbbing from the thorns that

penetrated their skin as they crawled low through the tangle

to avoid detection.

They were running from the armed Islamist fighters who had

seized them and approximately 300 other schoolgirls from what

they had believed was the safety of their boarding school in

Chibok, Nigeria, in one of the most brazen mass kidnappings

in history. Only the night before, the two 15-year-olds had

been sleeping peacefully. It was mid-April, and many of the

girls had chosen to try to stay cool by sleeping underneath

the night sky in only their shirts and

undergarments while others left the windows of their

dormitories wide open to stave off the humidity. What they

didn't expect shortly after they closed their eyes was that

their world would soon be turned upside down.

This is the story of the night that Precious and Hope were

taken by Boko Haram and about their against-all-odds escape

the next day while so many of their classmates remain

missing.

I have met those girls, Mr. Speaker, and they are precious, hopeful girls, but their hearts have been quite broken. Even though they have escaped, they have had many nightmares when they have lain down, because they have realized that what happened to them is happening to their friends every day.

I did ask one of the pastors from Chibok, whom I met there--who was trying to assist the families, the mothers and the three girls who had escaped--what happened to the men? What happened to the fathers? I was told that so many of them feel so helpless and that they feel so guilty because now they don't even know where their girls are, but they know what is happening to them every day, and they can't stand the thought of what is happening to their daughters every day and what they know is happening. Many of the fathers don't feel worthy to be sleeping in their own homes, so they have gone into the bush to sleep, to be there while their daughters are suffering at the hands of these radical Islamists who think, somehow, they serve a god who thinks it is cute and it is funny, as one leader was laughing, talking about the sexual slavery of the girls and that they should be sold into sexual slavery.

It is just sheer evil.

I understand that moderate Muslims do not approve of this activity. I met and was with some moderate Muslims in Nigeria who understand how appalling and outrageous this activity is, but it is time moderate Muslims around the world actually stood up to the radical Islam that is doing so much damage in this world and is purveying so much evil. It is time they stood up.

Counselors told me that they have had so much trouble in trying to help these mothers because they are so distraught, and what they have been told over and over and over again is that nobody cares; and if America ever came up, it was made clear that nobody in America cares and that they were certainly not going to come. So it has been very rough for them. I got an email today from one of the principals of the NGO unlikely heroes who is helping the families and the girls who have been able to escape so far, and she said even just one person from America coming has opened the doors to their having hope.

Now, if one lowly, bald-headed guy from east Texas, just by going over and meeting with these women and children and meeting with the pastors and counselors, could provide hope sufficient to open the doors to so many more who have been victims--who thought it was hopeless and nobody cared now today and in the last few days coming forward--just think what could have happened if our beautiful First Lady had made a trip to Nigeria or if our President had even taken actions that got back to the families so they knew there was hope.

The United States has no business going to war in Nigeria--we should not--but there are things that could be done without declaring war on a country when you find out that there is such a pervasive evil as Boko Haram, as al Qaeda, as radical Islam that wants to wipe the United States off the map and doesn't mind killing, repeatedly raping young girls, burning churches, burning homes, terrorizing people all because they had this sick, perverted idea that their god thinks that is good fun. It is time for moderate Muslims to stand up and to stand for the god they believe in. That would give even more hope.

I took some pictures while I was there. I wasn't sure it was a good idea, but they said this is part of providing hope that somebody will take this to America and that others will understand, and then if they could see pictures of its being presented in Congress, that that would add even more hope and would help good people to rise up who have been victims for so long.

America doesn't have to fight everybody's war, but they certainly have to do more than a hashtag and a Twitter. 43 and Twitters, as we saw, were not sufficient to stop Putin from invading the Crimea. Hashtags and Twitters were not sufficient to keep Boko Haram leaders from laughing at the sexual and horrible abuse of young girls who were kidnapped from school--girls they are still holding. At least President Clinton was willing to send a missile from time to time to try to send a message. In this administration, we have sent hashtags instead. It doesn't provide a whole lot of hope. They don't follow Twitter in the jungles of Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker, these are many of the mothers of the girls who were kidnapped by the radical Islamist group Boko Haram. They were anxious, actually, to have a picture taken so that people could actually see and they wouldn't be forgotten. The faces of the minor girls have been blurred out. This woman here, Mr. Speaker, had two daughters who were kidnapped. She had great difficulty in talking about what happened the night they were kidnapped without falling to the floor and weeping bitterly. Their pastor over here on the far right is a devout Christian leader and is doing all he can to help the victims' families.

This is that mother, Mr. Speaker, and the pastor. The counselor said just having someone come from the United States, put an arm around them, hug, and hold a hand has changed the outlook. Imagine what would happen if the authority of our administration did something besides Twitter.

The pastor is a sweetheart of a man. He seemed so grateful. He said he knew what it meant that someone came all the way from America to show he cared.

The face is blurred, but this is one of the children. They said she has had trouble doing a whole lot of anything but weeping and is in a deep, deep depression for her friends.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe it is true--to whom much is given, of them much will be required. We have been blessed like no nation in the history of the world. Now, in one of the ways you provide hope--and it is throughout the Book of Proverbs, throughout the Bible, itself-- government is supposed to show impartiality and take care of those within its country.

Some wonder, Well, gee. Aren't we supposed to help our neighbors? Neighbors could be from other countries. That is absolutely correct. As individuals, we are supposed to help our neighbors, and our neighbors can be from other countries, but there is a sworn obligation of government to help protect and keep the people safe within the country's borders.

One of the reasons that it is helpful in a government role to reach out to people and give them hope to defeat their enemies and to stand up to their enemies is that, as President Bush used to say, I would much rather fight our enemies somewhere else instead of around our own homes. I would think that, as has been done in different places around the world, we can go to war, but you send a little help. For heaven's sake, in Libya, when we knew there were rebels who were supported by al Qaeda, we ended up having some kind of operation to send weapons in-- getting weapons to people we knew included al Qaeda.

I have been wondering: How many of those weapons were being bandied about the night Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty were killed?

Yet we have nations that are friendly nations, that we know are not evil, are not possessed by evil, but are wanting to fight evil--radical Islam--that is a threat to people in this country. Anywhere radical Islam exists, it exists with the belief that there should be a worldwide caliphate and that everyone, particularly in the Great Satan of America, should be destroyed or subjugated or, at the very best, made to pay a tax for the right to exist in another religion within Muslim country--if not killed or wiped out altogether.

I certainly won't forget those families in Nigeria. It is startling to think how much could be helped by doing something more than Twitter. That is no substitute for a foreign policy.

Our moderate Muslim friends, our international atheist friends, our Christian friends, they feel like we ought to stand up against evil that ultimately would be a threat to us.

I think people should not forget that the Taliban was defeated within a matter of short months in Afghanistan,

without a single American loss of life, up to and including that famous ride uphill led by the Northern Alliance leader, General Dostum, whom I have met a number of times. The Taliban was routed and defeated. No American blood was shed to that point.

There are ways to fight evil without going to war. But if you are not going to fight, for our soldiers, for our military members' sake, don't leave them stranded telling them to hold what they got when it may include IEDs.

The lesson from Vietnam should have been, we are not going to send our military anywhere that we don't give them all of the weapons they need to fight, to win, and come home.

We are not, never have been empire builders. Never have been. That is why the people in France still speak French. In Germany they speak German. In Italy they speak Italian, because we have never been about building an empire. We have been about liberty, freedom.

We want to be left alone, but when evil raises its head, it is time to speak up.

But the only way a nation can remain a nation very long and be effective, without giving way to complete corruption or chaos, is if the rule of law is observed impartially, across the board.

And you can't have a law-abiding, effective nation where there are immigration laws that say, here is the process you must go through in order to get into our country. Over a million people a year go through that legal process, and more millions are standing in line to go through that process.

All they see and hear is that America is no longer a nation of laws. America now just lets anybody come in who comes. And we ignore the law. We become as a temporary Third World nation, saying we are going to ignore the laws that have helped make us the greatest nation in the world.

I still haven't heard from this administration any explanation as to why they might think that unaccompanied minors under 18 are flocking to our border like never before.

As I have explained, Mr. Speaker, before, when the word spreads through Central America, South America that if you just come to America, we are not sending anybody home, and story after story says that people come and they get word back home, we came, and sure enough, they are not sending people home.

For those in the administration who are not stupid, but are ignorant of what is going on, here is an article, translated from an El Salvadoran newspaper dated June 7. The headline, Mr. Speaker, is: ``USA Will Give Legal Assistance to Children Migrating Alone.''

Well, that is incentive. Wow. It is really true. The newspaper said if you can just get your kids to the United States, the U.S. Government will give them legal assistance.

The story is going back. It is not comfortable. Some people are lying in large rooms together, but food is being provided. Now they are going to provide legal assistance. Medical care, medical needs are provided because that is who we are.

The problem is, you have to stop the humanitarian crisis by continuing to lure people into the United States by saying the United States law is United States law.

Each of us in the Federal Government, Congress, and the administration, we have taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution, which means we follow our Federal laws, which means you have got to come into the United States legally.

Some estimate that maybe a billion, billion and a half people want to come into the United States. That would overwhelm, destroy the United States. We have an obligation to make sure we bring people in in a rational, methodical way so that we don't destroy this great nation.

So it seems to be a bit hypocritical for countries that don't allow near as many people in to their countries as we do, percentagewise or otherwise, to complain about unfair U.S. immigration laws.

Well, there are some things that certainly need to be reformed, and we could get that done immediately once the President ever gets around to securing the border.

But we have got to get back to following the law, to enforcing the law, or we are going to lose the country. With what is happening on our southern border, with what it is happening with the lawlessness in this city, people not only refusing to follow the law and follow their oath, but actually coming up with ways to encourage people to come violate our law even more by the thousands.

Here's another article from an El Salvador newspaper from June 5: ``Extension of Suspension of Student Deportation.'' So, the article here is making clear, yes, some came into the United States illegally, but the President is suspending enforcement of the laws he is sworn to uphold.

He just did it by fiat. He announced it. So is it spoken, so is it written, so shall it be.

That is what happens in a monarchy. That is not supposed to happen here. And if our friends down the other end of the hall in the Senate would stand with us, we could get back to observing the Constitution and protect the constitutional powers that are afforded to Congress and not to the other end here of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It is time to stand up. And perhaps, if people in this administration were not so busy luring people in by their words and actions, luring them to violating U.S. law, then maybe they would have more time to send more than a Twitter to evil radical Islamists wreaking havoc around the world that will ultimately end up on our doorstep because they still consider us the Great Satan.

Here is from a Honduran newspaper: ``U.S. Military Base in California Used to House Children.'' The article is translated from June 7. Going through and explaining how these kids came up unaccompanied. We didn't turn them back. We brought them in. We are taking care of them.

Here is another article, though, from Houston. ``Breitbart Announces Border Security and Public Corruption Tip Line'':

The U.S. Border Patrol has been overwhelmed. The Federal

Government is releasing thousands of illegal immigrants per

week.

The information Washington, D.C., shares about the border

with the American people is often at odds with reality in the

region, and scores of foreign children were found to be

packed into holding cells on U.S. soil.

Breitbart News has reported a near-steady stream of Mexican

cartel activity and criminal efforts across the United

States, reported on a plethora of corrupted U.S. officials

and law enforcement along or near the U.S.-Mexico border, and

reported countless tales of human suffering due to an often

wide open and unsecured border.

Breitbart Texas is introducing a new tip line for Border

Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, other

law enforcement, and other citizens to expose the reality of

conditions along the U.S. Mexico border.

``The new tip line is for law enforcement or anyone who

wants to speak out on discrepancies between what Washington,

D.C., is saying and what is actually occurring on the

ground.''

Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby said:

``Whether you know of Mexican cartel-related corruption

occurring on U.S. soil, people or government officials

helping human trafficking, foreign children being kept in

horrible conditions or exploited, or simply feel the moral

obligation to tell Americans what is really occurring in the

region, this tip line is for you.''

``We are competent and able to handle and research these

matters,'' Darby said. ``Anyone can call in and email with

information, and we will do all we can to investigate and get

the word out.''

The tip line number, the article says, is 877-204-2033. Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby can be reached. Somebody is trying to make a difference.

So then here is a story from The Washington Times by Cheryl Chumley: ``Border Agents Warn of Chicken Pox, MRSA, Staph From Illegal Child Crossings.'' Border patrol agents who have already experienced scabies infestation from illegal border crossers now fear that thousands of children who are sweeping into the United States are bringing a host of new diseases and ailments of even more serious nature.

``We are starting to see chicken pox, MRSA, staph infections. We are starting to see different viruses,'' said Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Agent Chris Cabrera.

Meanwhile, agents are still fighting off the scabies, a highly contagious skin disease that causes massive itching due to burrowing mites.

The article goes on: ``We have an obligation to our oath to this country, to those we are supposed to provide a

common defense for, and it is pretty tragic what it happening now.''

Here is a situation report from Thursday, May 29, RGV Sector Unified Coordination Group, EOC, and it goes through numbers, UACs, unaccompanied children, running through numbers of kids coming into the country illegally.

Then as U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has reported, the Department of Homeland Security has been engaging in human trafficking.

Come into the country, we will take you to your parents, even if they are illegally here. Leave your aunt, uncle, family. Come with human traffickers to the United States, and we will get you to wherever your parents will be. If you are coming and your parents are not with you, and they are not in the United States, hey, we will find somebody to take care of you.

That is not the message that is literally being sent out by this administration, but that is certainly the message that is being communicated by our actions. As a result, the number of what this human smuggling report says cause illegal alien apprehensions by southwest border sector shows to be skyrocketing, skyrocketing.

It is incredible the number of people that are now flooding into the United States because they have heard nobody is following their oath with this administration. They are not enforcing the law. They have become like our country, basically. They are ignoring the law. It is great. Come on now.

Here's a sitrep report from 9 June, 1600 hours, regarding unaccompanied children, the UC influx. It reports, Mr. Speaker, for the entire month of May, there were 5,595 children screened by the Border Patrol, but just in the first 8 days of June, there had been 6,956 children screened by the Border Patrol. As I understand it, May was far bigger than April, and April was bigger than March.

I mean, this is increasing because the administration has not gotten serious about abiding by its oath, by not providing a common defense, not enforcing our borders, not enforcing our immigration laws.

A Nation that refuses to enforce such important laws is going to find that, when it gets around to deciding the Nation is at risk, it will find that it is quite possibly too late.

Instead of being concerned about following an oath, enforcing immigration laws, making sure that people have filled out the proper documents, gotten a visa legally--properly--coming in the proper way, we had many officials who were brought in, made aware of this Bergdahl swap, except for the people the law required to be told--yes, the Members of Congress--the lawlessness goes on. We have got to stand up and say enough is enough.

This is an article under U.S. news titled, ``Officials Predicted Detainees in Bowe Bergdahl Swap Would Rejoin Taliban,'' from Julian Barnes, dated June 10, from Washington.

Before the U.S. transferred five Afghan Taliban detainees

to secure the freedom of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, American

intelligence officials predicted that two of the men would

return to senior positions with the militant group, according

to U.S. officials.

The classified assessment, a consensus of spy agencies

compiled during the prisoner-swap deliberations, said two

others of the five were likely to assume active roles within

the Taliban, while only one of the five released detainees

was considered likely to end active participation in the

group's effort to undermine the elected government of

Afghanistan.

Make no mistake--it is not here in this article--but these people do not just believe in being hostile to the Government of Afghanistan. They consider the United States the Great Satan.

While this is going on and we are releasing terrorists, who will ultimately kill Americans--and mark my words, there will be Americans who die unnecessarily because of the release of these murderous thugs.

For anyone who says, well, you know, they didn't technically stab anybody or actually cut off their heads--they believe, they are complicit, they support, they assist, and under every State's law, I am aware of--and every Federal law--that makes them a principal. That makes them guilty of the crime, itself.

I would think, under the logic of those who say, well, we don't think they actually murdered somebody, themselves--well, under that scenario, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's admission that he planned 9/11/2001 and that he glorifies Allah if he has terrorized Americans, he is not really a murderer because he didn't actually fly the plane in that killed them himself. He just planned it and made sure that it was carried out. That is some pretty weak reasoning.

This is going to cost American lives, letting these five Taliban go.

There was a bill that my friend from California, Dana Rohrabacher, filed--some of us signed onto--that would have prevented the executive branch from taking any action to release four of these five that were released. That is how serious we took it, but the administration seems to think: hey, it was a good deal, we made a good deal.

Well, it wasn't a good deal. You can't release people who have engaged in evil this serious, who have not recanted their evil, who want to go back and commit atrocities against nonradical Islamists-- whether moderate Muslims, but especially Christians and Jews--and not expect that to come back on you and hurt you.

This is an article from FOX News, published June 11, today, ``Hagel admits administration mishandled aspects of Taliban swap.'' You think?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrives on Capitol Hill in

Washington, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, to testify before the

House Armed Services Committee.

Defense Secretary Hagel, on Wednesday, sought to ease

concerns about the controversial swap of five hardened

Taliban leaders for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, but under

pressure from lawmakers, acknowledged that the administration

mishandled the announcement.

``We didn't handle some of this right,'' Hagel admitted to

the House Armed Services Committee, toward the end of the

first public hearing on the prisoner exchange.

The hearing lasted more than 5 hours, as lawmakers from

both sides of the aisle voiced concerns about the trade--

while some also accused Republicans of exaggerating the

security threats.

It is unfortunate that names aren't mentioned as to who said Republicans were exaggerating the security threats because, Mr. Speaker, when Americans are killed because of this ill-advised swap, we need to be able to come back to the floor and say: these are the people that thought it was exaggerated to say that releasing murderous, evil thugs who hate America was not going to come back to bite us and cost American lives.

This other article, all of this going on at the same time, ``U.S. Watches As Iraq Speeds Toward Disaster.''

Fighters for the al Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and

Syria took Mosul today, giving the militant group control of

Iraq's second largest city and setting the country on a path

toward chaos.

ISIS militants already control Fallujah, a city that

American Marines took in 2004 in what was the bloodiest

battle of the Iraq war. Now, with both Mosul and Fallujah

under their control, nearly half of Iraq is in the grips of a

group that is a formal affiliate of a terrorist group.

Equally troubling are the circumstances under which the

city fell. Iraqi security personnel simply abandoned their

posts, according to reports.

It sounded like the Bush administration had teed up a security forces agreement--sometimes called SFA--with Iraq, could have gone ahead and signed it, but thought--because this is the way George W. Bush thinks-- even though he is a Republican and a Democrat was coming in, like his father, he feels like: I will do something nice. I will leave this teed up. He can come in, sign it, get a lot of credit. It will help him start off a good Presidency.

Well, guess what, it didn't work out. It turns out Bush should have gone ahead and signed the agreement. Because of the mishandling by this administration, now all of those precious American lives and the blood that was shed at Mosul and Fallujah now has radical Islamists back standing on those spots where the blood was shed.

It is time for what in east Texas is called common sense and here in Washington is just sense because it isn't common. It is time for us to listen to the American people, to read the law and follow it, to keep our oaths to the American people because a failure to be vigilant costs liberty.

I still think, Mr. Speaker, because to whom much is given--which is the United States, given more than any nation in history--of them, much is required.

As we allow lawlessness to continue on our borders here in Washington

without encouraging law-abiding, decent activity in places where evil radical Islam is reigning supreme, we will be held accountable. This country will suffer for its negligent and intentional neglect in following the law that has made us so great.

To those who want to descend to Third World status, this is how you do it: you just stop following your own laws, you start ruling by how you feel about things, instead of what the law says.

We have an oath to do better. We have an obligation to the past generations who have sacrificed the last full measure of devotion, as Lincoln said, and our failure will cause future generations to rise up and curse our names if we don't start forcing people to follow the law.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I yield back the balance of my time with a broken heart.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, we have been going through appropriation bills, today Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. We have had an open rule process where anybody who wanted to bring any amendment could do so. I was a little surprised that my amendment did not pass. It had 160 votes today. This is a very simple amendment. We took the last official number we could find from an executive branch, from January of 2009, before President Obama was sworn in, and it indicated that there was less than 1 percent of those getting section 8 public housing given to them, and so we took the amount of money clear back from 2009, even though there are indications that it is many times that now, we just took that conservative amount, trying to be conservative and trying to be more than fair, which it was, and said, okay, we have got to send a message to Housing and Urban Development folks that you can't just keep giving housing away.

I know the mainstream media never talks about it when there is a Democratic President, but they sure bring it right back up as soon as a Republican takes over the White House, and that is homelessness. Well, if homelessness is ever a problem, then why do we keep offering and paying for people to use federally financed housing when they are not legally getting federally financed housing?

So it gets me to use the word ``only'' with $24 million, but it was only $24 million that would be the amount reduced from section 8 public housing to send a message that, HUD, if you are going to be providing housing to people who are not legally allowed in public housing, then we are going to cut your funding by that much. It seemed like a pretty good amendment. It sent a message. And I was grateful for the numbers. The USA is very concerned about the illegal immigration issue. We scored that as an important vote, and we got 160 votes.

If we cannot, as a majority Republican Congress, muster a majority of votes to say to the rest of the country that we have an obligation in this generation not to spend future generations' money, not to continue to be the first generation in American history to put succeeding generations into so much debt they can never get out of it--we have a moral obligation not to do that. It is absolutely immoral to be spending future generations' money. It is wrong, and if we can't even agree to cut public housing that is provided to people by the amount that was provided 5 years ago--illegally--then where are we ever going to make cuts?

It would be nice if America were strong enough to house and feed the entire world. But if we try to do that, we will be so devastated and emaciated as a country that we will become a Third World country, because you just can't do that. You go bankrupt, then people quit buying your products, and then you have an entire rebound situation. But that is how you can become a destitute country.

It is how the Soviet Union went out of business. It is what happens to any country, any group that tries to live under a communist or socialist system. As Margaret Thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people's money, and you are broke.

A true free market system does not fail. A free market system fails when it becomes more and more and more socialistic, more government controlled, more giveaways, less reward for one's own work, and more reward for not working at all. That brings down a nation under the rules of socialism because it cannot stand--not in this life. It cannot. Yet, this Congress, though we are Republican-controlled in the House, is continuing to fail to stand strongly enough to protect future generations. And it is heartbreaking.

Now, I got back from being in Nigeria for a couple of days. There are mothers with whom I met of young minor girls. Three of the girls were taken into captivity by Boko Haram, a radical Islamic group, and they were able to escape. There were only a handful that were able to do that, and this was three of those. Twenty-two of the mothers--one mother had two of her girls kidnapped.

Radical Islam, because of its desire for a global caliphate, is a threat to all freedom-loving people. It is a threat to moderate Muslims because they generally go to the top of the list. If they protest, then they are at the top of the list to be knocked off by the radical Islamists. But consistently at the top are Christians and Jews. So radical Islam is a threat to civilization as we know it.

The progress that was made in Muslim civilizations could not have been made if they were truly radical as we keep seeing them raise their ugly heads in Iran and places like Nigeria, the northern part where Boko Haram continues to terrorize, including yesterday. I am not for going to war, but we were able to go into Afghanistan when we knew Afghanistan was where the 9/11/2001 attack originated, and with less than 500 American soldiers, Special Forces and some intelligence, air cover, some weapons, they were wiped out within 4 or 5 months. It wasn't until we became occupiers with tens of

thousands of military in-country that we started running into real difficulty and loss of American lives.

Then this President came in and basically was ready to announce a date of withdrawal, which is considered by most warriors as an announcement of surrender. When you say, this is when we will withdraw no matter what is happening, most consider that as a declaration of surrender if they are opposing those who are going to withdraw.

So we could do that in places. We have done it in the Philippines. Send a little embedded help for the Nigerians to eliminate Boko Haram, take them out as a threat, and then don't become occupiers, don't nation-build, just help them take out anything that is a threat to civilization as we know it and our freedom and liberty as we love it.

It may shock some, Mr. Speaker, but in Nigeria these families have heard repeatedly that nobody cares about your daughters that were abducted and nobody cares what is happening. And if you think for a minute anybody from America cares, they are too busy enjoying their own lifestyle, they could care less what happens here. Nobody from America is coming.

One Congressman came, and there are more, there was another small group there, but I was the only one that met with family members. So they didn't know there was another group.

Again, it may shock some, but these families in Nigeria don't follow Twitter. They don't know what a hashtag is. So when the best an administration in the United States can do is #bringbackourgirls, it doesn't do anything for the families. They continue to cry day after day after day. One of these three girls was telling me that they had nightmares because they knew what was happening to the girls because of what happened to them while they were there, and they felt guilty because they were out and these girls were in.

When the superpower of the world doesn't seem to care about the rule of law, number one, and begins to reward our enemies, begins to penalize our allies, those three things--and I will add one more--and then fourth, spending massive amounts more of money than we take in, those four are a very good prescription for bringing about the end of a great nation.

Now, I am not a doom-and-gloom person, but I did major in history before I went--I knew I was going into the Army for 4 years, I loved history, especially American history, but anybody that studies world history understands that no nation will last forever--none. No nation will ever last forever in this life and in this world. So it is a question of how long you can maintain a great nation.

The Romans, as great as they were, couldn't make an empire last forever. Later, the Ottoman Empire took over all these nations, most of them surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. And until the stop in Vienna, it looked like they were headed toward taking over all of Europe. They didn't last forever.

Going back before the Romans, the Greeks, they had a great empire. They didn't last forever. Ironically, some like to point to Alexander the Great and say: see, you can conquer Afghanistan and occupy it successfully.

I point out that Alexander the Great died leaving Afghanistan. I wouldn't consider that a great victory. It didn't work out that well. It didn't then. It didn't for the Russians. We have to be smarter about what we do because no Nation does last forever.

My goal in being in Congress--one of my goals--is to try to work with other Members of Congress to perpetuate this little experiment in democracy for another 200--maybe 100 to 200 years.

As Ben Franklin said:

It is a republic if you can keep it.

That takes work.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Our Nation seemed to grow more apathetic after World War II and has seen our deficits go through the roof. Countries around the world are now saying: You can't trust the dollar because Americans can't control their spending; they have no moral judgment which would keep them from spending their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren's money, so we need to stop taking the dollar.

When the dollar ceases to be important international world currency, it will have a devastating effect, bring about a crash, most likely, here in the United States, and you will not be able to revive the economy by creating more and more and more money, day after day, as is currently happening in this country now and has been dramatically happening for some years, especially since 2008.

Nothing indicates to the world at large our lawlessness more than our refusal to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our borders. Some say: oh, you must not like Mexicans.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the Hispanic culture, with a love of God--generally speaking--a love of family, and hard work ethic can help reinvigorate our Nation's morality where it should be. My wife and I went for our honeymoon 36 years ago in Mexico. It was quite extraordinary. I have very fond memories.

What we have seen recently are not Mexicans coming across our border--no. The big numbers have been coming from further south. They have been coming from South America and south Latin America, south Central America.

In talking to a law enforcement officer in Texas, the pride of Governor Rick Perry, I was just told--talking in the cloakroom to Steve McGraw--they are not sure how many 12 and under are in these masses, but generally, it doesn't look like there is a big percentage 12 and under.

Apparently, in the last 8 days, the first 8 days of June, it appears that they have dwarfed the massive thousands that have come into the U.S. in the whole month of May, and May was dramatically ratcheted up from the month before that, and it is continuing to grow larger and larger.

It was a bit appalling to hear a spokesman for the Obama administration is saying they have no idea why there is such a tremendous surge in the numbers of children coming into the United States.

I mean, for heaven's sake, when you send out an invitation saying ``you all come,'' you shouldn't be surprised when they do.

When you basically send out notification to the world that, if you can come quickly, we will give you amnesty, and we will provide you housing, and we will give you welfare benefits, and we will give you education, and we will give you better hospital care than you have ever had, then I think you can expect a great--a dramatic increase in the numbers of people who send their children to America. It shouldn't be a mystery.

I have had great regard for the Anti-Defamation League. My understanding of their inception is basically to deal with hate, particularly as had been seen with anti-Semitism.

After studying about the Holocaust during World War II and studying about it in history--high school and college--I couldn't believe that we would ever see anti-Semitism, an anti-Jewish sentiment arise in America as it had around the world.

I didn't think we would see the rise of anti-Judaism in Europe again. I figured the Europeans would be too ashamed to ever allow that to happen, and yet we have seen it happen.

While the Anti-Defamation League has not done the best job of helping suppress the anti-Jewish sentiment growing in Europe and that some see growing here in America, as we see Middle Easterners like Iran saying they want to wipe out Israel as the Little Satan and the U.S. as the Great Satan, and when you read the pleading that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks wrote in his comfortable cell at Guantanamo Bay and he talked about and quoted the Koran, in essence, as the basis for wanting to destroy all Jewish people and all Christian people, so that Jews and Christians are together, as far as the radical Islamists are concerned, we all need to be wiped out.

Instead, the Anti-Defamation League, this noble endeavor, sent this letter to me that was received last week:

Dear Representative Gohmert:

We write to urge you to stop using inflammatory rhetoric in

the immigration debate. Your statements from the House floor

that the current administration is ``luring young children

across the border'' and that current policies are complicit

in ``helping lure people into sex trafficking'' do not help

engage in a

productive discussion about the salient issues surrounding

the immigration challenges our country is experiencing.

Immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in American

politics and public life.

Well, let me assuage concerns by the Anti-Defamation League, but the policies of this administration are luring young people--children--into this country, mainly being sent by adults, because of the policy of trying to create amnesty for children.

Anyone in Congress, Republican--and I know we have some--and Democrat who keep saying yes, any children that are here, we need to go in and give them amnesty, are helping to lure children.

I know they are not doing it intentionally, but they are doing it, and talking about amnesty for children is sending more and more children from South America and Latin America and other places, so they can get here in time for their amnesty.

I was told by a missionary about a billboard up with our President's face, encouraging sending children to America, and the word spreads like wildfire: America is going to give amnesty to any children that can get there.

Deeply troubling should be the fact that some children get tied in with sex trafficking and really despicable human traffickers--why? Because of this announced, discussed policy that we want to provide amnesty for children that are here.

There is an article from Breitbart today entitled, ``Illegal Immigrants Intentionally Surrendering to Border Patrol to Gain Entry to U.S.,'' by Tony Lee.

Illegal immigrants are reportedly signaling Federal

officials to detain them once they are near the U.S.-Mexico

border, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have

declared they may not pursue all illegal immigrants who do

not show up for hearings after they enter the country.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this administration thinks they don't hear that and that word does not get around to those who are tempted to send children to America, they are wrong. That word gets around: they are not going to send you back if you come.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Yoselin Ramos, an

illegal immigrant from Guatemala who was with ``20 other

families with children,'' actually ``had looked forward to

being caught,'' telling the outlet ``at one point even waving

down Federal helicopters--because of the welcoming treatment

they had assumed they would receive.''

In their home countries south of the border, reports have

been circulating that illegal immigrants, especially those

with children, will be allowed to stay in the United States

``indefinitely.'' Ramos said she decided to make the trek to

the United States after hearing reports ``that parents will

not be detained in the U.S. if they arrive with a child.''

The Federal Government has been sending illegal immigrants

to States like Arizona and Oklahoma, and local officials do

not even know where some of them are headed. And though

illegal immigrants are required to show up to meet with local

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, officials within 15

days, ICE official told the Times that ``they couldn't

guarantee they would pursue all cases in which immigrants do

not show up for follow-up appointments, but would examine

each case to determine priorities.''

In fact, ``ICE officials say that the immigrants are

released as long as they can provide an address for their

destination--with family or friends, no matter their legal

status.''

Ramos was sent to stay with her family in Iowa. And the

Houston Chronicle reported that another illegal immigrant

said he considered the papers ICE gave him to be a ``permit''

to remain in the United States. That illegal immigrant was

sent to stay with family in North Carolina.

Though these illegal immigrants said they intended to show

up at their hearings, there is no guarantee that ICE is

willing or even has the resources to track them down if they

do not show up.

This is from Judicial Watch from yesterday: ``Influx of Illegal Alien Minors a Disaster: Overcrowded Shelters, Diseases, Sexually Active Teens.''

It sure seems to be clear from the pictures we have been seeing that a very small percentage of the minors coming in would be below teenage years, but this story says:

The barrage of illegal immigrant minors entering U.S.

through Mexico in recent weeks has created an out-of-control

disaster with jampacked holding centers, rampant diseases,

and sexually active teenagers at a Nogales facility,

according to information obtained by Judicial Watch from a

Homeland Security source.

There was a liberal game plan laid out some years ago that indicated the way to bring down the United States, for those extreme liberal activists who wanted to do so, the hippy mentality, let's bring down the evil United States that was the freest country in the history of the world, they wanted to bring it down, destroy it. The part of the game plan for doing so in this well thought-out narrative, you overwhelm the system. You get so many people on welfare rolls, the government implodes. You bring so many people in, you lure them in, so much so that the country cannot take care of them, and it implodes.

My dear friend Joel Rosenberg has a good book I was reading recently, called, ``Implosion.'' That is one way a nation can end its existence as a strong nation.

Another article from Newsmax, ``Central America Newspapers Tout Open U.S. Door for Illegal Minors.''

Mr. Speaker, for those in the administration that just cannot imagine what is causing the dramatic increase week after week, more and more and more coming to this country and overwhelming our Border Patrol's ability to handle the situation, then they just need to read a few newspaper articles. It's really quite telling.

This one by Todd Beamon says:

Newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras are promoting

policies by the Obama administration that defer deportation

to minors brought to the United States as children by their

parents--known as ``DREAMers''--and those that are housing

illegal children at military bases in the South and West.

Almost all agree that a child who crossed the border

illegally with their parents, or in search of a father or a

better life, was not making an adult choice to break our

laws, and should be treated differently than adult violators

of the law,'' Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is

quoted in a story about a new 2-year extension of the

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act published by Dario

El Mundo in El Salvador.

Signed by President Barack Obama in 2012, the law grants

temporary legal custody to many young illegal immigrants,

ending the threat of deportation for at least 2 years.

The policy, however, does not entitle the immigrants to

state services. The law was renewed for 2 more years. ``With

the renewal of DACA, we act according to our values and code

of this great Nation,'' Johnson said. ``But the biggest task

of comprehensive immigration reform is yet to come.''

Meanwhile, La Prensa of Honduras discusses in a report how

as many as 500 illegal minors are being housed at the Naval

Base Ventura County in southern California. ``The children

will be accommodated for between 3 and 4 months, while their

parents or relatives are located in the United States,'' the

report says.

``The administration of President Barack Obama has

acknowledged he faces a serious crisis for the continuous

arrival of children, mostly Central Americans, who are

illegally entering the country on the border with Mexico.''

Besides Mexico and Honduras, the report notes that many of

the children are coming from Guatemala, El Salvador, and

Nicaragua.

``During their stay, in addition to accommodations and

food, the children receive English classes, play sports, and

participate in targeted programs while immigration

authorities contact their families,'' the La Prensa report

says. On Monday, the Obama administration said it would begin

housing as many as 1,200 illegal minors at the Army base in

Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

And it goes on.

For anybody who could wonder why the numbers are increasing basically daily, weekly, dramatically increasing, so that potentially in the first 8 days of June they have already overshadowed the massive number that came in in May, and because this Nation is a caring and the most charitable nation in the history of the world--any time, any place--the most charitable nation in the world, the most welcoming of immigrants around the world to our country legally--no one comes close to the number of immigrants that we allow into this country annually, nobody. Legally, I am talking about. And yet they dare to criticize our immigration policy as not being open enough?

I still believe if the President or the Secretary of State notified the leaders in Mexico: Look, we turn around people that come in by mistake to the U.S. If they try to come in by mistake, we normally turn them around--that is until this administration's policy of just welcoming everybody, basically, particularly if they have got children. But if the President or Secretary of State added that we are about to start pushing the change of our laws in some respects to being like your immigration laws, so when an American citizen

cannot own property outright by themselves in Mexico, we are going to change our laws, because if it is good enough for you to treat United States citizens like this in your country, then it should be good enough for the United States to treat our--treat your Mexican visa holders the same way, so we are going to outlaw Mexican nationals owning property outright in America. But if you want to head off our beginning to have our immigration laws more reflective of your own laws treating us when we come in, then you better let our marine go, and you better not ever pull that again.

The man said he made a mistake. It was easy to make a mistake. I couldn't believe somebody could make a wrong turn and end up being unable to turn around, but then when you see Greta Van Susteren's video where she goes in, you have the concrete barriers, you can't turn around until you get there and say, ``I made a mistake; I want turn around and go back,'' and they decide this is a great chance to grab an American soldier and throw him in jail.

It is a similar message that's being sent around the world by this administration doing nothing about our marine being falsely, wrongly held in jail. The same kind of message is going into Africa and into Afghanistan and into the Middle East and China and Russia and Crimea. And the message is: we don't even protect our own people, really. If we have a deserter, then we may give away five people that are destined to kill lots more Americans, but otherwise, we are not going to help a marine who really had served honorably. We are not going to help him, but we may help somebody who walked away from his post.

The message is going out and making America appear to be a joke. It is why some are pushing their nation like Putin, knowing he could take over the Crimea. And the U.S. Government might talk about it, they might do as they did and put a hashtag and Twitter something and then be shocked that the Russians weren't scared to continue on in their imperialistic landgrabs by this administration's Tweets.

What a shock. A man who learned manipulation and domination from the KGB appears to the world to be backing down a community organizer. What a shock.

The story from Breitbart written by Kristin Tate, ``Border Children Reportedly Sickened by Food in U.S. Facilities, Throwing in Trash.'' It is from a Houston story.

A tidal wave of illegal immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico

border has caused Federal housing and processing facilities

to become overwhelmed and overcrowded.

The surge of thousands of children, it talks about. And so is it any surprise that more and more are coming to the extent we can't even provide them proper food?

Here is one from Townhall.com, ``Internal Border Patrol Email: Unaccompanied Child Crisis is `Unprecedented' ''--Katie Pavlich. That is from today.

A story from Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times, ``Holder Seeks Legal Team for Children on Border, Program to Aid `Most Vulnerable.' ''

A story from Breitbart--I am not sure that is an appropriate title-- ``Obama's Criminal Activity on Immigration.'' The story talks about:

With the wave of illegal immigrants crossing America's

southern border thanks to the Obama administration's policy

of nonenforcement, more and more Americans are rightfully

anxious about the new and unprecedented use of executive

power by President Obama. In December, U.S. District Judge

Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, wrote, ``[The government]

has simply chosen not to enforce the United States' border

security laws.''

It was written by my friend Ben Shapiro.

Here is one, ``Officials `Overwhelmed' by Influx of Children Crossing Mexican Border into U.S. on Their Own.''

It is very dramatic what has been going on, and there is a price to pay when we do not enforce our own laws, and we will pay by having more and more and more children coming into this country illegally.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's think about this. When people come into the U.S. and we fail to turn them around and say: You are not lawfully coming in, so you can't come in. We are not going allow you to come in illegally, so go back, go back from where you came. You were able to get here, so go back wherever you came from. When we refuse to do that and allow them to come on in anyway, then we end up providing food, shelter, supervision, education. Apparently, we are going to provide legal services now, according to this article discussing our contemptuous Attorney General Eric Holder, who has shown a pattern of refusing and failing to follow and enforce United States law.

It would seem that when you add up all the costs of those things, we would be better off--I had heard there was a plane with 100 and something minors that landed in the U.S. It seems it would be cheaper to just refuel their fuel tanks and send them back where they came from, sending a message with it: we are not letting people come in illegally. We already let more people in legally more than any Nation in the world, and we are not even one of the largest nations in the world.

You have got China with estimates between 1.3 and 1.8 billion. You got India that is nearly as big. We are a large Nation, but not nearly compared. We are about a fifth the size of China, a fourth the size maybe of India, yet we let in many more immigrants than they do.

So it is not that we have a ruthless immigration policy. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems, and I have had more and more reporters asking this question: So what do you do? Well, you secure the border first. You don't seal it. I have never advocated that. People lie when they say I have ever said that. I have never said that. You don't seal the border. You secure the border so that we continue to allow over a million people a year legally to come in.

But anyone who is trying to come in illegally must be stopped, they must be stopped and be required to attempt entering legally because they will not be allowed to come in illegally.

Whatever adults are sending children, it would still be cheaper to put an ICE agent with a group that came from a place like the 113 and make sure they go back where they came from, because otherwise the radical liberal approach of overwhelming the system so you can bring it down is in full display right now on America's borders, overwhelming the spending so that our dollar is not worth what it was, overwhelming our ability to protect ourselves, dramatically cutting the military where we can't adequately defend ourselves and those who would be harmed immediately before we would be harmed. Because as President Bush used to say, it is a whole lot better to fight people in another country than have to fight them within our own country.

There are those who have compared Israel to the miner's canary; that if Israel is under attack, as they are every day, then the free world will be immediately behind it.

We have got to start being more lawful. As I asked somebody in one of our hearings on immigration before, why are people coming here? Well, they are coming here for jobs or for food or for opportunity. Well, no, that is not answering why they are coming here, because they wouldn't need to come here if the countries they were coming from had jobs and had opportunity. Obviously, they don't have the jobs and opportunity where they are coming from. So why are there more jobs or more opportunity here? The answer is, up until more recently, we have been a Nation of laws. Up until this administration, we abided by the Constitution as best we could.

Sometimes in our history the Constitution was misconstrued. It should have stood for freedom for all men and women throughout our history, but it took a Civil War and then an ordained Christian minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., to see that rights were to be applied across the board.

But nonetheless, there was an effort throughout our history where Presidents were supposed to follow the law and have their administrations enforce the law. This Attorney General is in contempt of Congress because he is not.

It is time to take further action and send a message to the world that we are still a Nation of laws and believe in the rule of law, because until we do that we will be overwhelmed, and hopefully we can take a stand and require

the administration to follow the law before it is too late.

But it genuinely was heartbreaking to me. It is not angering but heartbreaking to hear the President of the United States say, if Congress doesn't act I will, indicating that he would usurp constitutional authority reserved for the legislature in the Constitution. He would usurp that. The response by most of my friends on this side of the aisle was to stand and applaud the announcement that the President would ignore the Constitution, and if Congress didn't change the law he would take care of it himself by himself.

To see people applaud the destruction of our Constitution was heartbreaking to me because I know they didn't realize they were applauding the implosion of our Constitution. There are an awful lot of good friends I have on the other side of the aisle who probably stood and applauded, and I am sure they didn't realize. But that is the effect when a President of the United States says if Congress doesn't address the law, change the law, then I will.

The result is what our Founders promised. It was a Republic as long as you tried to keep it. You did have liberty, but you ceased being vigilant so you lost it. I tried to warn you about all these things. We tried to warn you, as John Adams did, that this government is only meant for religious and moral people, and not fit to govern any others.

Abraham Lincoln, as inscribed on the inside wall on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial in his inaugural address a month or so before he was assassinated, talked about God. Lincoln tried to debate in his inaugural address within himself how a good God could allow such suffering.

It comes down, it appears, from his theological dissertation, that when a nation acts wrongly, as this Nation did in allowing slavery, a just God would allow suffering as a result. To paraphrase Lincoln, if it be God's will that every drop of blood drawn by the master's lash also be drawn by the sword in war, then we still must say, as was said 3,000 years ago, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous all together.

When we as a Nation ignore the law, when we as a Nation encourage other nations to ignore our law, when our Justice Department refuses to enforce the law fairly and justly across the board, you lose the country that was, has been, and hopefully for a while longer will be the greatest country in the history of the world.

We have an obligation, a moral obligation, to future generations not to leave this country the way we are about to. But people have got to wake up on both sides of the aisle. You can't keep announcing that we are going to ignore the law if you can just get here before we pass the law. We are looking the other way, come on, ignore our law along with our Justice Department, ignore our law along with the Homeland Security Department, ignore our law along with the White House, come on, we will ignore our law together. It truly is a prescription for the end of the Nation. We can't let that happen. People have got to wake up.

So for those in the administration that just can't imagine why there is a dramatic increase in minors coming to our border, start reading some of the things you are saying and you will find the answer.

Mr. Speaker, we have an oath to follow. By God's grace let's follow it.

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 8 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my friend from Missouri that Congress is dysfunctional.

I am told by people that were here in the late seventies, eighties, nineties, that if a President started usurping power of the legislature, of the Congress, that very quietly, the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties would make a quick trip down Pennsylvania Avenue to tell the President that he either needed to stop usurping congressional authority, start living within the law, or quit being lawless, and that would have generally taken care of it, and it was a bipartisan and bicameral effort.

Unfortunately, this body is dysfunctional, when you look at the efforts to protect an administration that keeps acting lawlessly.

I would like to have had accurate numbers showing the percentage of section 8 housing that is being provided to people illegally; that is, providing section 8 housing to people who are not authorized, who are getting that housing against the law, mainly people illegally here, but the last official numbers that my staff and I could find go back to the January 1, 2009.

Under the Bush administration, 0.4 percent of section 8 housing was going to people illegally. In other words, it was illegally going to people because they were not authorized to be here.

There are indications from a report in 2010 that it increased to 1.17 percent, but, Mr. Chairman, I just felt that it was imperative for us to send a message: if you are not going to provide the housing to Americans who desperately need it and you are going to continue to provide housing to people who are not legally authorized to have that housing, then we will make a small cut here.

Then we will get more accurate numbers in the future, and we will continue to cut the program until the Department of Housing and Urban Development gets serious about making sure that only people authorized under the law to have the section 8 housing get it.

So we took four-tenths of a percent times that set-aside for the Public Housing Capital Fund at line 3 and the same percentage from the Public Housing Operating Fund at line 24, page 87, and then added that to the spending reduction account.

Why? Because this generation has shown that we are immoral. We, like no other generation before us, are spending lavishly on our own generation without regard for the massive millstone--or albatross, if you prefer--around future generations' necks. That is immoral. That is immoral that we cannot live within our means, and we would cast that upon future generations.

So with that, I would argue for the passage of this amendment. It does not legislate. It simply appropriates a more appropriate amount.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Gohmert

Amendment No. 27: Page 85, line 3, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $7,100,000)''.

Page 87, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $17,600,000)''.

Page 156, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $24,700,000)''.