Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment about the work done on the National Defense Authorization Act. I know Chairman McKeon has done a tremendous amount of work. I know, from dealing with him during this work on the defense budget, it has been extremely difficult for him.

I remain concerned where we have an administration that has kept our people in Afghanistan with less than favorable rules of engagement, where we have people in harm's way and constantly being called on to be alert, be in positions where they may be in harm's way; and, yet, the authorization ends up being $45 billion less than the President's own projection for fiscal year 2014 budget request, and $30.7 billion less than that, that was enacted for fiscal year 2014 in the NDAA Public Law 113-66.

Back in the summer of 2011, I told our leadership that the deficit was a major problem, of course, as all of our conference realizes, as those on the other side of the aisle used to talk about until they got into the majority and blew the lid off the deficit.

To raise the debt ceiling, set up a supercommittee that I knew was going to fail, said it was going to fail because the Senate Democrats would never allow an agreement because they wanted to be able to blame Republicans for not getting a deal.

The mainstream media always buys whatever they said, even when they shut down the government, as Harry Reid did last September 30th, by refusing to take up even the most extreme compromises that this House was willing to make.

So they know they will get coverage from the mainstream media, and even some amazing examples of complete abandonment of any type of journalistic integrity. They knew they would be protected.

So they did refuse to allow an agreement. Even when Senators-- Republican Senators reached out, indications were they thought they could get a deal, but I knew they were not going to allow the supercommittee to reach an agreement, no matter how far they bent over backwards, and that is what happened.

That meant the sequestration would occur. I had no problem with the amount of cuts in the sequestration. I had a problem with the number one job of the Federal Government, being to provide for the common defense, taking the biggest devastating hit in the sequestration. That was the problem.

So, because of that, I am still very concerned about the massive cuts to our defense when we are more hated than ever, trusted less than ever. Our previous friends are now reaching out to China and Russia because they can't trust us.

In trips abroad--I know the administration doesn't like Members of Congress to go abroad because we end up talking directly to people and finding out what they really think, so we don't get indirect misrepresentation, and you find out around the world, people don't trust this administration.

Our allies are saying: Are we going to be the next ally that you throw away, as you have been doing in recent years under this administration?

As I have said before, the elderly African in West Africa who told me how excited they were when we elected our first African American President, but ever since he had been President, he said, the United States keeps getting weaker and weaker, and you have got to stop. Please tell the people in Washington to stop allowing the United States to get weaker.

As Christians, they knew, they said, where they would go when this life was over, but their hope, he said, for a more safe and free life here, even for a West African, would be when the United States does not get weaker, but stands against tyranny and stands against any threat.

Like Boko Haram, that threatens innocent Christians anywhere, it will ultimately be a threat to Christians everywhere.

I am also very concerned, as one who believes, as Abraham Lincoln says, as is inscribed in the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial, as part of his second inaugural address, that, as he quoted from scripture:

The judgments of the Lord are just and righteous

altogether.

I am very concerned that, when our Nation is the most powerful Nation in the world, at the time when Christian persecutions, by number--not necessarily by percentage, but by number--are probably the greatest they have ever been in the history of the world, since Jesus was on earth, and we do nothing except watch the persecutions grow and grow, there will ultimately be some accountability if, as Abraham Lincoln said, as he and I believe, the judgments of the Lord are just and righteous altogether.

When someone is given much, of them, much is expected. We have an obligation. We have been put in a position where we can stand up for righteousness.

It did take a while for this Nation to get to the point where the Constitution meant exactly what it said, but what helped us get there was what was originally in the Declaration of Independence, a belief that we are endowed by our Creator, not endowed by government, not endowed by a monarch, but we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

When we fail to acknowledge that Creator, when we fail to stand up for those who acknowledge the Creator, when we fail to stand up and provide for the common defense, then there will be a price to pay.

Israel is feeling it. The mainstream media doesn't talk about it. Israel doesn't want to be considered a whiner, but they are being constantly under attack from rockets. Why? Because they are Jews and because they are in the Middle East, in the same location that was called the Promised Land where, around 1,600 years or so before Muhammad lived, King David was ruling in the land where they now are, and in the location, in Hebron, for example, where he ruled the first 7 years as King of Israel.

Some say, well, clearly, that is not Israeli land. People that worship Muhammad that came along 1,600 years after Christ--I'm sorry-- after King

David was ruling in that town or 600 years or so after Christ, then, surely, they have a better claim; yet we tell Israel that they have to constantly be giving up and even to have our Secretary of State saying that they are guilty of apartheid, they are risking that guilt if they don't do everything that our Secretary of State says, where he has previously warned that, if they don't do what Secretary Kerry said, they may bring another wave of murder upon themselves. It sounded like a threat.

There are consequences for leaders who put our friends in jeopardy, and for those that think, well, just because we have leaders making bad statements, making bad decisions, doesn't mean it will reflect on us in the country, but for those who believe what is in the Bible, as the huge majority did, of our Founders, those who wrote translations of the Bible, those who taught Sunday school--one of the Founders started the Sunday school movement in America.

It is amazing the strength of ties. Even though some teach today that Ben Franklin was a Deist, his statements make clear that was not the case. As he, himself, said and then recorded in his own handwriting of the speech he gave, he said:

I have lived, sir, a long time, but the longer I live, the

more convincing proofs I see of this truth. God governs in

the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the

ground without his notice, is it possible an empire could

rise without His aid?

Franklin said to the Constitutional Convention, as he went on:

We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that,

unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that

build it.

He said:

I also firmly believe that without His concurring aid, we

shall succeed in our political building no better than the

builders of Babel.

When God was telling Hosea why he was mad at the Children of Israel, I looked at different translations. One basically had him saying: because they have chosen leaders who are not my choice.

A Nation is responsible for the leaders they select, and it doesn't matter that John Kerry was rejected by the Nation to be the national spokesperson and national President because, when he is Secretary of State and he makes statements that hurt our dearest allies, then we, as a Nation, will be accountable for his missteps and mistakes in judgment.

We have an obligation to demand better from our leaders. It is a scandal with regard to the Veterans Administration, and for anyone to stand up and say, wow, I had no idea that these problems were going on, stretches the bounds of credibility when that same person said, back in 2008, in condemnation of the Bush administration, that they were not doing enough for our veterans, and condemned the Bush administration and made clear that: when I get in office, I will clear up these problems, I will take care of our veterans.

So as a former judge, those statements--prior statements against interest--would be allowed into evidence to show that something that was said yesterday was not truthful because the mental awareness was shown in 2008, was also shown by statements in 2009, 2010, and then we find out there was a document reflecting that there were these problems with the Veterans Administration.

Our veterans deserve better. I was in the Army for 4 years. I don't deserve better. I never saw combat.

I still think we should have, in 1979--I still feel guilty that, because we were not sent to respond at all to an act of war, in 1979, that thousands of Americans have died because we didn't take a stand in '79, so they got stronger and stronger and stronger until they have gotten to the place that the Taliban takes over Afghanistan.

You have a renegade regime in Iran that President Carter welcomed in, the Ayatollah Khomeini, as a man of peace. And, of course, it makes sense that the policies of this administration are as they are, when you have someone who is a featured speaker at the great tribute to Ayatollah Khomeini as the man of vision and peace.

Well, he is one of the top advisers, even as I speak, at the Department of Homeland Security. He is giving advice, as are others who were named as being members of the Muslim Brotherhood by a periodical in Egypt in December of 2012 in which they were bragging about the top officials in the Obama administration who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Perhaps that explains why this administration has remained so loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, such that moderate Muslims, as you travel abroad, ask you: Why are you supporting your enemy? The Muslim Brotherhood wants to eliminate everything but radical Islam in America and in the world. Why are you helping them? They are your enemy. They are behind the attacks that have been made on the United States. Why are you helping them?

Mr. Speaker, in Libya, where a former terrorist supporter had reigned since 2003--and, as some Israelis had said: He was the best help you had, besides us, on identifying and eliminating radical Islam and terrorism, but yet you took him out. And we did that with our air cover and the provision of weapons to rebels that we knew had al Qaeda in them. It turns out that they were far stronger than we knew, which was why some of us were saying don't be helping the rebels in Libya. We know they have got al Qaeda in them. Yet we helped them.

As you travel abroad, you find people saying: You are still helping your enemy. We are worried you are going to turn on us next. You turn on your allies. You punish your allies, and you reward your enemies. What kind of foreign policy is that? It never works. You will not win over people that hate you by giving them money and arms. They don't think you are a wonderful country because you have given them money and arms. They know you are crazy and you need to be wiped off the planet because you don't deserve to be a superpower. You are too stupid. And you give your people too much freedom, which allows them to choose some other religion than radical Islam.

Moderate Muslims around the world do not want radical Islam reigning over them, and that is why the people of Egypt rose up. And if this administration would do anything to show a powerful support for the nearly double the millions of people that allegedly voted for Morsi to be President, that came out and signed a petition, the two or three times as many millions came to the street demanding his removal as he said voted for him. There were fraud allegations. But from talking to the Egyptians, apparently Morsi had made it clear that if anybody objected to his win of the election, they would, as they said, ``burn Egypt down.''

The people who are in charge in Egypt don't want radical Islam's return. But when you talk to them, you find out that one of their biggest problems--well, two of their biggest problems--is on their west, in the eastern area of Libya, since this administration made sure Qadhafi was eliminated. Now terrorist training camps, like the Taliban had in Afghanistan, are now in Libya. And they come in and out of Egypt. And because of this administration's support for Morsi, he was able to militarize and weaponize the Sinai like it had never been weaponized before, making it more of a threat to Israel and making it more of a threat to the lovers of peace in Egypt.

There are consequences, even for those in this country who object to what the administration has done when they don't rise up and use their voices to make clear to this administration, through elections and through vocal objections, that they are making a huge mistake, and if they don't support lovers of liberty and Christian allies and Jewish allies that there will be a great amount to pay in the next election. And when that is made clear, I find my friends across the aisle get very responsive to the American people because--apparently, something that is a truth in America, as in other places--when someone is elected to a position they pursued, they like to stay in that position.

Some of us wonder at times if it is worth it. But as I have been told before: You have got to stay; this is where the fight is.

Well, I would also submit the fight is across America, for people to wake up, stop the apathy, and make it clear to those in this administration, to those in charge, that you are not going to stand for the kind of things that are

going on. And when it is made clear that we will not, as a Nation, tolerate what this administration has been allowing and looking the other way on, in the Veterans Administration, then things will change. But not until then. And when it is made clear to this administration that ObamaCare is a threat to seniors--it did cut $716 billion from Medicare, which means they are not going to get the health care they need--when you are spending billions of dollars to hire IRS agents and navigators, more bureaucrats, then that is billions of dollars that will not be saving the lives of people that need lifesaving medications, need lifesaving procedures. Americans have got to wake up and demand better; and when they do, they will get it.

But I also want to touch on the USA FREEDOM Act, as it was labeled. I had an amendment. Though I applauded the work that was done by my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to negotiate an agreement, I still had the same concern I had back in 2005 and 2006 as a freshman. At that time, I brought it to the attention of the Gonzales Justice Department. I brought it to the attention of the Bush administration that I am concerned about this part in the PATRIOT Act where it says, like in section 215, that you can go after anybody in ``an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism.''

So in both of those cases, they have to involve a foreign entity, a foreign agent, a foreign country, a foreign group of some kind, international terrorism. Those have to be involved for the PATRIOT Act to apply because as, apparently, Congress was told when the PATRIOT Act was passed back in desperation after 9/11/2001, we have got to protect against international terrorism, foreign agents, people who are dealing with foreign agents. That is what it was for.

So this third part concerned me because it says, or to protect against ``clandestine intelligence activities.'' ``Clandestine intelligence activities,'' what does that mean? It is very vague. And it doesn't say ``foreign.'' It doesn't say ``international.'' And since we were told that we are not allowed to just go gather information about American citizens, then this should have the word ``foreign'' or ``international'' in there.

So my amendment to the USA FREEDOM Act that would amend this put that in there. It dealt with that, the amendment that was fought against by my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). They had too perfect of a cake that they had baked, and they, as MacArthur Park says, ``may never have the recipe again. Oh, no.'' They couldn't allow a change to their recipe. So they didn't allow any reference to ``foreign'' or ``international.''

And the other references within the PATRIOT Act and the other references, like in 18 U.S.C. 1842 talks about to obtain ``foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person'' or ``to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' So it needed the word ``foreign'' or ``international'' somehow in there. I provided that, but the proponents of the USA FREEDOM Act did not want it in.

Although my amendment originally passed in committee, it was revoted on a voice vote quickly after we were coming back from a vote on the floor and taken out. And although a majority of those in the Rules Committee said that my amendment needed to be in the law to protect it and to protect American citizens, when the rule came out, the rule said that my amendment was not going to be allowed to have a vote.

So I had to vote against the USA FREEDOM Act because this is a gaping hole that allows the Federal Government to go after and spy on American citizens who have no contact with any foreign government, any foreign agent, have no ties at all to international terrorism, haven't necessarily ever even thought about terrorism. But with this, if they can be alleged to have engaged in any type of clandestine intelligence activities, you can go after them and spy on them.

And what does that mean? Well, I have asked the question, and I have not gotten any satisfactory answer--any answer, really. Well, does that mean, if somebody looks over a fence into a Federal enclave, that that is trying to get intelligence and that might invoke this provision of the PATRIOT Act? Or how about if someone mistakenly goes to a Web site, does that invoke this provision that allows you to go after them? And I haven't gotten a good answer, and I haven't been told how this has been applied. I was hoping to get an answer that it has never been used, but I haven't gotten that either.

As a result, I had to vote against the USA FREEDOM Act because I didn't want my name on a bill that leaves a hole this large, allowing the Federal Government to go after American citizens who have never even thought about terrorism and have never had any contact with a foreign agent.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to reiterate again that I think we will suffer if, having been given so much more freedom, more assets than any nation in the history of the world, we do not stand up for Jews and Christians being persecuted around the world.

We have clearly gone to war and lost human life and limb on behalf of protecting Muslims in the world. It is time that we also stood for Christians and Jews around the world.

I never thought I would see anti-Semitism arise in my lifetime like it has. On our college campuses in the name of open-mindedness, they have become anti-Semitic and racist, anti-Israeli. We have got to demand better from this administration, and we have got to stand up for those Jews and Christians who are being persecuted and oppressed in greater numbers than ever before.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the committee, for a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, my concern has been when we had a second shooting without the administration having done anything after the first Fort Hood shooting and then we have a second Fort Hood shooting 4\1/2\ years later, it made no sense not to do something.

My own feeling was we should just allow all of our military members, they may be carrying automatic weapons, they may be authorized to shoot RPGs, drop bombs, all kinds of weapons in a foreign theater, why shouldn't they be able to carry weapons on military installations here in the United States?

So my first amendment was simply to just allow every military member to carry, and then the issue came open or concealed. There are some commanders that have an issue both ways.

In talking to other commanders, some commanders have said: look, there are some people overseas we don't let carry weapons, and we know from experience that some have returned where you have someone suffering potentially from PTSD that needs to be checked out.

So commanders have encouraged that: gee, if that is going to happen, we ought to be able to check them out.

Everybody knows nobody stands stronger for Second Amendment rights than me, but when you are in the military, you do give up certain rights, including free speech and freedom of assembly; and so it shouldn't be inappropriate to have someone go through an extra check before they were allowed to carry.

Then bowing further to current commanders and former commanders like Jerry Boykin--former Delta Force--thought, gee, we can give them a choice, either have a duty roster where people walk around with weapons, and that would discourage further shooting because, clearly, as an article by Arthur Berg says in The Wall Street Journal, these people want to conclude it themselves. If they are afraid someone will shoot them before they conclude it, then that would not be--they wouldn't be going through it.

So those are all things that motivate my amendment being filed, and the chairman here tells me that this is an issue that they would like to push in conference with the Senate bill that will be brought through.

Since there is an ongoing concern about what would be the best way to do this, as I have experienced with commanders I have talked to, I have been encouraged--and not in a bad way--that this would be a way that we could do it, I would be consulted on what was being done in conference and that it would be brought up there.

As a result, based on the assurances of my friend, the chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I wanted to discuss issues regarding the PATRIOT Act. As I understand it, we will be taking up a vote, come Thursday, on what is called the USA FREEDOM Act, I believe. I know that there was a lot of work put into negotiating a compromise there, but I still have a concern, as I did when I was a freshman, with the language in the PATRIOT Act.

This is language here from the PATRIOT Act, 50 U.S.C., section 1861, that allows the Federal Government to go into very personal matters and very personal documentation of individuals. Some of us felt like it was allowing the Federal Government to get more than the Federal Government should be entitled to get. There is similar language in the FISA Act.

But this language says that the Director of the FBI or a designee of the Director may make an application for an order requiring the production of tangible things, including books, records, papers, documents, and other

items for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

And there was a provision put in there that says such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

And back when I was a freshman and this language was being discussed back in '05, '06, during that time frame, I pointed out that it seems like throughout the PATRIOT Act they keep referring to ``international,'' ``foreign,'' as this does, foreign intelligence information, international terrorism, other language with similar references. So I thought, well, that is strange, though, that when it mentions clandestine intelligence activities, that is a vague enough term, it doesn't include the words ``foreign,'' ``international.'' So I was quite concerned about that. And the Bush administration representatives made clear: Look, Congressman, ``foreign,'' ``international,'' that is all the way through this stuff. You don't have to worry about it. It has to do with foreign contacts.

So if there is no foreign contact, then the PATRIOT Act doesn't apply because that is throughout the act. It has got to be foreign. It has got to have an international element to it. And so much so that I encouraged my colleagues that were concerned about their own phone logs being gathered that, if they simply avoided using their phone or had foreign terrorists call another number and not their own phone, they ought to be okay, being a bit sarcastic.

Well, it turns out that my concerns about the use of the terms ``clandestine intelligence activities'' were apparently spot-on, that despite the assurances from the Gonzales Justice Department that, oh, no, it has to be foreign, it has to be international, if there is not that element in it, then it doesn't really comply. And I said: But it doesn't say that with regard to clandestine intelligence activities.

I mean, clandestine. So somebody peeping over a wall to see what they can see. I mean, technically, that could be considered clandestine, gathering intelligence. Look up the word ``intelligence.'' It is pretty all-encompassing, anything that gathers information.

So it wouldn't take much to get an order granting virtually any information the Federal Government is seeking, even though there is no contact with a Federal agent, Federal Government, a foreign entity of any kind. It is not there, and it needs to be there.

Unfortunately, when I raised this glaring hole, the people who negotiated this bill, my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, and I think Bobby Scott, they were a bit defensive. Gee, we have our deal, and so you can't--we can't allow an amendment even though it has got very wide and bipartisan support. If one goes back and looks at how the vote on my amendment went when it passed, it was very bipartisan. We had some folks that would be considered very liberal Democrats along with some of us who are considered very conservative. But the united concern that allowed my amendment to pass was about having terms ``clandestine intelligence activities'' that would allow the Federal Government basically to get an order to go snooping on fishing expeditions based on very little, and certainly nothing to do with terrorism. It opened the door to orders for information, even though they had no link whatsoever of any kind or in any way to terrorism, just if they want to do a fishing expedition.

Although we were assured by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--a great Texan and a smart man--he assured us the National Security Letters were not being abused that allowed them to gather information, that there were no abuses here in the PATRIOT Act. An IG inspector's report indicated that there was widespread, massive abuse from Federal agents who were simply on fishing expeditions, just gathering information and gathering documents as they saw fit that had no link and no tie to any type of foreign terrorism.

So I was hoping to get this fixed. It is a hole big enough in the PATRIOT Act that a truck could be driven through it by Federal agents coming to unload all kinds of private information that American citizens may have, even though such American citizens have no ties with terrorism, no ties with foreign agents, and no ties with foreign governments. They left a gaping hole in what is being called a fix to the PATRIOT Act abuses.

Unfortunately, though my amendment passed to remedy this problem, though it passed in committee, a few amendments later, maybe one or two amendments later, we had votes we had to come to the floor for, and I had a conflict, and by the time I got back, they had already called a re-vote on my amendment, and without requiring a recorded vote, it was voice voted and the amendment was voted down.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that people in America will get the message that this administration wants to protect its ability to get information on any American, whether they have any ties to terrorism, whether they have got any ties to foreign governments, any ties to foreign agents, any ties to anything that might give some of us concern--you don't have to have those.

If they can assert that you may be gathering clandestine intelligence--intelligence meaning any information; you may call a Federal office and ask for information--they may decide, gee, that is a clandestine attempt to gather intelligence. Mr. Speaker, there used to be an old joke that is not so funny anymore about the guy that called the FBI office and said, here is my name, and I demand to know if you have got a Federal FBI file on me, and the answer was: ``We do now.'' That used to be a joke. ``We didn't have one until now.'' And that used to be cute. It is not so cute anymore because under the language that so-called negotiators drafted, that massive hole that allows the gathering of information on American citizens will remain in the bill, and will remain part of the PATRIOT Act unless it is fixed.

I will have an amendment to this bill. The Rules Committee may or may not allow it to come to the floor. If the Speaker doesn't want it to come to the floor, it is not likely it will come to the floor. And if that is the case, I will have to vote against this so-called fix to the PATRIOT Act because it doesn't fix it. It just allows more cover for the Federal Government, with a massive hole for anybody that wants to gather information on anybody.

We need to fix it. We don't need to have an act that allows Federal agents, whether it was the Bush administration, as they were doing, whether it is the Obama administration, as they have been doing, or a future administration--whether Republican or Democrat--we need to stop fishing expeditions.

That should be bipartisan. It was bipartisan until the negotiators of the so-called fix got very protective and decided they were not accepting such an amendment that would close this gaping hole that allows abuse by the Federal Government.

I hope it will be reconsidered, but unless there is a lot of push from the public, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that they are going to be any less protective of their negotiated work, and so it will allow this administration to continue spying and getting information on American citizens that I would contend is not appropriate at all.

That terminology is used a number of other places in the PATRIOT Act. There is another place, 18 U.S.C., 1844, regarding pen registers, you know, phone logs, trap-and-trace devices to allow the Federal Government to trace calls and all, they use similar language. There, in that part of federal law, it authorizes the Attorney General or designated attorney for the government to get an order against anybody who is attempting to obtain foreign intelligence information as long as--it says this--it is not concerning a United States person, number one, or number two, to protect against international terrorism, or three, clandestine intelligence activities. And that is what I was concerned about 9 years ago in my freshman term.

I said, wait a minute, clandestine intelligence activities, that doesn't protect American citizens. Oh, but look up there in the part before. It says, it has to be information not concerning a U.S. person. I said, yeah, but then it has the disjunctive word ``or.'' Yeah,

but then in that next part it says, international terrorism, it has to be international. No, but after that, it has another disjunctive ``or,'' so any one of these can apply, or it can be for clandestine intelligence activities even if it is a United States person, even if it is not involving international terrorism, or someone who has had contact with a foreign agent.

In another part, it references a certification by the applicant. Well, this is the exact wording:

There must be a certification by the applicant that the

information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence

information not concerning a United States person, or is

relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against

international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence

activities.

Again, that third part, even in this statute, leaves that gaping hole, ``clandestine intelligence activities.'' That is such a wide open phrase. It is such a hole. It doesn't limit it to foreign agents. It doesn't limit it to U.S. citizens who have contact with foreign terrorists, foreign agents. It doesn't have to be part of some kind of some international terrorism scheme. It allows Federal agents to gather information about--as it did under the Bush administration, as it has been allowing under the Obama administration, and as it would allow under future Republican or Democratic administrations--any American citizen that the Federal Government contends might be getting information about something that they consider private.

``Clandestine intelligence activities.'' A lovely triple term, triple-word term, that could be a gaping hole and is a gaping hole in federal law that needs to be fixed. But unless Members of both sides of the aisle come forward--as they initially did when I first proposed the amendment to fix this gaping hole--and vote in a bipartisan manner to close that gaping hole, then it is going to continue to be a problem with the Federal Government gathering information on U.S. citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism--nothing. There is no requirement that they have anything to do with terrorism; they can still be caught in this Federal web if they determine you have been picking up information somewhere. Maybe you visited a Federal Web site, and from the inquiry you made, they thought, hmm, that may be looking like they are trying to clandestinely gather information. Let's go get an order and see what all they have been doing lately.

So that is the bad news. The law needs to be fixed. The PATRIOT Act needs to be fixed desperately. There is a bill apparently coming on Thursday that says it will be fixing the problem, but it doesn't fix the problem. It leaves the hole for the Federal Government. You might as well not have a bill even though there are some good things in it.

So I hope that people will wake up. I know the bill's proponents don't want any amendments. They say it will mess up their ticklish deal that they negotiated, which is a bit of a problem. I am sure there will be people who come to the floor and say, this bill is a freedom act that has gone through the regular order. That means normally that it has gone through a subcommittee legislative hearing, subcommittee markup, full committee legislative hearing, full committee markup where we vote on amendments, and anybody can bring any amendments. But, Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit that when somebody negotiates a backroom deal and then they come to committee and convince the chair, the Speaker, that this deal is too ticklish, you can't allow any amendments to actually pass at committee, that is not regular order.

Regular order is when you are allowed to bring amendments, you have full debate, and if you make your case, as I did, and the vote passes, the amendment becomes part. It does not mean that you come back because the proponents of the bill have convinced the chairman and a few others, gee, we have got to slip this amendment back up for another vote and vote it down because we don't want any amendments to the deal we negotiated. That is not regular order. That is not getting full and fair debate and vote at committee level when someone negotiates a backroom deal and then says that you can't ever amend it because we have got a special backroom deal here.

It is time to wake up and fix the PATRIOT Act, and if it is not fixed, then we get rid of it. It is that simple.

On the other hand, if you are a big fan of Big Brother, the all- seeing Orwellian eye watching everything that an American citizen is doing, then you will be encouraged because, under ObamaCare, the Federal Government is going to have everybody's health care records.

If you see a psychiatrist, the Federal Government will have those records. Whoever you see, whatever it is for, no matter how personal and private it is, the Federal Government will have your records.

Now, you might say: well, but the Federal Government has firewalls, they don't let people see records who are not supposed to.

Well, tell that to the thousand or so people whose FBI records were found in the Clinton White House. Just possessing one FBI file inappropriately sent Chuck Colson to prison, yet the Clinton White House had a thousand of them.

Fortunately for the Clinton administration, they had an Attorney General who was not about to prosecute their bosses at the White House; but as I understand it, a thousand FBI files could be 2,000 years in prison. It could be 4,000, but I think it is 2,000. I think it is two minimum per file that you have.

If I recall correctly, I think Chuck Colson did about a year and a half for having one FBI file. So it is interesting.

Some people we were told whose FBI files were located at the White House may have changed their position on legislation that was before the Congress. When you know the most secret--most intimate secrets about people in this country, it is just amazing what you can get them to do.

The Federal Government, if they have all of your health care records, they know everything; and having listened to friends across the aisle stand down here and berate Republicans--we don't want the Federal Government in our bedroom--and yet, they turn around and vote for a bill without a single Republican vote that puts the Federal Government in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, dining room, it puts the Federal Government in every aspect of your life.

Then we have this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who apparently has now determined, gee, they need people's credit card, debit card records, so they can protect them; they will service them.

Back home, I grew up and heard cattlemen talk about taking the cow down the road to be serviced by a bull, and I can't help but wonder what kind of service it is that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving to the American citizen. They say: we want to gather up everybody's records so we can protect them.

When the Federal Government has everybody's personal information, Americans are not protected. They are subjected to being subjects because the Federal Government can manipulate people as they wish.

This is the very kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of, one of the many they were afraid of and thought that they had protected us from because they gave the Congress the power of the purse; and they really believed that, if an executive branch becomes too abusive, as with the Gonzales Justice Department--and I don't believe for a minute that Attorney General Gonzales had any idea that all of these thousands of letters were going out with the power of a subpoena to get people's most personal information, just a fishing expedition, I don't think he knew.

But just like if someone is in charge of the VA for 5-and-a-half years and the VA has become abusive to the detriment and death of people they were supposed to be taking care of, it is time to get a new coach--somebody, whether they are a war hero or not, as the current head of the VA, somebody that will come in and clean house and demand accountability and get it. It is time.

We have been hearing discussions also here in Washington for quite some time about how we have got to provide legal status, some kind of amnesty to young people who came into the United States without being adults, so they really didn't have a say; therefore, we

need to give them some type of amnesty.

As I have repeatedly contended and submit, we have got to stop talking about legal status amnesty, anything of that kind, until the border is secure. Anyone who says I have ever advocated for the border being sealed is a liar.

I have advocated and continue to advocate for the border to be secure. I want immigration. We need immigration in the United States, but it needs to be legal. It needs to be people that are authorized to come into the United States.

We also need immigration reform, but until we have a President--I would welcome it being this President--but until we have a President who will secure the border and make sure it is only people who legally come into the country, then there is no reason to pass an immigration reform bill because he will continue to ignore the law he doesn't like and only follow laws he does like, just as he has already done on immigration issues.

We have heard from Chris Crane, as the union representative for the Border Patrol. I have talked to a number of border patrolmen. They say the same thing, that when people talk about legal status or amnesty here in Washington, it creates a magnet drawing people from foreign countries into this country because they think: gee, I have got to get there quickly before the border is secured because I am going to get amnesty if I can just get there.

It hasn't been that many years ago when there were only a handful of children who came into the country illegally, that we knew of. The estimates were many, many, many times that. It was estimated this year that there will probably be 60,000 children come into this country by the end of this year. Now, we hear that we have had more than 60,000 come in already, and it is just May.

The conservative bastion of newspapers, The New York Times--Mr. Speaker, I am prone to sarcasm--had an article dated May 16, ``U.S. Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone.''

This an article by Julia Preston that says the following:

With border authorities in south Texas overwhelmed by a

surge of young illegal migrants traveling by themselves, the

Department of Homeland Security declared a crisis this week

and moved to set up an emergency shelter for the youths at an

Air Force base in San Antonio, officials said Friday.

After seeing children packed in a Border Patrol station in

McAllen, Texas, during a visit last Sunday, Homeland Security

Secretary Jeh Johnson on Monday declared ``a level-four

condition of readiness'' in the Rio Grande Valley. The alert

was an official recognition that Federal agencies overseeing

borders, immigration enforcement, and child welfare had been

outstripped by a sudden increase in unaccompanied minors in

recent weeks.

Mr. Speaker, let me interject here. When I talk about the fact that we hear from border patrolmen that legal status and amnesty is talked about here in Washington, it becomes a magnet and draws people in, and for all of the children that are drawn in illegally, you know that some get sucked into sex slavery.

Human trafficking becomes an even bigger business, and reporters wonder: Gee, what makes you think they are coming in greater numbers just because people are talking about amnesty here in the United States Congress?

The proof is there for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

This New York Times article goes on:

On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services

officials will open a shelter for up to 1,000 minors at

Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, authorities said, and will

begin transferring youths there by land and air. The level-

four alert is the highest for agencies handling children

crossing the border illegally and allows Homeland Security

officials to call on emergency resources from other agencies,

officials said.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Johnson said the influx of

unaccompanied youths had ``zoomed to the top of my agenda''

after his encounters at the McAllen Border Patrol station

with small children, one of whom was 3.

The children are coming primarily from El Salvador,

Guatemala, and Honduras, making the perilous journey north

through Mexico to Texas without parents or close adult

relatives. Last weekend alone, more than 1,000 unaccompanied

youths were being held at overflowing border stations in

south Texas, officials said.

The flow of child migrants has been building since 2011,

when 4,059 unaccompanied youths were apprehended by border

agents. Last year, more than 21,000 minors were caught, and

Border Patrol officials said they were expecting more than

60,000 this year, but that projection has already been

exceeded.

By law, unaccompanied children caught crossing illegally

from countries other than Mexico are treated differently from

other migrants. After being apprehended by the Border Patrol,

they must be turned over within 72 hours to a refugee

resettlement office that is part of the Health Department.

Health officials must try to find relatives or other adults

in the United States who can care for them while their

immigration cases move through the courts, a search that can

take several weeks or more.

The Health Department maintains shelters for the youths,

most run by private contractors, in the border regions.

Health officials had begun, several months ago, to add beds

in the shelters, anticipating a seasonal increase. But the

plans proved insufficient to handle a drastic increase of

youths in recent weeks, a senior administration official

said.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with someone with a church group that was called for help from the Department of Homeland Security saying: We have exceeded our capacity to protect these children. We are asking church groups that can help, please come help.

This person said it was clear that some of the young children, females had been raped, and you can't help but wonder for the thousand that made it across last week in that one area in Texas, how many got lured into sex trafficking.

Oh, sure, we will get you to the United States. As a young child, we will get you there, and once you are there, President Obama will make sure you are taken care of, and you just come with us.

For heaven's sake, one of these was 3 years old, and we have people here in this building saying: Oh, no, children never come by themselves. They would never make that choice to come by themselves. The only people who would ever come illegally would be parents who bring the children without choices.

Well, because of the talk of amnesty in this town and because we do not have a secured border, then this administration and this Congress also is complicit in helping lure people into sex trafficking, into horrible situations, even people trying to cross deserts who don't make it. That should not be.

We owe Americans, we owe the world the obligation to keep our oath, to follow, to support the Constitution of the United States. That requires us to follow the laws, not pick and choose which Federal laws we care to ignore because we don't like them, as our Attorney General has advocated. That makes him a violator of his constitutional oath. We should be following in our oaths, not breaking them.

When you hear about children being lured into this country by promises made by people in this town as to how good it is going to be-- oh, we are going to get amnesty through, and for any child that can get here before the border is secured so we only allow legally approved people in, just come on, however you can get here--we are luring people into horrible, horrible situations.

It is time to start acting responsibly. That does not mean that we continue to send the message that is being signaled by this administration that, gee, if you can just get to the United States as a child, we will take care of you. If we can't find your parents who are illegally in the country, then we will find somebody to take care of you legally. We are going to allow you to overwhelm this country.

We have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that is here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in. People that are working are already paying taxes, and we have an awful lot of people that are working who are not legally here, who are getting vast amounts of money for their child tax credit that allows them to get back more money than they put in.

There can be no debate that young children who are not working, even if they are legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at all the tax money that the Federal coffers will be getting if we just legalize everybody here, that is a bogus argument. It is a strained argument by people who want more people coming in illegally.

It is time we took our oath seriously, began enforcing our laws, not sealing

the border, but securing the border. Once it is secured, as confirmed by border States, not by Homeland Security that can't be trusted, but by border States, unanimously telling us, okay, Federal Government, we can affirm, we can certify that the border to our State is secure, then we can move ahead with immigration reform. Until that time, we need to quit talking about it. Anybody that is tempted to continue talking about it needs to go down to the border and see a 3-year-old that got lured into this country because of that kind of talk: Just get here.

Obviously, a 3-year-old had someone convince them that they needed to try to get here and helped to get them here. I wonder how many other 3- year-olds got talked into coming along for the ride and didn't make it? Maybe their parents or some loved one paid money to human traffickers thinking, gee, if I can get my really young child into the United States, then they get amnesty, then they can claim me as their parent so I can come in, and then I can take care of them even though I am not an American citizen, and that will allow them to draw more people in. So it is foreseeable that parents could send children.

It is tough to ever give up a child. Moses' mother did it to try to secure a better life for him.

How many parents have let their child go with human traffickers, hoping for a better life for their child, only to find out later their child never made it to America? Sending them from South America, from Central America, across country, clear across the length of Mexico has got to be a risky move.

This story from The New York Times says:

Mr. Johnson said the young migrants became a more ``vivid''

issue for him after he persuaded his wife to spend Mother's

Day with him at the station in McAllen. He said he asked a

12-year-old girl where her mother was. She responded

tearfully that she did not have a mother, and was hoping to

find her father who was living somewhere in the United

States, Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson said he had spoken on Monday with the

ambassadors from Mexico and the three central American

countries to seek their cooperation, and had begun a

publicity campaign to dissuade youths from embarking for the

United States.

``We have to discourage parents from sending for their

children to cross the southwest border because of the risks

involved. A south Texas processing center is no place for a

child,'' Mr. Johnson said.

Officials said many youths are fleeing gang violence at

home, while some are seeking to unite with parents in the

United States. A majority of unaccompanied minors are not

eligible to remain legally in the United States and are

eventually returned home.

Well, Secretary Johnson can say we need to dissuade more young people from trying to make the perilous trip across Latin America, Central America to try to get into the United States, but actions speak louder than words. When the actions are that, if you can just get to the United States, Mr. Johnson's Homeland Security will take care of you, will get you three hot meals, a bed to sleep in, if we can't find your parents illegally in the United States, then we will find you some other parents, people are being drawn in.

They know if their child comes in and is given a legal place, a legal status, then they will be able to come in on the backs of their children's legal status so they can take care of them.

It is time to stop the luring of young children across the border by the activities of this administration. It is time for Congress to stop luring people across the border by talk of amnesty. It is time to stop. And as if that wasn't bad enough, there was an article today, from Breitbart, by Caroline May. It says:

The Department of Homeland Security has only requested that

the State Department invoke visa sanctions against a country

that refuses or delays accepting an immigrant facing

deportation back to their country once, over a decade ago.

The article says:

A State Department official confirmed to Breitbart News

Monday that the only time the State Department invoked visa

sanctions at the request of DHS was in 2001 against Guyana.

Last week the Center for Immigration Studies reported that

an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document

revealed that last year ICE released 36,007 criminal

immigrants awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings.

According to ICE, many of the releases were mandatory, some

as required by court cases--it mentions one--in which the

Supreme Court held that the government cannot indefinitely

detain an immigrant if there is ``no significant likelihood

of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.''

Over the weekend, CIS experts postulated that Secretaries

of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry bear partial blame

for some of the 36,007 criminal immigrants released last

year, estimating that 3,000 releases were ``mandatory''--due

to the Supreme Court case--because of their apparent failure

to invoke a statute requiring the DHS Secretary to request

the Secretary of State to stop issuing visas to those

countries that do not take back or delay taking their

citizens back.

There is a total breakdown in the protection of this country and our borders when it comes to enforcing the law. There are some areas where the law is being enforced. There are some areas where Border Patrol is doing absolutely everything they physically can to enforce the law. But because the President's commitment is to having navigators as being more important than having Border Patrol, then we have a leaking sieve at our borders.

Because the Federal Government, this administration is more committed to having new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare, agents, navigators, bureaucrats that will never so much as put a Band-Aid on a hurt, this administration considers them more important for health care than doctors, nurses, people that actually do good.

I have been hearing this last week in my district about doctors and nurses being laid off but bureaucrats being hired right and left by the Federal Government, health care bureaucrats. They are not going to save a life. They are going to create more paperwork. They are going to create more burden for people that actually do the healing and treating. They are currently making their lives miserable with paperwork and with computer work.

Some doctors have already told me they were retired or retiring because they are just not going to be answering to bureaucrats that don't know about the treatment they provide. Yet this administration thinks more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more navigators--who, by the way, we hear reports are getting voter registration forms to people that they are signing up. So, gee, they may not be providing health care, they may be providing misinformation about health care, they may be telling people to get on Web sites that don't work, but they are getting them registered to vote. How about that?

Mr. Speaker, look, it is time that the Federal Government, through the executive branch, started fulfilling their oaths to enforce the laws as they are. It is time that this Congress, like in the case of the PATRIOT Act and the so-called USA FREEDOM Act that is going to leave a gaping hole in the manner in which the Federal Government can continue to get personal information that has nothing to do with terrorism, it is time for all of us to step up to the plate and do our jobs and follow our oaths.

Once that is accomplished, there will be more jobs for people because the economy will improve. There will be more health care for people because we get more doctors and nurses and fewer bureaucrats. It is time we started living up to our commitment to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Special Order given tonight by Mr. Horsford of Nevada.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 16 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 20, 2014, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the background of an incredible woman. We have different religious views because I am a Christian and she is apparently an atheist at this time, but what an extraordinary woman: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women's rights in

Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She

escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the

Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch

parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on

furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into

Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch

Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van

Gogh, she made ``Submission,'' a film about the oppression of

women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the

film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr.

Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali

researches the relationship between the West and Islam,

women's rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by

religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe.

Her background, as mentioned, she was a member of the parliament in the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, the Netherlands, 2003 to 2006. She was a researcher at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2001 to 2002. And she had been an interpreter and adviser in the Office of Intercultural Communication, Leiden, the Netherlands, 1995 to

2001. She has her master's from Leiden University, the Netherlands.

So this extraordinary woman should be paid tribute. It was wonderful to see recently that Brandeis University was paying tribute to her.

But we have had an interesting development in the United States of America from the time I was in college. I attended what was at the time a conservative university, Texas A&M University, and a majority there had very conservative views, but we loved to have liberal speakers come speak in my college, not because it was liberal but because we welcomed the exchange. There were always people coming to my university that students disagreed with.

See, at that time, we thought universities were places at which you could have those debates and where you could have a liberal speaker come speak, even though you disagreed with him, but we have seen the rise of fascism in American universities.

Back 30, 40 years ago, students could get involved and listen to liberal speakers, conservative speakers, moderate speakers, far right, far left speakers at universities and then make their own conclusions because, back then, that is kind of what we thought education was; but now, with this new intellectual fascism that has arisen in our universities, some of them--far too many of them, actually--say: if you disagree with our position, we don't want you here. We want you eliminated. We don't want you to have work. We want your family defiled. We just don't want you to succeed in any way whatsoever.

In fact, we see these kinds of receptions for conservatives, for Judeo-Christian believers and followers, people eliminated from being on television because they hold the view espoused by Moses and by Jesus of marriage being between a man and a woman.

It is as Moses said and as Jesus repeated, after He said a man will leave his mother and a woman will leave her home and the two will become one, what God has joined together, let no one pull apart.

Now, we find out that there was a show yesterday that we were told was considered hateful because it believed what a majority of Americans does and what Moses believed and what Jesus believed, which is that marriage would be between a man and a woman.

People like me are vilified--oh, you are hateful--but the people whose show was canceled made what sounded like a very Christian response of, look, we love homosexuals, we love all people, if you don't, then you are not following the teachings of Jesus, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that you have to support, embrace, encourage particular lifestyles that you believe are harmful to the individuals and harmful to society in general.

So it is amazing that, in the name of liberality--in the name of being tolerant--this fascist intolerance has arisen. There are people who stand up and say: I agree with a majority of Americans--I agree with Moses and Jesus--that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, all of a sudden, people like me are considered haters-- hatemongers--evil, which really is exactly what we have seen throughout our history, going back to the days of the Nazi takeover in Europe.

What did they do?

First, they would call people haters and evil and would build up disdain for those people who held those opinions or religious views or religious heritages. Then next came: those people are so evil and hateful, so let's bring every book that they have written or has to do with them, and let's start burning the books because we can't tolerate their intolerance.

As shrinks testified before me during my days as a judge, it was called projecting. It is those who have a characteristic and to divert condemnation on themselves, they project their characteristic on someone with whom they disagree--so the most intolerant in America.

Then especially people like they who were going to be on the television show before it was canceled--people like me--yes, we can get upset. We can't stand to see our Nation torn apart. We can't stand to see our Judeo-Christian values, on which the Nation was founded, demeaned, depicted as somehow evil.

We stand up for those things, but there is no hate for individuals, yet those who are the most hate-filled, who do not follow the teachings of Jesus, seek to impose or to project upon those of us who are Christians--and some orthodox Jews and even atheists or secularists, like Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali--their own hate, their own intolerance. We really need to understand what is going on.

It is not tolerance that becomes intolerant and says a woman who was tortured--I don't know what else you would call some of the procedures that were done to her most private areas in the name of religion. It was not voluntary.

She was ordered into a marriage she wanted no part of. She did not want to have to be covered up and stay in a back room and never own property and never drive. She kind of thought, like most of us do in America, except for the intolerant fascist liberals, that: gee, women ought to be able to own property, we ought to be able to marry whom we wish, we ought to be able to espouse our own views without being called hatemongers.

Brandeis University chose to honor the intolerant and turn against someone who went through a living hell in Somalia. Because she has stood up for what she believes, including in the Netherlands, and put together a film with Mr. van Gogh, her partner was assassinated-- murdered; yet Brandeis University, in having some cowards in the administration, without one fraction of the courage of Ms. Hirsi Ali, says: we are going to back off and not honor this woman who has overcome so much.

To honor someone doesn't necessarily mean that you embrace everything about his life. Like I say, I stand in tribute to a woman who has overcome so much, who has been fighting against the true war against women.

I don't believe at all in her religious views as, apparently, an atheist, but I can recognize this is a woman of courage, that she is a woman who is brilliant, who has overcome so much.

It is really heartbreaking that universities around this country, which were once beacons to debate and to disagreement, have now been taken over by so many liberal fascist cowards that, if you disagree with something they think or if you disagree with something somebody who is more violent than you thinks, then they are going to succumb to the fascist violence and say: oh, we don't want to snub you, really, but there is this other group over here that may get violent with us if we stand up for your rights and acknowledge your courage.

So we are going to be cowards, and we are not going to acknowledge your amazing courage. We are going to snub you because we are afraid of these people who may become violent.

You have to wonder if the State Department of the United States, under the leadership of Secretary Hillary Clinton, may not have succumbed to this same type of fear: gee, we don't want to make the terrorists mad, so let's don't stir them up.

There was a time, for example, when Thomas Jefferson was President and radical Islamists in northern Africa were attacking American ships and taking crews hostage and selling them back to America if we came up with the price required, the extortion fee.

Jefferson finally had had enough and had sent this group of--at that time--men, called Marines. They went to the shores of Tripoli, and they fought with everything they had against the radical Islamists.

They fought hard enough and showed that we were not weaklings who would lay down in the face of Islamist terrorism, but that we would fight. Those Marines fought hard enough that the radical Islamists said, okay, all right, we will leave you alone--because that is all radical Islamists understand.

We have this article from The Wall Street Journal, May 8, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is the same lady I was just speaking about. She knows something about radical Islam. She has had people she has cared about and loved killed by radical Islam. She, herself, was physically harmed by radical Islam.

She knows a lot about it, and she also knows about intolerance, the type that was seen--and the lack of courage--at Brandeis University. Hopefully,

someday, someone at Brandeis will recall the Jewish influence in the university that understood the threat of intolerance--like fascist intolerance--and, instead of succumbing to fascist intolerance, stand up and acknowledge courage and extraordinary human behavior.

For those who may be tempted to say: Now, Louie, how in the world could you put radical Islam and fascism or the Nazis together?

All one would have to do is look back at the history prior to and during World War II, and the connection was already made. The alliances were made. One type of intolerance, Nazi fascism, seemed to ally and work well and become allies of radical Islamist fascists.

In this Wall Street Journal article, as Hirsi Ali says:

Since the kidnapping of 276 school girls in Nigeria last

month, the meaning of Boko Haram--the name used by the

terrorist group that seized the girls--has become more widely

known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually

given in English language media as ``Western Education is

Forbidden,'' though ``Non-Muslim Teaching is Forbidden''

might be more accurate.

But little attention has been paid to the group's formal

Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lidda'wa wal-Jihad. That

roughly translates as ``The Fellowship of the People of the

Tradition for Preaching and Holy War.'' That's a lot less

catchy than Boko Haram, but is significantly more revealing

about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration

among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko

Haram in his goals and methods is, in fact, all too

representative.

The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a

central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression

of women.

Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off

enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no

different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and

nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai--as she

rode a schoolbus home in 2012--because she advocated girls'

education. As I know from experience, nothing is more

anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women.

How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who

these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism

as ``Islamophobes'' than to stand up for women's most basic

rights. Where are the Muslim college-student organizations

denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday

prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter

hashtag protest--

As we saw from former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Back to the article. It says:

Organizations like Boko Haram do not arise in isolation.

The men who establish Islamist groups, whether in Africa

(Nigeria, Somalia, Mali), Southeast Asia (Afghanistan,

Pakistan), or even Europe (UK, Spain and the Netherlands) are

members of long-established Muslim communities, most of whose

members are happy to lead peaceful lives. To understand why

the jihadists are flourishing, you need to understand the

dynamics within those communities.

I might insert parenthetically that the Muslims who wish to live in peace can be and are our friends. Though we disagree on our religious beliefs completely, we can be friends.

I was with my dear friends Michele Bachmann and Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess, and I turned to see a very surprised look on their face when we made it through the midst of the Afghanistan capital. There were people holding rocket-propelled grenades as we turned down the alley to get to the Masood family compound.

We pulled into the gate in the drive there within the inner part and I saw my Muslim friends coming out on the porch and down the stairs.

So I jumped out. And I looked back and saw they looked a little surprise as I jumped out and these well-known Muslim Northern Alliance members spread their arms open wide, as I did, and we embraced strong, heartfelt embraces. Because I knew what they had been through in fighting radical Islam. I know that they do not want radical Islam taking back Afghanistan when we leave.

I know that because this administration has turned its back on those Muslim non-extremists, we are putting their lives in danger as we leave them to the radical Islamist extremists poised and ready to take over in the vacuum that we leave. We owe our allies who fought and defeated the Taliban by early 2002 better than that.

And my heart breaks as I think about the absolute horrors that will unfold in Afghanistan as our former allies have to defend themselves against radical Islam because they dare to be our friends and allies. That is no way to treat people who fought with you, for you, for themselves, because of that common desire not to be under the yoke and threat and hate of radical Islam.

Back to Ms. Hirsi Ali's article. She says:

So, imagine an angry young man in any Muslim community

anywhere in the world. Imagine him trying to establish an

association of men dedicated to the practice of Sunnah, (the

tradition of guidance from the Prophet Muhammad). Much of the

young man's preaching will address the place of women. He

will recommend that girls and women be kept indoors and

covered from head to toe if they are to venture outside. He

will also condemn the permissiveness of Western society.

What kind of response will he meet? In the U.S. and in

Europe, some might quietly draw him to the attention of

authorities. Women might voice concerns about the attacks on

their freedom. But in other parts of the world, where law and

order are lacking, such young men and their extremist

messages thrive.

Where governments are weak, corrupt or, nonexistent, the

message of Boko Haram and it counterparts is especially

compelling. Not implausibly, they can blame poverty on

official corruption and offer as an antidote the pure

principles of the Prophet. And in these countries, women are

more vulnerable and their options are fewer.

But why does our imaginary young zealot turn to violence?

At first, he can count on some admiration for his fundamental

message within the community where he starts out. He might

encounter opposition from established Muslim leaders who feel

threatened by him. But he perseveres because perseverance in

the Sunnah is one of the most important keys to heaven. As he

plods on from door to door, he gradually acquires a

following. There comes a point when his following is as large

as that of the Muslim community's established leaders. That's

when the showdown happens--and the argument for ``holy war''

suddenly makes sense to him.

The history of Boko Haram has followed precisely this

script. The group was founded in 2002 by a young Islamist

called Mohammed Yusuf, who started out preaching in a Muslim

community in the Borno State of northern Nigeria. He set up

an educational complex, including a mosque and an Islamic

school. For 7 years, mostly poor families flocked to hear his

message. But in 2009, the Nigerian government investigated

Boko Haram and ultimately arrested several members, including

Yusuf himself. The crackdown sparked violence that left about

700 dead. Yusuf soon died in prison--the government said he

was killed while trying to escape--but the seeds had been

planted. Under one of Yusuf's lieutenants, Abubakar Shekau,

Boko Haram turned to jihad.

In 2011, Boko Haram launched its first terror attack in

Borno. Four people were killed, and from then on violence

became an integral part, if not the central part, of its

mission. The recent kidnappings--11 more girls were abducted

by Boko Haram on Sunday--join a litany of outrages, including

multiple car bombings and the murder of 59 schoolboys in

February. On Monday, as if to demonstrate its growing power,

Boko Haram launched a 12-hour attack in the city of

Gamboru Ngala, firing into the market crowds, setting

houses aflame, and shooting down residents who ran from

the burning buildings. Hundreds were killed.

I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly

rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the

radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western

culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors

the denigration of women's most basic rights.

This is Ms. Hirsi Ali saying this.

She says:

Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more,

much more, to resist those in their mist who engage in this

type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of

holy war.

Parenthetically here, Mr. Speaker, it should not have even required a FBI or CIA investigation into the older Tsarnaev brother to find out that he had been radicalized. It should not have required the Russians tipping our intelligence and the FBI that they were ignorant of how radicalized Tsarnaev had become. It shouldn't have required the FBI to go out to the mosque and make inquiry about Tsarnaev and what Muslim teachers he was drawn to, what Muslim books he was reading.

It shouldn't have required that, but it did.

Unfortunately, the FBI didn't do those things. Unfortunately, the FBI didn't even bother to notify the Boston police, as far as we can tell, that Tsarnaev had been radicalized--or, at least the Russians said he was--because I would be willing to bet if he

had, the Boston police would have gotten to the bottom of it before the Boston marathon bombing occurred.

Ms. Hirsi Ali says in her article:

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they

choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at

their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an

isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism

that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to

the rights of women and girls.

If my pointing this out offends some people more than the

odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.

It should be also pointed out Ms. Hirsi Ali is a fellow of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is the founder of the AHA foundation.

So I commend Harvard for having the courage to have someone to espouse the views that Ms. Hirsi Ali does. She has been there. She has courage.

I hope and pray that universities across the United States, even though many of them are offered major Middle Eastern money if they will do this, and have a seminar on Islamaphobia and help eradicate anyone or any thought that radical Islam is a threat, and let's just suppress anything like that. I applaud universities that have the courage to do that. But too many don't. And they don't stand up as they should.

And what is amazing is, we have people in this country and in this city and in the media who take the gutless position that they will try to portray Republicans or conservatives as hating women. Why? Because they know we are not going to kill them. We will disagree with them, we will debate them, we will say they are wrong, but we are not going to kill them because of what they believe.

In Western society, in every State and Federal law it has always been true, except those that are allowing sharia law to creep in, but it has always been true that provoking words are never an offense to a physical assault. That is kind of 101 criminal law in most any law school, except, of course, if it is teaching sharia law.

Under sharia law, provoking words, no matter how minor, can be the basis for capital punishment. You offend a radical Islamist, that is the basis for killing them.

We have never believed that in Western society. As Judeo-Christian ideals have spread even among atheists, secularists, and other religious believers, that has been a good, sound doctrine. Provoking words--or a cartoon--may evoke anger and may provoke anger, but it should not provoke physical violence.

It is time liberals rose up with enough courage to say: You know what? Wow, there is a war against women, and it is killing women.

There are laws in some places of radical Islam that say: if you are a woman who is raped, if you don't have four men who are respected Muslims who can stand up and be eyewitnesses that you were raped, then we may need to stone you to death for allowing such to occur.

That is not an American ideal. That is a war on women. I have prosecuted, and I have sentenced enough rapists that it is something that is very difficult for me to sit and listen to, and to think that so many of the cases for which I sentenced rapists to prison could never have been brought and the woman would have to live in fear and horror if we were living under the kind of law where there really is a cultural war on women and, sometimes, a physical war on women.

In the United States, I know families where the parents are Christians and the children chose not to believe in Jesus as Lord, and it breaks the hearts of the parents; but the thought would never, ever cross their mind to engage in violence.

I have been told about someone we are trying to help, whose family was Islamist, radical, in another part of the world. When he became a Christian, that made him worthy of the death penalty. It made his child worthy of the death penalty, in their opinion. He has been killed.

Other family members that have tried to help, who were moderate Muslims and didn't believe someone who became a Christian should be murdered, have paid the price with their lives.

These things are happening around the world, and it is time liberals fought a more courageous fight and stood--and instead of screaming about Islamophobia, stood and said, you know, there are Muslim friends and allies, but there is a radical Islamist part in this world, a sect in this world that wants to kill, destroy anything, including what we consider to be innocent children, women, men.

Until we confront that fact, this country is going to continue to be subjected to threats against American lives here and abroad. It is easier to attack Americans abroad.

Americans, including this body--I mean, we were outraged at what happened to those Nigerian children, boys killed, the girls threatened with being sold into what basically would be a slave-type marriage. It is outrageous.

So you wonder why in the world the State Department would not have the courage to take a stand. There was an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy, and he incorporates much of a fantastic article from Josh Rogin, from the Daily Beast, and it is dated May 8.

It says:

``We must stand up to terrorism,'' bleated Hillary Clinton

a few days ago in a tweet expressing outrage against Boko

Haram, the jihadist organization that has abducted hundreds

of young girls in Nigeria. Yet, when she was actually in a

position to stand up to Boko Haram's terrorism as Secretary

of State, Ms. Clinton instead protected the group.

Josh Rogin reports at the Daily Beast:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton, fought hard

against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram

on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for 2

years; and now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are

saying that the decision may have hampered the American

government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that

shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

While Ms. Clinton now issues indignant tweets, Rogin

elaborates on her failure to mention that her own State

Department refused to place Boko Haram on its list of foreign

terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the

U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the

urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over

a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

``The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had

at her disposal, she didn't use, and nobody can say she

wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy,'' said a former

senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ``The

FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko

Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would

provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to

elected officials.''

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco

(now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to

urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist

organization. The following month, General Carter Ham, the

chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram

provided a ``safe haven'' for al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group;

and yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department still declined to

place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

As Mr. Rogin further details, placing an organization on

the terrorist list enables the government to use various

investigative tools for law enforcement and intelligence-

gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by

criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the

conduct of business with it.

After numerous Boko Haram atrocities, Republicans attempted

to force Secretary Clinton to designate the group or explain

why she refused to do so. The State Department heavily

lobbied against the legislation. Only after John Kerry

replaced Clinton and after a series of jihadist bombings

against churches and other targets did the State Department

finally relent and add Boko Haram to the terrorist list last

November.

The excuses now being offered in explanation for Clinton's

dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton's State

Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group

with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United

States.

Have a look, though, at the State Department's list here.

Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist

campaigns that do not threaten our country, the Basque ETA,

the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Real Irish

Republican Army, et cetera. A significant reason for

having the list is to promote international cooperation

against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone,

anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have

only local grievances and may not directly imperil the

U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from

the list.

Fox News has further reported about another rationale of

Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko

Haram's profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason,

would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That

is ridiculous. The main point of having the list and the

sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation is to

weaken the organization by depriving of it assets and

material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are

claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law--much of which was

put in place by the administration of Bill Clinton--does more

harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that?

What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is

loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-

supremacist organization. Ms. Clinton, like the Obama

administration more broadly, believes that appeasing

Islamists--avoiding actions that might give them offense,

slamming Americans who provoke them--promotes peace and

stability. See Egypt for a good example of how well this

approach is working.

Furthermore, if you are claiming to have ``decimated'' al

Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done

in the runup to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to

do is add jihadists to the terror list--or beef up security

at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots or acknowledge that

jihadists rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi

are something other than ``protests'' inspired by ``an

Internet video.''

It is very simple. Most of us on the national-security

right recognize that Islamic supremacism is an ideology

rooted in Muslim scripture--a strict, literal, ancient

interpretation of Muslim scripture, that is. Essentially, it

advocates the adoption of shari'a, Islam's legal code and

societal framework. It is not the only way of construing

Muslim scripture.

And I add, fortunately.

He said:

And we certainly hope that more benign constructions become

dominant, but Islamic supremacism is far more mainstream than

the West likes to admit, particularly in the Middle East and

growing swaths of Africa. It is an ideology that endorses

violent jihad, the treatment of women as chattel, sex

slavery, child marriages, and the horrible stuff that outfits

like Boko Haram are into. Even though these organizations--

quite naturally--terrorize locally, their aspirations are

global, and they are a threat to us because their ideology

unites them and regards the West as the enemy.

The left, by contrast, seems to believe that

``Islamists''--which are adherents of Islamic supremacism--

are motivated not by an ideology derived from scriptural

commands, but by American policies that promote national

defense, pursue U.S. interests, and regard Israel as a key

ally. Indeed, progressives like Ms. Clinton are anti-

antiterrorists in the sense that they portray the national

security right as a greater threat than Islamic supremacism.

Ms. Clinton and her cohort do not deny that they are

terrorists motivated by Islam, but they see terrorists and

Islamists as separate categories, not united by single

ideology.

Anyway, the article goes on and makes very clear that there are too many in America who think they will just beat up on conservatives, beat up on Republicans, beat up on conservatives who have the same ideas about marriage that Barack Obama did during the campaign of 2008, that John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, people that were considered liberal did in prior years, to beat up on Americans who hold those same beliefs in the Bible. It is easier to beat up on conservatives because we are not going to kill you. We will argue with you. We will get frustrated with you.

But real courage is found in people like Ms. Hirsi Ali who know that her life and their lives are at risk every day, every minute of every day because, to this supremacist ideology, provoking words are not only a defense, but they are a reason to kill people, to brutalize them unmercifully.

And then we have this article from May 7 by Patrick Goodenough from CNSNews.

A man displays copies of several local newspapers during a demonstration calling on the government to rescue the kidnapped schoolgirls outside defense headquarters in Abuja on Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

Secretary of State John Kerry, on Wednesday, underlined the issue of the poverty as a recruitment tool for extremist groups like Boko Haram, although analysts and Nigerian officials have for months been reporting that the organization is forcibly conscripting civilians, including children, into its ranks.

During his recent Africa trip, leaders had told him that much of the challenge in confronting violent extremist groups like Boko Haram lies in fighting poverty, Kerry said at a Council of the Americas conference in Washington. ``They all talked about poverty and the need to alleviate poverty, and that much of this challenge comes out of this poverty where young people are grabbed at an early stage, proffered a little bit of money,'' he said. ``Their minds are bended, and then the money doesn't matter anymore. They've got the minds, and they begin to direct them into these very extreme endeavors.''

The Islamist terrorist group has waged a violent campaign against Nigerian Christians and government targets since 2009, but shot to global prominence in recent weeks with its kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls in the country's northeastern Borno State. Its leader has described them as ``slaves'' and is threatening to sell them or ``marry'' them off.

In a new attack this week, as many as 300 people were reportedly killed.

But it is interesting. This follows the Obama administration's ideology campaign rhetoric: Gee, we are not at war with radical Islam. The real problem here is poverty. If we can eliminate poverty, then we can eliminate radical Islam. And that flies in the face of the facts.

People that have looked under the surface at all are aware Osama bin Laden was wealthy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is credited with planning the 9/11, not tragedy, as might be said here, but murders of thousands of Americans and is proud of it, and he has said in his own pleadings that he, himself, prepared and that have been declassified: If our efforts on 9/11 caused you terror, then praise be to Allah. And he points out in his pleadings that it is Allah who has commanded them to be at war and kill people, such as Christians and Jews--Jews because they are vermin and, as Muslim Brothers have said, are descended from apes and pigs.

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his pleading, points out that also it is fine to kill Christians because they believe in a Holy Trinity. They believe and say that God had a Son, Jesus. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his pleading, points out the verse in the Koran that there is no authorization to combine anyone or anything with Allah; and, therefore, if you do that, as Christians do, believing in the Holy Trinity, believing that Jesus is the Son of God, then that justifies capital punishment, killing you, torturing, whatever they care to do, because, under their way of thinking, you are worthy of death.

Well, because of the approach of Secretary Clinton's State Department and of this administration, when the Egyptian people went to the streets by the millions--the estimates, 33 million. Even 20 million would have been larger than any protest in the history of the world. Morsi only claimed to have gotten around 13 million votes to be President. There were many who believed with all their hearts and had evidence, they say, that he got the vote by fraud. But threats were made behind the scenes: If you contest this election, people will die, and we will burn this country down.

Well, when the Egyptian people--the moderate Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, the secularists--had had enough of radical Islam, they rose up and demanded Morsi's removal, as he continued to usurp more and more power not given to him under the constitution. And since the constitution didn't allow for impeachment, the only thing the people could do was rise up before he got the kind of power Chavez had in Venezuela. Because when a dictator begins pulling power into himself, you have got to stop him early, or it will cost so many more lives.

And that is why this was one of the banners that Egyptian protesters held up. On one half, an American flag with a green checkmark; on the other half, they had our great President's face with a red x. What they were saying and what they made clear in other banners and statements was that this administration is supporting the radical Islamists, and that we moderate Muslims, we Christians, Jews, secularists, we don't want the Muslim Brotherhood, these radicals that have been properly classified as a terrorist organization.

And this administration has kowtowed repeatedly, just as Brandeis University did, to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, who were cited by a U.S. district judge and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as being a front organization. They had plenty of evidence to support that they were a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and were related and working with the Holy Land Foundation, as it supported terrorism.

It is time Americans woke up. The Egyptians certainly woke up as they raised their hands and said: We don't want radical Islam.

Now, I don't agree with this, but this is what the Egyptians were marching around Egypt with. And why would they say Obama supports terrorism? It is because the United States, under this administration, supported Morsi, supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptian people had had enough, and they decried anyone in the United States that was supporting these terrorists.

And as some of us travel around the Middle East, moderate Muslim leaders say: Why are you not helping us in the war against terrorism anymore? You are helping the bad guys. You helped the al Qaeda-backed rebels in Libya.

And as I speak, there are training camps in Libya, like there were in Afghanistan before we went in with less than 500 Americans. But we helped the Northern Alliance Muslims take out the radical Islamic Taliban.

My friend is coming to the floor. He and I have traveled around those parts, and he had been engaged with many moderate Muslims in fighting the Russians, even, back before my predecessor Charlie Wilson was in Congress.

I am very proud to consider him a friend. I am proud of the efforts we have made to reach out to our allies. It was my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who introduced me to Massoud and General Dostum and so many of the moderate Muslims that just want out from under the oppression that radical Islam brings.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this week, I want to encourage those in Egypt who are standing up to radical Islam. I want to encourage universities to stand up against radical Islam and have the courage to recognize moderate Muslims who will stand up and have the courage to speak up against the real war on women in this world. And it is not by conservatives. It is by radical Islam.

My time is about expired, but I will certainly yield to the gentleman from California.

And I greatly appreciated being with you and Ms. Sanchez in Egypt. And my dear friend from California knows good and well, I am totally on board. Count me in.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to recognize an incredible, charming, superlative institution of higher learning located within the First Congressional District of Texas. The historically significant Wiley College was founded in 1873 and is located in Marshall, Texas.

Wiley College first received national acclaim in 1935 when its debate team defeated the then reigning national forensics champion, the University of Southern California. The dramatic face off between these two universities was depicted in the movie ``The Great Debaters'' which helped reinvigorate the debate program at the college and began to erode the racial barrier that once plagued academia.

It is with tremendous pride that I can say ``The Great Debaters'' have done it again by bringing home first place honors in the National Pi Kappa Delta Comprehensive National Tournament which was held in Indianapolis, Indiana. After an outstanding period of 373 successful debates and 60 awards, this victory marks the pinnacle of the team's superb season.

The debate team which once again captured the enthusiasm and commitment of that 1935 team was comprised of only first and second year collegiate competitors: Austin Ashford, Dominick Taylor, Drake Pough, Eric Robinson, Farah Habad, Jhamiah Dixon, LaQuanda Streeter, Rachel Garnett, Autumn Locke, Autumnwind Spear, Mary Mitchell, Kayla Hall, Cameron Smith, Jesus Cardenas, Katori Mobley, Benjamin Turner, Marcus Rembert, Ernest Mack, Ki-Jana Hernandez, Aaron Tumbaga, Robert Hollar, Nathan Leal, and Lyle Kleinman.

The students of the Melvin B. Tolson/Denzel Washington Forensics Society's debate team would not have been able to accomplish this meaningful achievement without the excellent instruction given by Coach Christopher Medina, Director of Forensics; Coach Sarah Spiker Rainey, Assistant Director of Forensics; and Interpretation Coach Sean Allen-- along with Forensics Specialists Coach Kris Stroup, Coach Jane Munksgaard, and Coach Todd Rainey.

Special recognition must also be given to the President and CEO of Wiley College, Dr. Haywood Strickland; Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Glenda Carter; and Vice President of Student Affairs and Enrollment Services, Dr. Joseph Morale.

Heartfelt congratulations are extended to all faculty, staff, students and alumni of Wiley College as well as the entire east Texas community of Marshall, Texas, as their legacy of distinction is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Brook Hill Lady Guard on a stellar 2013- 2014 soccer season in which they once again captured the TAPPS Division III state championship.

The Brook Hill Lady Guard triumphed over the Austin Veritas Lady Defenders with a final score of 1-0, and finished a magnificent season with a perfect 19-0 record.

The defending champion Lady Guard boasted 17 consecutive shutouts, and the entire season only saw them giving up two goals.

The Brook Hill Lady Guard's championship success is a tribute to the coach who brought his team back for another chance at victory, as well as a tribute to the players and all who assisted them along the way.

This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the athletic staff including the outstanding Head Coach David Collins, Assistant Coaches Jordan Roquemore and Neal McGowan, and Trainer Tristan Trevino, all under the outstanding leadership of Athletic Director Wally Dawkins, as well as the stellar school administration headed by Rod Fletcher.

The team members responsible for bringing the second championship title home to east Texas include Hayden Langemeier, Kennedy Rose, Lily Cool, Katherine Stair, Tito Babatunde, Maria Moore, Ari Assad, Elise Hawkins, Danielle Adams, Janet Nwachukwu, Hope Cooper, Kendall Wells, Hayley Dumesnil, Li Ming, Morgan Moss, Penny End, Katie Smith, and Julia Troxell.

The Brook Hill staff and the entire community of Bullard have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these young ladies in the pursuit of their dream.

It is my most esteemed honor to congratulate everyone involved with this endeavor. May God continue to bless these young women, their families and friends, and all those individuals who call Bullard, Texas their home.

Congratulations to the 2014 TAPPS Division III State Soccer Champions, the Brook Hill Lady Guard, 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 was struck by the comments by the minority whip instructing us to check the Constitution. That really struck me, because I believe I recall him standing up and applauding in this Chamber when the President said: If Congress doesn't do its job, I will basically do it for them. So someone that would do that doesn't need to be giving lectures on the Constitution.

We have powers under the Constitution that we have got to protect. When someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then attempts to take the Fifth Amendment right, it is not there. This is the next step. It will preserve the sanctity and the power of this body, whether it is Democrats or Republicans in charge or anyone who attempts to skirt justice and provide truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend and colleague, Ms. Frankel, for a wonderful presentation.

I know, in having traveled with Congresswoman Frankel, that we share a great respect and admiration for the nation of Israel, and we should be the best friend Israel has in the world because they believe in the things we do, in the same values.

Where else in the Middle East do people get to vote, whether you are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, except in Israel? If you are a woman, where are you respected and given the full rights that men have, except for in Israel? Where in the Middle East are homosexuals not persecuted and even killed?

We ought to be Israel's best friend in the world; and I am very concerned that, at times, it feels like we may not be. So I join my friend in wanting to do everything we can to shore up that relationship with Israel, and I thank her for her dedication.

I also believe firmly that it is true that those who bless Israel seem to end up being blessed. Go figure. So I am grateful for that presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to answer or attempt to answer a question that I have been asked many times about media reporting and presentations and why some stories get covered by the mainstream media, particularly by the three main networks for broadcast television and CNN and MSNBC as well.

I saw a chart that was put together by a group, called the Minority Report, but I wasn't as interested in the group as I was in finding out if the relationships set forth in the chart were actually accurate, so I had my staff help me. Let's find out. Is this chart really accurate? I was really staggered by what was in the chart.

This is not the entire chart, but it is most of it. Their chart was entitled, ``Keeping It in the Family,'' and it was very interesting.

As you see the chart here, at CNN, the vice president and deputy bureau chief in Washington is Virginia Moseley, who is married to Tom Nides, who is the former Deputy Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State.

You have Bianna Golodryga, married to Peter Orszag, who was the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Obama administration. You have Ben Sherwood, and he is the brother of Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is the former adviser to Joe Biden and also an adviser to the President.

At ABC News, you have Ian Cameron, who is the former executive producer of ``This Week,'' and he is married to someone named Susan Rice, who, obviously, was the National Security Advisor to the President before she went to the U.N.

You have Claire Shipman, who is married to someone named Jay Carney. Claire Shipman is a correspondent with ABC News. Then you have Matthew Jaffe, who is married to Katie Hogan. Katie Hogan was the Deputy Press Secretary for President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign; and she is the spokesperson for Organizing for Action, OFA, which is working hard, apparently, to turn Texas blue, as they say. Anyway, Matthew Jaffe is a reporter with ABC News.

Then not to leave out NBC News, you have Robert Gibbs, the former White House Press Secretary for President Obama. You have him as a contributor to NBC News. You have the former senior adviser to the President, David Axelrod, who is known for the massive and important advice he has given to President Obama as a senior political analyst for MSNBC.

Oh, we don't want to forget, over here, CBS News. You have the president of CBS News, who is David Rhodes. David Rhodes is akin to--is the brother of--Ben Rhodes, who is the person who coined the phrase ``kinetic military action,'' instead of using the word ``war.''

He coordinated the edits, apparently, of the Benghazi talking points, and of course, he had a great deal to do with what was done in Libya by this administration and the way that was discussed with the media.

So it is not necessarily surprising that Sharyl Attkisson ran into the buzz saw she did at CBS News when the president of CBS News is the brother of someone who was helping pull the strings at the White House.

In fact, some of the articles that were pulled to point out some of these relationships--an article by Ed Morrissey on April 29 of 2014 talked about the newly released White House email, which shows that the Rice talking points on Benghazi were politically motivated.

It says, in part, in the article:

The YouTube story was designed to distract from ``policy

failures,'' according to Barack Obama's aide Ben Rhodes--or

the brother to the president of CBS News.

Then it goes on to set out part of Mr. Ben Rhode's email, and he says in the email, Ben Rhodes does--the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News:

To convey that the United States is doing everything that

we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; to

underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet

video and not a broader failure of policy; to show that we

will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to

justice and standing steadfast through these protests; to

reinforce the President and administration's strength and

steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

On the toplines, he says:

Since we began to see protests in response to this Internet

video, the President has directed the administration to take

a number of steps. His top priority has been the safety and

security of all Americans serving abroad.

Indeed, that was exactly what people in the administration were saying. That was what the people at CBS News were parroting. Since that came from the brother of the CBS News president, that seems to have worked pretty effectively.

There is another article here, ``Worldly at 35, and Shaping Obama's Voice.'' It was an article in The New York Times in March of 2013 by Mark Landler.

It says:

As President Obama prepares to visit Israel next week, he

is turning, as he often does, to Benjamin J. Rhodes, a 35-

year-old Deputy National Security Advisor with a soft voice,

strong opinions, and a reputation around the White House as

the man who channels Mr. Obama on foreign policy.

Mr. Rhodes is drafting the address to the Israeli people the President plans to give in Jerusalem. But his influence extends beyond what either his title or speech-writing duties suggest. Drawing on personal ties and a philosophical kinship with Mr. Obama that go back to the 2008 campaign, Mr. Rhodes helped prod his boss to take a more activist policy toward Egypt and Libya when those countries erupted in 2011.

On further in the article it points out:

Two years ago, when protesters thronged Tahrir Square in

Cairo, Mr. Rhodes urged Mr. Obama to withdraw three decades

of American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. A

few months later, Mr. Rhodes was among those agitating for

the President to back a NATO military intervention in Libya

to head off a slaughter by Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.

Further down in the article it says:

At the White House, Mr. Rhodes first came to prominence

after he wrote Mr. Obama's landmark address to the Muslim

world in Cairo in June, 2009. The speech was notable for Mr.

Obama's assertion that governments should ``reflect the will

of the people,'' prefiguring his policy in dealing with Mr.

Mubarak and Colonel Qaddafi.

Another article from March of 2011 by Rick Moran. It starts out with a reference to Alice in Wonderland, when Rick Moran says:

A ``war'' is a war, is a ``war,'' right? Not if you live in

the Rabbit Hole and have to answer to Alice--

talking about Alice in Wonderland--

as Commander in Chief.

But Byron York is quoted--and I take it this was an article by Byron York inserted in Mr. Moran's piece--and says:

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have

frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a

war? For military officers to White House spokesmen up to the

President himself, the answer is ``no.'' But that leaves the

question: What is it?

In a briefing onboard Air Force One Wednesday, Deputy

National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes--

Again, this is 2011--

--took a crack at an answer. ``I think what we are doing is

enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals,

which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a

humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,'' Rhodes

said. ``Obviously, that involves kinetic military action,

particularly on the front end.''

That came from Ben Rhodes.

And then Mr. Moran's article says:

What we are doing in Libya is making war, whether the Obama

administration admits it or not. People aren't getting killed

by ``kinetic'' anything. They are dying the old-fashioned

way--they are getting blown up.

This gives a whole new meaning to ``KIA.''

Another article from Patrick Howley from May 11, 2013, entitled, ``Top Obama Official's Brother is President of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage.''

It says:

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also

the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away

from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for

covering the administration's scandals too aggressively.

Down further it says:

That reporting revealed that President Obama's Deputy

National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes--brother of CBS News

president David Rhodes--was instrumental in changing the

talking points in September, 2012.

The article further down says more about Mr. Rhodes being a 35-year- old New York native; David Rhodes, president of CBS news since 2011.

So it is rather amazing, but it should be more clear to people. People wonder why the mainstream gives such favorable coverage to the Obama administration. Well, blood is thicker than water, is one saying.

In the case of our mainstream media, they totally dropped the ball on Benghazi and continue to report on anything else they can besides Benghazi.

I am very grateful that the mainstream media on the left and right back in the seventies did not drop the Watergate investigation. They stayed on it until the truth came out. Back in those days, the mainstream media was so important to protecting our freedom and protecting Americans from a President who had an enemies' list and protecting America from a President that seemed a bit paranoid at times.

A man, a fellow Christian and an amazing man of faith after his conversion during the Watergate investigation, Chuck Colson, talked in his book, ``Born Again'' about how after the Kent State debacle and students were killed, it turned basically into a bunker at the White House. It was ``we'' against ``they,'' and if you were critical at all, you didn't deserve to be in the bunker. You were an enemy.

We are very fortunate that when a President begins to have that kind of mentality and so afraid of anybody who is critical, we are fortunate he did not understand just how far a President, how far an administration could push the IRS into going after political enemies, as we have now seen that it has.

Whether or not the IRS's weaponization was before the 2012 election, the President had a call to arms right here in front of the House and the Senate and the Cabinet members, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Supreme Court, sitting right here, when he mistakenly asserted what he believed were facts about the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, and it was so wrong, to the point that Justice Alito sat right here just feet away from where I am standing, shaking his head and saying, Not true, not true, not true.

Nonetheless, people at the IRS heard the call. They paid attention. And they came to understand that maybe the Supreme Court says conservatives can run ads and get involved in political issues like union groups do, but maybe we can stop them. And they effectively did that by putting their investigations into their tax status on hold and refusing to give them any kind of decision until well after the 2012 election, thereby silencing those voices.

I have had reporters who obviously don't understand the Tax Code and the power of the IRS say, Well, what difference does it make? Those groups probably shouldn't have been applying for tax status like they were anyway. Obviously, showing the ignorance of the reporters when they ask such questions. Because the way the Internal Revenue Code is set up, if someone in the general population just decides I want to get a bunch of friends together who have political beliefs like I do and we are going to pool our money together and then we are going to start spending it on issues to educate the American public, and somebody has got to account for all that money, you don't want the IRS coming after you as you accumulate money to spend on political education of America.

So you have to go begging to the IRS for the proper designation so that you can go about gathering money without them coming against you as being a single individual raising money to spend on political issues.

That also, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we need to throw out the Internal Revenue Code. Just pass a bill that says as of a certain date the Internal Revenue Code will be totally void, and that gives us a deadline to shoot for.

I like the idea of a flat tax. There are people that I love and respect that think a fair tax is a better way to go. But by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code, throwing it out on a date certain, then we would only have so long to get a new Tax Code figured out. We would be serving notice to people that that is when it would change.

I have heard our President say so many times that people need to pay their fair share. Well, it doesn't look like that is ever going to happen until we have a flat tax, where if you make more, you pay more; you make less, you pay less. That is what we ought to be doing.

Anyway, as a result, we have an IRS that became weaponized on behalf of one political party and one administration. And we do need a special prosecutor. I have been pointing that out for quite some time. There are criminals laws that may have been violated. That is why we need a special prosecutor, not the Justice Department. We have seen their kind of ``just us'' rather than ``justice.''

We need a special prosecutor that is not appointed by Eric Holder. We need to get to the bottom of who violated the law. Because it appears laws were broken.

But some wonder why the mainstream media doesn't get into the IRS weaponization more. We see the familial relationships between the mainstream media--not that I am saying CNN and MSNBC on the extreme left are mainstream media, but they are part of the media who avoids reporting anything negative about this President. Well, you hate to report things negative on your own family. So that is understandable.

So, Mr. Speaker, it explains a lot, once you begin to see all of the marriages and all of the sibling relationships between this administration and people in the media--siblings in the media--people calling the shots and giving the advice in our major news media.

Mr. Speaker, we also sometimes are a little surprised as the mainstream media tries to desperately change the subject from the false reports and statements that were made about Benghazi and the coverup that we are now finding out about Benghazi. They are constantly trying to change the subject, in their desperation to protect their familial relationships in the administration.

I had a call today wanting me to come on the news tomorrow and talk about climate change. It used to be called global warming until people realized, wow, it is not really warming anything very serious, so we better start calling it climate change. And as any real scientists know, when you come up with a scientific theory, then there are certain facts that will prove your theory or your assertion. But when we talk about climate change, people are not doing that.

Whatever happens, if there are a lot of tornados, they say: see, it is climate change. If there are very few tornados, they say: see, it is climate change. If we have numerous hurricanes, they say: see, it is climate change. If there are not many hurricanes, they say: see, it is climate change.

No matter what happens in the weather, we are told it is climate change. The truth is I believe in climate change. I not only believe in climate change, I know it is happening, usually, most places, four times a year. They are called seasons.

Then we have climate changing--I will never forget, back in the midseventies, there was a cover of one of the main American magazines about how we were approaching--heading into a new ice age. I thought, well, that doesn't make sense. I do believe the Bible, and I don't believe the world is going to end in ice.

That just doesn't seem right, yet we heard scientists telling us: oh, no, we are at the beginning of a new ice age in the mid-1970s. We are at the beginning of a new ice age.

They were wanting to change everything we were doing. Oh, we have got to change everything we are doing about power, about fossil fuels, everything because we are at the beginning of a new ice age. About 10 years later, people saw: well, we may be slightly warming, so we had better quit talking about global cooling, and now, we are talking about global warming.

There is an interesting article that came out today from Mario Lewis entitled, ``National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom.''

This article today says:

Tuesday, the U.S. Government's Global Change Research

Program released its latest ``National Assessment'' report on

climate change impacts in the United States.

As with previous editions, the new report is an alarmist

document designed to scare people and build political support

for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade,

and EPA regulatory mandates.

Also in keeping with past practice, the latest report

confuses climate risk with climate change risk.

Droughts, storms, floods, and heat waves are all part of

the natural climate. Our risk of exposure to such extremes

has much more to do with where we happen to live than with

any gradual climate changes associated with the 1.3 degree

Fahrenheit to 1.9 degree Fahrenheit increase in average U.S.

temperature since the 1880s.

Since even immediate and total shutdown of all carbon

dioxide-emitting vehicles, power plants, and factories in the

U.S. would decrease global warming by only a hypothetical and

undetectable two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100--

Eighty-five years, even if they got everything they wanted for 85 years, the article says:

It is misleading to imply, as the report does, that the

Obama administration's climate policies can provide any

measurable protection from extreme weather events.

The assessment is flatout wrong that climate change is

increasing our vulnerability to heat stress. As hot weather

has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted

to it, and heat-related mortality in the U.S. has declined.

Cities with the most frequent hot weather, such as Tampa;

Florida; and Phoenix, Arizona, have practically zero heat-

related mortality. That is the most probable future for most

U.S. cities if global warming continues.

The report also foolishly predicts that climate change

``intensify air pollution.'' As EPA's own data show, despite

allegedly ``unprecedented'' warming, the U.S. air quality has

improved decade by decade since 1970 as emissions declined.

The report blames climate change for the Midwest drought of

2012, but the government's own analysis concluded otherwise:

``Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change,

factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared

to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits

over the major corn-producing regions of central Great

Plains.''

This assessment ignores substantial data and research,

finding no long-term increase in the strength and frequency

of tropical cyclones and no trend in extreme weather-related

damages once losses are ``normalized'' or adjusted for

changes in population, wealth, and consumer price index.

For example, the report says trends in the frequency and

intensity of tornadoes are ``uncertain,'' whereas, in fact,

there is no trend, and a new study by University of Colorado

Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., finds ``with some certainty''

that ``the number of years with very large tornado losses has

actually decreased'' during 1993-2013 compared to 1950-1970.

Similarly, the U.S. is currently in the longest period on

record with no major category 3-5 hurricane landfalls.

This good news is not included in the report.

The assessment gives short shrift to the warming ``pause,''

which it calls ``short-term.'' In the assessment, the

``pause'' is depicted as running from 1998 through 2012. That

is 15 years. In fact, the pause is now 17 years and 8 months

long.

More tellingly, the assessment does not discuss the growing

divergence between climate model predictions and

observations.

The divergence, now in its 34th year and accelerating due

to the pause, raises questions about the climate sensitivity

assumptions on which dire climate change scenarios depend.

Climate sensitivity is an estimate of how much warming will

eventually result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon

dioxide concentrations relative to preindustrial levels.

In its discussion of sensitivity, the assessment basically

endorses the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's

2007 ``likely'' sensitivity range of 3.6 to 8.1 degrees

Fahrenheit and ``best estimate'' of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

It neglects to mention that, partly due to the pause and

model overshoot of observed temperatures, the IPCC's 2013

report lowered the bottom end of the likely range and

declined to offer a ``best'' estimate.

More importantly, the assessment presents the debate over

climate sensitivity as a ``he said, she said,'' as if a

single paper by John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth balances out

some 16 recent papers indicating that the IPCC climate

sensitivity estimates are too hot.

In other words, they are just wrong.

The article says:

So despite an occasional fig leaf to hide the nakedness of

its alarm message, the report does acknowledge that climate

change has lengthened growing seasons, helping to make food

more abundant and affordable, the assessment is unrelenting

gloom and doom.

Its only hopeful message is that it's not too late to

implement Kyoto-style climate policies.

Sorry, that's not good enough even for government work.

Mario Lewis is a Ph.D., a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise institute.

And it really is important to real realize what is at stake here. It is something that shocked me back when we were trying, in my freshman term, to amend and reform the Endangered Species Act that has wreaked such havoc with our economy and continues to cause people to lose jobs.

There was reported decline in the unemployment rate from 6.7 to 6.3, and you heard all of the mainstream media, in helping their family members in this administration, just all abuzz and aglow with how wonderful that four-tenths of a percent drop was, failing completely to mention that that was only a fraction of the 800,000 who got so tired of not finding work--800,000 people gave up and quit looking for work and are now considered, under statistics, to no longer be unemployed, even though they are unemployed.

It doesn't account for all the people that are underemployed, that are out of college and can't find jobs; the historic high unemployment rate of our veterans coming back and looking for jobs, even as this administration not only wants to cut the military back to a fraction of its former self, back to pre-World War II levels, when we were not a superpower, and hatred and genocide began to reign supreme.

That doesn't explain why the administration and some people here in the House, friends of mine here in the House, that are saying: You know what? Let's give the few jobs left in our military to people that are not lawfully in this country.

If they will do that, even though it will displace one of the few military jobs left after we cut the military back so far and even though it will push them into an even-growing high unemployment rate for veterans, let's go ahead and give those few jobs left to people who are not lawfully in the country. It is not a good idea.

After pushing for over a year and a half for a select committee to get to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi and after we still haven't gotten to the bottom of the Department of Justice's role in forcing guns, which we know they did, forced guns to be sold to criminals and people that should not have had guns, that ended up with drug cartels in Mexico, with reports of hundreds of Mexicans killed by the weapons we forced into improper and illegal criminal hands, we-- being the Justice Department of this administration--we haven't gotten answers to that.

That is why, even today, as I stand here, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the land stands in contempt of Congress; although I was gratified to hear him say, in answer to a question of mine, that I am not supposed to ever presume that it wasn't a big deal to him.

Unfortunately, he said, a year ago to ABC News that it wasn't any kind of big deal at all because, to be a big deal, he would have had to have respect for the people that voted for the contempt;

and since he had no respect for the people that voted for the contempt, it wasn't a big deal to him.

So a year ago, it wasn't a big deal; and this year, apparently, it is still a big deal, but I am not supposed to think that it is not a big deal to him, even though that is what he said, and the familial relationships in the mainstream media continue to give cover.

As I have continued to complain about the inadequate investigation into the Tsarnaevs--the failure of this administration to properly investigate the Tsarnaevs, even after the Russians, who are not our friends, gave us, twice, a heads up. Look out. The older Tsarnaev has been radicalized.

Now, you have got people in the mainstream media parroting what the Obama administration is saying. Well, those darned old Russians, they should have given us more information.

They did us a favor giving us a heads up. We are not their friends. They gave us a heads up anyway.

They don't even--they purged the FBI training material, so our agents don't know the proper questions to ask to find out if someone has been radicalized.

They won't allow people that have spent their adult lives studying radical Islam--people like that, like Steve Coughlin--they are not allowed to even go give a briefing to people to explain what radical Islam is.

And then we hear people like the Department of Homeland Security Secretary at the time, Janet Napolitano, who seemed to take the position that, gee, you know, we are just not able to connect the dots. But yet it appears that, under her watch, not only did she promote what Egyptian Muslim Brother publications said were top Muslim Brother people into top Homeland Security and Obama administration positions, but she gave a secret clearance--and there is no way it could have been given after proper vetting because proper vetting would have showed that he was a main speaker giving tribute to the man of vision, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who has a foundation called the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which is the same name as the Muslim Brother political party in Egypt who defended the convicted terrorist supporter of the head of the Holy Land Foundation, said there was nothing wrong with what he was doing.

I am very proud of the Senator from Iowa. I want to do a shout-out, Mr. Speaker, down the hall and read a letter from Senator Grassley. I was just there in Iowa a few days ago, Senator Grassley's territory. The senior Senator from Iowa, Charles E. Grassley, wrote a letter to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, and he said:

My office recently received copies of disturbing internal

Department of Homeland Security, DHS, emails regarding the

admittance of individuals into the United States with

potential ties to terrorism.

The May 2012 email chain between U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement, ICE, and U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, CBP, surrounds the question of whether to admit

someone who had scheduled an upcoming flight into the U.S.

Allegedly, the individual was a member of the Muslim

Brotherhood and a close associate of a supporter of ``Hamas,

Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic jihad.'' According to the

same email, the individual had been in secondary inspection

``several dozen times of the past several years,'' but had

not had a secondary inspection since 2010.

One of the responses to the initial email states: ``The CBP

National Targeting Center, NTC, watch commander advised that

the subject has sued CBP twice in the past and that he's one

of the several hands-off passengers nationwide. Apparently,

his records were removed in December 2010, and the DHS

Secretary was involved in the matter.'' The email continues:

I'm puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim

Brotherhood and unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land

Foundation trial--

Which, parenthetically, was a trial in which people were convicted of supporting terrorism, providing financial support for terrorism, convicted, and this individual mentioned was a named coconspirator in the pleadings.

The message and the email goes on:

--be an associate of (redacted), say that the U.S. is staging

car bombings in Iraq and that it is okay for men to beat

their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be

afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted. It

doesn't appear that we'll be successful with denying him

entry tomorrow, but maybe we could reevaluate the matter in

the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17

months ago.

Senator Grassley's message to Secretary Johnson of DHS said:

In order to understand the events described in these

emails, please provide the committee with answers to the

following questions:

One, why was this individual removed from the watchlist in

December 2010?

Two, please describe the nature, extent, and reasons for

the involvement of the DHS Secretary or her staff in the

removal of the individual from the watchlist.

Three, what is the current watchlist status of this

individual?

Four, how many people are on the hands-off list mentioned

in the email?

Five, what qualifies someone to receive the ``hands-off''

designation?

Six, does filing a lawsuit result in being designated

``hands-off'' and, thus, avoiding secondary security

screenings?

Seven, who makes the determination that an individual

should be considered ``hands-off''?

Senator Grassley says: I would appreciate receiving answers to these questions by March 3, 2014. Should you have any questions regarding the letter--and he goes on, and he signs it, Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member.

Then there is an attachment to his letter. And there is so much that is redacted here, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of gaps. But even so, it is easy to see how serious this is.

This was from Thursday, May 10, 2012, not quite a year before the Boston bombing. But as was pointed out in the letter, this email was from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol protection. The body says:

The NTC watch commander advised that the subject has sued

CBP twice in the past and that he's one of several hands-off

passengers nationwide. He said he checked if there was a copy

of the lawsuits filed against CBP in the historical logs. Can

you pass the lawsuits if they are at NTC? I assume the

lawsuits were against the heads of DHS and presume it was a

civil proceeding, but who knows where it was filed, since the

subject lives outside the U.S. I didn't know that a Canadian

citizen who lives in (blank) could sue DHS. Also not sure if

the lawsuits were regarding him being stopped frequently or

his admissibility/inadmissibility or both. If the lawsuits

weren't about his admissibility/inadmissibility, we should

proceed forward regarding that once the lawsuits are

reviewed.

If the lawsuits aren't readily accessible at CBP/NTC, I can

check with someone at CBP headquarters to get them.

Apparently his records were removed in December 2010, and the

DHS Secretary was involved in the matter.

I'm puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim

Brotherhood and unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land

Foundation trial, be an associate of (blank), say that the

U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that is okay for men

to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks

and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-

watchlisted. It doesn't appear that we'll be successful with

denying him entry tomorrow, but maybe we could reevaluate the

matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him

was made 17 months ago. Thanks.

And then the name is blotted out.

Anyway, other messages. One in response down the email chain:

I spoke with CBP (blank) who is obviously very familiar

with this traveler. I am of the opinion that (blank) meets

the parameters for refusal based on the three INA 212(a)(3)

terrorism charges and that when he enters the U.S. on a B1/B2

for lectures/speeches for organizations or for events where a

registration fee is required or admission needs to be paid,

he should probably be seeking an R-1 or an O-1 visa instead.

Perhaps one of the reasons he has not applied for an O-1

visa or R-1 visa is because of the terrorist-related

questions these forms ask that he would then be forced to

answer.

Does NTC have any background information or guidance it can

share on the logs or former records this subject has had? Or

if he has applied for any waivers of inadmissibility? Does

NTC have any objections if CBP denies admission to (blank)

under either terrorism grounds or improper nonimmigrant visa?

Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think

it is clear that he meets the definition of endorsing and

inciting. If he'd like to enter the U.S. in the future, he

can seek a waiver to overcome those inadmissibility grounds,

but none has been sought to my knowledge.

And the email prior to that said:

Yesterday afternoon, we, HSI (blank) office, received a

lead regarding (blank) AKA (blank), an Egyptian-born Canadian

citizen who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and close

associate of (blank), an individual residing in (blank) who

supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic jihad.

(Blank) has been looked at in secondary inspections several

dozen times over the past

several years. However, he has not been secondaried since

(blank) 2010. (Blank) has a reservation to depart (blank)

Canada at (blank) on this Friday morning for a flight to

(blank) that stops in (blank) first.

He is scheduled to speak at some conference, in some city, on some night--it is all blacked out.

I am passing this right up to (blank) at HSI to forward to

CBP regarding possible inadmissibility grounds related to INA

2012(a)(3) terrorism charges because (blank)'s potential

inciting, endorsing, and association with terrorists. (Blank)

has been looked at in the past, but hopefully this collection

of 20 supporting open source articles will assist with making

an informed inadmissibility determination.

But anyway, apparently, despite all of those open inadmissibility issues, according to the later email, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security herself at the time, Janet Napolitano, had a hands-off list apparently including people like this member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

When it comes to the Boston bombing, I have met some of the Boston Police. I was impressed. And I would bet if the City of Boston Police Department had been given a heads-up by either the FBI or CIA that the Russians say this Tsarnaev guy has been radicalized, is capable of murder, then it would have entirely changed the investigation by the Boston Police Department into people that were killed that were known to Tsarnaev.

And I would bet you, since I am not aware of the Boston Police Department having had their training materials purged to exclude anything that might offend a radical Islamist, they may have been able to go out to the mosque and ask about Tsarnaev if they had known the allegation that he had been radicalized, and they may have been able to answer better questions about the type of Islamic leaders that the older Tsarnaev liked, that he read, that he endorsed, and they could have made a better decision than our own Justice Department did on whether or not he had been radicalized.

That should have been shared with the Boston police. If they had had that information without having had their training materials purged, they may have done a better job of protecting those people at the Boston Marathon.

Then you read emails going back and forth among our ICE agents, Customs and Border Patrol people who were shocked that a guy who is a Muslim Brother, who has incited people to hatred against the United States, who was a named coconspirator with people who were convicted of supporting terrorism, how it is the Secretary of Homeland Security could give him a pass, just as she did to a reported member of the Muslim Brotherhood--reported by an Egyptian magazine supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood--how she could just give him a secret security clearance. And even after I tell her about his downloading two documents from a classified source that she gave him access to and pointed out to her about a reporter saying he had tried to shop the two documents, she said she investigated, but I know they didn't because they never even talked to that one reporter that knew about the documents being shopped. They never checked.

As far as I know, he is still giving advice at the top level of Homeland Security as a Muslim Brother, according to the Egyptians. He is given access to our classified documents, and then we see that same Homeland Security Secretary that gave him access to classified documents that he reportedly--and according to somebody I trust--he had shopped them and tried to get a national news media to publish them. They didn't even look into it. They didn't even investigate that properly.

How safe can America be when Homeland Security is creating hands-off lists that put us at risk? With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my dear friend from California

has seen this, but following up on his comments, this is part of the front page of the Army Times, April 28, and it says here:

Thousands more will be forced out; staff sergeants now on

hit list.

It talks about the career killers, but because of the cuts to our military, we are forcing out thousands and thousands of patriots who wanted to make a career of the United States military. I, along with my friend from California, don't necessarily think it is a good idea to be saying: look, if you are illegally in the country, all you have to do is go displace yet another American patriot and take their job in the military, force them out into the civilian sector, where our United States military veterans have a much higher unemployment rate than the general population.

That is not a good idea. It is not fair to our patriots, and it should not be something that this Congress passes, to once again not only run out patriots who wanted to make the United States military a career, but force them out with illegal immigrants using their job, taking their jobs, forcing them into an unemployment sector, where their unemployment rates are so very high. They shouldn't be high.

People should be willing to hire veterans. They have phenomenal work ethics, or they wouldn't have been in the military, unless they got bumped out early for not working; but otherwise, from my 4 years in the Army, right after we turned to being a volunteer Army, it was a very difficult time. Our military was not appreciated.

I went through officer basic at Fort Riley, Kansas, and it was a standing order not to wear your uniform off post because of hatred for the military, and if you got caught by yourself in uniform, there might be a gang that would beat you up. It happened, so it was a standing order. You couldn't wear your uniform off post because of potential violence upon our military by American citizens.

It has blessed my heart to see America begin again to appreciate those who answer the call of their country, serve their country, and do so honorably and well in the United States military, which should result in our promises to our military and promises that, to some, helped induce them into the military of good health care, good veterans' care.

Now, I was only in 4 years and don't have a disability. I have never been provided any VA assistance or health care, but for those who need it, deserve it, were promised it, we can't be having a socialized medicine system that ends up being like most socialized medicine systems become; and the way ObamaCare will eventually lead this country into being, with regard to health care, you get put on lists.

Socialized medicine doesn't go broke because you get put on lists, and you die waiting for your procedure in sufficient numbers, at least we have people die who won't get the procedure, or perhaps they need a hip or a knee, pacemaker, or whatever it is, they don't get them because they are having to wait in line.

We shouldn't do that to our Nation. We should repeal ObamaCare outright before it takes us there, but for the sake of this country, we can't continue betraying our veterans and not ensuring that they have the best health care that is available.

If VA clinics or hospitals aren't doing the trick, let's give them a card that lets them walk into any health care facility in the Nation and get the best care we have got, and let's keep our promise to them that we will take care of that.

My dear friend, Andrew C. McCarthy, has an article out in National Review Online today. He posted it at 4 a.m. I know Andy is up that time in the morning because, sometimes, we exchange emails at that time in the morning.

He is a brilliant lawyer, constitutional scholar, historian, and a patriot himself, who was the lead prosecutor in ensuring that the planner, the one most responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, when President Bill Clinton was in office, he made sure he was convicted.

If one actually looks at comments by the brother of that al Qaeda leader, you find references to his brother saying: hey, you know, there is violence, there is going to be a lot more violence against the U.S., but I will be glad to help negotiate this thing if we can get release of The Blind Sheikh.

Morsi, who became president of Egypt, a Muslim brother, he made clear, before he was even elected, that he wanted to secure the release of The Blind Sheikh who plotted, planned, carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center, which we can be thankful that it didn't result in more death and more damage.

We should have learned a lesson from that. We didn't learn it. We continued, under the Clinton administration, to treat that like it was some civilian crime, instead of what it actually was, an act of war. As an act of war, it should have stirred more of a response.

So perhaps there was someone in the White House after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, who wondered out loud within the White House: well, what difference at this point does it make why they bombed the World Trade Center or what we might have done to provide more security? What difference at this point does it make?

Because perhaps, if that kind of thinking were not in the White House during the 1990s, perhaps we could have looked more closely at the causes of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and looked more closely at the forces behind it and determined, wow, this is really a group that is at war with the United States, radical Islamists have been at war with the United States since 1979.

We just didn't know it. There was a war going on, but it was one- sided because the other side, the United States, didn't know there was a war, so they weren't fighting a war. They just kept retreating.

In 1979, an act of war occurred in an attack against our embassy. The man, the Ayatollah Khomeini, radical Islamist who became the head of Iran, that President Jimmy Carter welcomed as a man of peace, that one of the top advisers right now in our Homeland Security Department spoke up for as a featured speaker at the Ayatollah Khomeini man of vision ceremony that was held some years back in this country.

Now, this featured speaker on behalf of the man of vision, the Ayatollah Khomeini, he is advising the Homeland Security Department; not only that, the FBI in 2011 gave him their highest civilian award. Some people do not understand there is still a war going on. Some in this administration and some in the Senate and some in the House may refuse to recognize it, but there is still a war going on.

Mr. McCarthy writes:

Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy

in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here

repeatedly, the Obama administration's ``Blame the Video''

story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11,

2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a

fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several

hours later.

Once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama

administration's dereliction of duty in connection with

Benghazi become much easier to see, but let's begin with Jay

Carney's performance in Wednesday's exchange with the White

House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of

the American people.

Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released emails which

corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along:

``Blame the Video'' was an Obama administration crafted lie,

through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of

the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the

President's foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists

contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre;

(b) the President's reckless stationing of American

government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to

provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a

political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya

policy as a success--and, again, they invited the jihadist

violence that killed our ambassador and three other

Americans; and (c) far from being ``decimated,'' as the

President repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and

continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in

Egypt and Libya), al Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained

a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim

countries--indeed, they had been strengthened by the

President's pro-Islamist policies.

The explosive emails that have surfaced thanks to the

perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long

been obvious: Susan Rice, the President's confidant and

ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle

the administration's ``Blame the Video'' fairy tale to the

American people in appearances on five different national

television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was

coached about what to say by other members of the President's

inner circle. One of the emails refers

expressly to a ``prep call'' that Ambassador Rice had with

several administration officials on late Saturday afternoon

right before her Sunday show appearances.

The tangled web of deception spun by the administration has

previously included an effort to distance the White House

(i.e., the President) from Rice's mendacious TV performances.

Thus, Carney was in the unenviable position Wednesday of

trying to explain the ``prep call'' email, as well as other

messages that illuminate the Obama White House's deep

involvement in coaching Rice. The emails manifest that Rice's

performances were campaign appearances, not the good-faith

effort of a public official to inform the American people

about an act of war against our country. Her instructions

were ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an

Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,'' and

``to reinforce the President and administration's strength

and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.''

Carney risibly claimed that the ``prep call'' was ``not

about Benghazi.'' Instead, according to him, it was ``about

the protests around the Muslim world.''

Two points must be made about this.

The first involves the administration's blatant lying. Benghazi was the only reason Rice was on the Sunday shows. If the massacre had not happened, there would not have been an extraordinary administration offering of one top Obama official to five different television networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before.

Moreover, as is well known to anyone who has ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to Congress, to courts, and other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a ``murder board'' process. This is a freewheeling session in which the questions likely to be asked at the presentation are posed, and potential answers--especially to tough questions--are proposed, discussed, and massaged. The suggestion that Rice, less than 24 hours before being grilled by high-profile media figures, was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was the sole reason for her appearance is so farfetched it is amazing that Carney thought he could make it fly.

The second point brings us full circle to Egypt.

Why would Carney claim, with a straight face, that Rice was being prepped ``about protests around the Muslim world?'' Because other than Benghazi, the ``protest around the Muslim world'' that Americans know about is the rioting, not protest, the rioting at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo a few hours before the Benghazi siege. When Benghazi comes up, the administration--President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al.--love to talk about the Cairo protests. Why? Because the media--and, thus, the public--have bought, hook, line, and sinker, the fraudulent claim that those ``protests'' were over the anti-Muslim video. Obama & Co. shrewdly calculate that if you buy ``Blame the Video'' as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will accept the ``Blame the Video'' as the explanation for Benghazi; or, at the very least, you will give Obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

You see, the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud. If you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former.

But the ``Blame the Video'' is every bit as much a deception when it comes to Cairo.

Thanks to President Obama's policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic group, the terrorist organization that was led by The Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel- Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks.

In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. In fact, The Blind Sheikh's son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy. Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for The Blind Sheikh's release from American prison, where he is serving a life sentence thanks to Andy McCarthy. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground, a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 ``protests.''

The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the 11th anniversary of al Qaeda's mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not decimated al Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro- Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al Qaeda's capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for The Blind Sheikh's release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

It is important here, Mr. Speaker, to note that the al Qaeda leader's brother, Zawahiri's brother, he was out there even after the attack on Benghazi's consulate, basically saying: Hey, there could be more rioting, more trouble, unless you work with me, and let's get The Blind Sheikh released and then we can avoid future violence. Amidst all that is what Andrew McCarthy is pointing out, claiming it was all about a video.

In his article, McCarthy says:

Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew

there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at

the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video

while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence

of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood-governed Egypt, the

continuing demand for The Blind Sheikh's release (which

underscored the jihadists' influence), and the very real

danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which

demonstrated that al Qaeda was anything but ``decimated'').

The transparent purpose of the State Department's shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy--violent rioting minimized as mere ``protests''--were actually attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama's policies and patent failure to quell al Qaeda.

Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media had abdicated their responsibility to promote the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion--a false notion--that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration's ``Blame the Video'' farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.

At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11--after they knew our Ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged--Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Hillary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud's Benghazi phase--the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn't the beginning of the fraud.

Secretary Clinton's minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the President's Benghazi coverup.

Today, our Oversight Committee was having a hearing to see a retired general on the verge of tears finally coming forward, who was with AFRICOM. He knew what was going on, he knew the truth, and he could not remain silent; and so he came forward and said: Yes, there was really much more we could have done.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that all of those who were part of the

AFRICOM intelligence community will find courage from the general coming forward--some I know that have left our intelligence service and gone on to good civilian jobs. He has broken the ice. They can come forward now. I hope, Mr. Speaker, they get the message. He has come forward, the ice is broken, you won't be the first should be the message.

All of the hostility--I mean, when I have an intelligence officer, former intelligence officer, tell me--when I ask, ``Where have you been?''--``I have been scared.'' I said, ``You have never been scared of anything.''

``I have been scared since 9/12.''

All of those who have been forced to remain silent, I hope they will come forward.

A mom with a son in our country's service had told me after 9/12 about where her son was and what he was doing. So I called him, and it took a long time to get hold of him. He wasn't forthcoming. His mom told me yesterday, or this week, that he'll be out of the U.S. service before long and he wants to talk and come clean. I hope more will start coming clean on the strength of this retired general's courage.

But in the remaining minutes, it should not be lost that today is the National Day of Prayer. For some that still are not convinced at what is at war here, we simply need to look at a statement from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind who is at Guantanamo. I am grateful to President Obama that he has kept him there. He is a threat to the world, and particularly the United States. He was the mastermind behind 9/11.

In the pleading he prepared himself on page 4--this has been declassified so anybody can find it on the Internet--he says:

We do not possess your military might, not your nuclear

weapons. Nevertheless, we fight you with the almighty God.

So, if our act of jihad and our fighting with you caused fear

and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that

has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your

infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son

and your trinity beliefs.

In other parts of the pleading he makes clear that Jews should be destroyed.

Here he makes clear, also, anyone who has a trinity belief believes that God had a son. Then he quotes from the Koran saying:

Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the

unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for

which he has sent no authority; their place will be the fire;

and evil is the home of the wrongdoers.

So he bases his belief that anyone who believes in a holy trinity should go to the fire and burn forever on that part of the Koran. Others have different interpretations, but radical Islamists believe that.

That is why I think it is immensely helpful to go back to after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution.

In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was entered in Paris, France, between American diplomats and British diplomats. Britain was the strongest country in the world, and our American diplomats knew they had to come up with something that was so important that the strongest nation in the world would not quickly come back after the new United States.

When I first saw this document, I was shocked at the first words, and then it made sense. The beginning of the treaty that forced Great Britain to acknowledge United States' independence starts with these words: ``in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.''

They believed in the Holy Trinity. They knew that Great Britain believed in the Holy Trinity. They wanted something under which the Brits would swear that would be so important that they would not dare break that oath. That is why it started, ``in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' That is where we got our start. That is why radical Islam is at war with us.

I hope and pray on this National Day of Prayer that we will humble ourselves, admit our wrongdoing, turn back to the God who has protected us--and He will bless our land.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 2, 2014, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot going on in the world right now, and America seems to continue to lose credibility around the world when we travel abroad, and we have leaders from other countries, especially moderate Muslim allies and friends, who wonder why we are not helping in the war against terrorism, the war against radical Islam.

Moderate Muslims realize what it is. It is radical Islam. It is exactly what the wonderful people of Egypt rose up and rebelled against by the millions. In fact, there were more millions of Egyptians that signed a petition in support of removing Morsi than even he ever claimed voted for him.

The Muslim Brotherhood responded, and they have burned churches, and they have persecuted Christians and Jews. The Coptic Christian Pope has told us of his concern about his support for radical Islam because the United States and even a couple of Republican Senators down the hall had supported, seemed to support, went over and said: let's release Morsi. They seemed to want Muslim Brotherhood back in charge.

So it was shocking for this administration to say we are not going to supply the military equipment to those who are against radical Islam that we had agreed to provide to those who represent radical Islam--the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes, their party--their political party in Egypt is called the Freedom and Justice Party because, under their definition, freedom means the freedom to worship only Allah and justice means only justice that comes from shari'a law, so they have a little different definition of freedom and justice.

In their less than 100-year history as an entity, the Muslim Brotherhood has killed so many innocent children, women, and men who had no grievance or gripe with Islam, but it should also be noted that one of the reasons that moderate Muslims are so supportive of our effort to stop radical Islam is because, whenever a moderate Muslim stands up to radical Islam, they immediately go to the front of the line to be killed or persecuted by radical Islamists, so we share that.

That is why the enemy of our enemy can be somebody with whom we just may be able to cooperate.

That is what happened in Afghanistan, when President Bush committed to go after the Taliban in October, November, December of 2001. We put in less than 500 Americans--special operations, Special Forces, intelligence--we gave them air support, we gave them some weapons, and we had to negotiate.

The Bush administration did a phenomenal job of negotiating with Northern Alliance tribal leaders because they knew, to be successful about the Taliban, they were going to have to work together, so we were able to pull that off. There may have been some cash that actually was utilized to grease the skids to make it work, and it worked.

Within 4 months or so, the Taliban was defeated. The legendary General Dostum that this administration wants to classify as a war criminal defeated the Taliban for us as the leader of the Northern Alliance tribes.

In a meeting with him, along with Dana Rohrabacher, Steve King, and a few others were meeting with some of the Northern Alliance leaders, since we knew about that last final battle where the Northern Alliance went after the last stronghold of the Taliban elevated high up a hill or mountain, General Dostum, through an interpreter, explained he knew that, if they sent people on foot, they would never get there.

There would be too many bullets and rocket-propelled grenades. They would

never make it to the Taliban stronghold. They knew, if they could get there and rout them there, that that would be the end of the organized Taliban, at least for quite some time.

So General Dostum realized the only way to really have a shot at getting there was for around 1,000 horsemen to go charging up that hill, up toward the stronghold with bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, all kinds of things coming at him, but he knew that if they would move quickly enough, they might get past those and be able to destroy the last stronghold of the Taliban.

It worked. They did lose many of the Northern Alliance tribal soldiers, but they made it and totally routed the Taliban. What an incredible victory.

General Dostum offered to take me next time I came to Afghanistan. He asked if I rode horses. I said: sure, I grew up riding horses. He said: oh, then you need to come up with me, I will take you up that famous ride that is so legendary all over Asia.

After that, the interpreter advised me something I wasn't aware, that they don't have leather saddles in Afghanistan. I inquired: What kind of saddles do you have? And he said: they are made of wood.

That changed greatly my desire to go riding uphill on a wooden saddle, but it still is amazing what they did. They did it with our encouragement, our support, our logistical support, our aerial support.

There are other occasions when, with someone embedded with the Northern Alliance, the Northern Alliance leaders could say: Do you see over there on that ridge that little hump? That is a bunker that contains many, many Taliban.

They get the coordinates, call it in, the bomb would be released. It would go to the target and take it out, and then the Northern Alliance soldiers would finish off those who made it through the bombing.

Some in this administration think that means they are war criminals; whereas the fact is they fought the Taliban in their own country the way they have always fought and the way the Taliban fights, and they defeated them.

Then we did an unfortunate thing. We helped them with a constitution that centralized the government. In a very regional federalist area, tribal area, we should have helped them have a more federalist country where the states, the regions, have the power.

But apparently, our leaders at that time thought it would be easier to deal with one centralized government than potentially many hardheaded leaders of small countries or small states.

But we should have let them have their small states and their tribal areas because as some of the northern leaders very intelligently had pointed out: if you would help us get an amendment to the constitution that you helped push on us, that allowed us to elect our own governors, our mayors, pick our own police chiefs, then we could control Afghanistan better and then the Taliban, when you leave, can't just knock off our President and take over the whole country. Then it would be harder for them to take over the whole country, they might get one region, and then the rest of the regions could rise up and take them out of that one. We can defeat them, but not with the structure that you gave us.

There was no reason for us to lose the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of American military members under the command of Commander Barack Obama, but he had said it was the important war. The war was won by early 2002, and then we became occupiers. That was unnecessary.

Let them run their own country. They defeated the Taliban with less than 500 Americans, and now, we have lost a number of times that original number that went in and were embedded.

That has helped create an image of the United States around the world, as this administration has continued to allow the slaughter of American soldiers in Afghanistan, for what point, we don't know. At the same time, we were allowing our soldiers to be handcuffed with rules of engagement that restricted them or threatened them with court-martial if they were to defend themselves and it turned out somebody got hurt who is not a soldier.

So the world saw the United States beg the Taliban to sit down and negotiate with us. This administration was sending out word: look, you don't even have to agree to anything. If you will just agree to sit down with us, heck, we will buy you a luxurious office complex in Qatar. We may even release some of your murdering thugs that we have confined. Heck, we will release some of them anyway, just to show our good faith. Heck, we will do whatever, if you will just sit down and talk with us.

There is no radical Islamist in the world that respects that kind of talk from an American leader, from any leader. Oh, please, we beg you, please sit down and talk with us. They don't respect that. That projects weakness to them.

There is one thing they respect, and that is power, when used appropriately. They may hate it, they may despise the way it is used, but they respect power when it is used effectively. This administration has not done that at all.

Go back to Iraq. The Bush administration basically had set up a status of forces agreement by the end of 2008. Most of the terms were agreed to. The Bush administration, many of us believe, could have gone ahead and finished, had that signed before President Obama took office.

But as I understand it, it was considered a generous outreach by George W. Bush and his administration to the incoming President. Why? Because not only is he not stupid and he is not crazy and he is witty, but he is a gracious man.

That is why he had Ted Kennedy to the White House so many times, even though Kennedy would go out and bash him almost every time he had been over. He is a gracious man, and he thought it would be a gracious act, from what I understand, to allow the Obama administration to get the credit from finalizing the status of forces agreement with Iraq.

But then the brazen attitude by the new administration not only didn't sign the status of forces agreement that the Bush administration had teed up, they didn't get any status of forces agreement.

Mitt Romney was not very eloquent in the way he pointed it out, not very effective in the way he pointed it out, but he did bring it up in one of the debates--he couldn't even get a status of forces agreement done with Iraq.

It is something that this administration should have been embarrassed about. After all, we had done for Iraq under this President, this administration, we just crept out of Iraq with nothing even in the way of a thank you agreement, a thank you note--in fact, rather left hard feelings when we left.

After we left them the ability to elect their own leaders, their own government, this administration bungled the status of forces agreement to the point there was none. We lost further respect there. We have lost respect around Afghanistan.

When talking with General Dostum and some of the Northern Alliance leaders, they talked about how the United States had lost respect around radical Islam. These are moderate Muslim friends of mine--and, yeah, they do fight ruthlessly, but that is their area--they talked about how the United States had lost respect among radical Islamists among the world.

They see us as a toothless tiger, a paper tiger, someone to be laughed at, not to be concerned about or respected and certainly not feared.

I have met with Baloch people from Pakistan, who are constantly terrorized by the Pakistani Army and by other military--brutalized, terrorized, kept in fear for their lives so many times. They happen to be in the area where Pakistan's best minerals are located. You would think that the Pakistani leaders would treat them better since they have such a big area of the country and they comprise such a big component of the country that has some of the most valuable land because of the minerals in the whole area. It is the same in Iran. There are Baloch people who are indigenous to south and southeast Iran, and they are mistreated terribly by the Iranians.

But a thought came to mind. In having met with Baloch people previously, in knowing the geography of the area and in having heard American commanders and Northern Alliance individuals as well, all have indicated most

of the supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan is coming through the Baloch area of Pakistan--not because of the Baloch. They don't want the Taliban helped. They certainly don't appreciate radical Islam.

So I asked our Northern Alliance leader friends--former allies before this administration--what if we started suggesting, because of the mistreatment of the Baloch in Pakistan, that it is time to give the Baloch their own independent country?

Let them be independent--to have their own area to which they are indigenous--because, if we did that, the Baloch in charge of southern Pakistan would, indeed, stop any supplying to the Taliban coming from Pakistan or anyone else who went through the Baloch area through which so much of the supplying of the Taliban has been going. Who would benefit? The world would benefit. Our American soldiers would have benefited. We could have done that years ago.

Instead, the last time I looked, there were about twice as many people--American military individuals--who had died in Afghanistan compared to the number who died when Bush went to war in Afghanistan. So, under Bush, he was about 7 years in Afghanistan compared to the years of President Obama's. President Obama has had fewer years, yet more Americans have been killed.

Why?

Because, under this Commander in Chief, the rules of engagement have handicapped our own military. Many of them have been killed by the very people they were supposed to train and because there was just simply not enough respect for the United States under this administration-- because we saw what this administration would do. If radical Islamists reared up and killed Americans, we saw what this administration did. They apologized that Korans were burned.

Now, how does apologizing to radical Islamists for burning Korans that their own people had desecrated and passed messages through-- prisoners who had been provided these free Korans had sent messages, had used them, and so they had to be destroyed. When they were found burning, the radical Islamists used the occasion to kill innocent Americans, and this administration apologized to the country responsible for the killings.

In civilized countries like the United States has been--and still is in most places--the law has been and continues to be, unless they are under shari'a law, that provoking words are never a defense to a physical assault or a murder. No matter what anyone says to you, does to you--no matter what it is, no matter how vile--it does not justify a physical response no matter what is said. Under shari'a, it is different, but our Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land in this country, not shari'a law.

Our fellow Texan, Mohamed Elibiary, is a man who was given FBI's high civilian award, a man who is described by the Muslim periodical in Egypt as being one of the six top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in this administration, a man who spoke as a featured speaker at the huge tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Man of Vision, a man who is given a secret security clearance without proper vetting, without proper investigation by Janet Napolitano, as the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Even after he was found and known to have downloaded inappropriate material and tried to shop them, Homeland Security said: Oh, well. We never found any evidence that he tried to shop the documents from the classified sources he downloaded. They didn't even bother to talk to the reporter who stated in print that he talked to a well-known national publication to which Mr. Elibiary had shopped the documents. They didn't investigate that. Janet Napolitano lied about that. It was not properly investigated or they would have checked to try to find out with whom he was supposed to have shopped these documents. They didn't even check.

But he sure has kept his secret security clearance. He is still proud of that FBI award. He still has a foundation called the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which is just like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the same name as the Muslim Brotherhood political party. Yet this administration continues to count on him as one of their top advisers.

That is why Muslim leaders around the world, especially in the Middle East, have told some of us--and I talked to some other Congressmen who had been on a trip recently to the Middle East, and they encountered the same thing--why are you guys helping radical Islam now instead of helping us fight it? We are wondering which one of your allies you are going to throw away next.

It is not hard to understand why world leaders who have been our allies would wonder such a thing when you see it with our best ally in the Middle East--the one that respects the rights of women, that doesn't kill homosexual, gay, individuals in their country, the one that allows Muslims to vote, to work and to provide them protection-- the one country that allows all of those things. That is our ally Israel. Yet we have the Secretary of State out there, previously some months back, talking about: Gee, it may look like they want a new intifada--another murdering spree--accusing Israel of wanting more murdering when they have done everything they can to try to protect themselves.

Nobody in the media--not in this country--talks about the rockets that have never stopped flying into Israel from radical Islamist- controlled areas. Instead, you have liberals in this country--friends of this administration--who are out there, saying: Do you know what? We need to cut off anything we do with Israel. That kind of talk is supported by our own Secretary of State when he says: Gee, they are risking being guilty of apartheid. He tried to walk it back, but he has illustrated so much anti-Semitism that it is time for him to go. It is time for this administration to take a stand even though our mainstream media here in America doesn't like to hold him accountable.

Heaven help those at one of the mainstream media sources if they want to get to the truth of something like Benghazi. Their jobs are going to be gone. First, they are going to be told to back off, and then they are probably going to lose their jobs. We can't expose the truth about the present administration because, if they were interested in exposing the truth, then it would be after the highest ranking Attorney General in this country said to me: You don't want to go there, buddy. I said: Are you talking about contempt? and he made it clear that he was.

In fact, I want to look at exactly what the highest ranking Attorney General said to me in our hearing on April 8, 2014:

You don't want to go there, buddy. You should not--

Then I said: Are you talking about contempt?

You should not assume that this is not a big deal to me. I

think it was inappropriate--he is talking about Congress

holding him in contempt because he refused and continues to

refuse to provide documents that he has, that he should have

produced and that he continues to refuse to produce.

He said: I think it was unjust, but never think that it was

not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that.

That is our highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country who was talking like that. So it was interesting.

This is what he said on February 13 of 2013. Amazing. ABC News will call my office and say: What is your basis for that? Will they ever call the Attorney General and say: How do you reconcile what you said under penalty of perjury before Congress to what you told us in our interview? Oh, gosh. No. ABC News could never do that because they might hurt the guy who is in the White House, who they helped put there.

So, in the interview with ABC News in February of 2013--it is not hard to find. If I can find it, surely ABC News or somebody should have been able to. He said to Gohmert to never think it wasn't a big deal to him. Obviously, he is saying now it was a big deal.

This is what he said back over a year before:

But I have to tell you that, for me to really be affected

by what happened--he is talking about contempt of Congress--

I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in that

way, and I didn't, so it didn't have that huge an impact on

me.

That was Attorney General Eric Holder to ABC News in February 2013.

Now, I had in the back of my mind that it had not been a big deal to him. Why didn't ABC News remember this?

Nobody at ABC News, even the one who interviewed him would have remembered: oh, you know, he told Gohmert, don't you ever think it wasn't a big deal? Nobody remembered this from a year before at ABC News.

Now, I wouldn't use this line, but what my old practice court professor in law school used to say--Matt Dawson, a tremendously effective trial lawyer--but he used to have a line, if you were caught saying two different things, like our Attorney General has been--two different things about the same topic, Matt Dawson used to say: Well, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Like I say, I am not saying that. I am just reflecting back on what Matt Dawson would say if confronted with those two different quotes.

What I, as a Member of Congress say, is this is really outrageous. It is time to have people in this administration that the world will respect, that the country will respect, that will be fair and evenhanded, will not come into Congress and mislead Congress, will not hold up, stonewall, prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how innocent people came to be killed with guns that this Justice Department forced to be sold to people who should never have been allowed to have them.

They are entitled and we are entitled, as a Nation, to have a Secretary of State that is respected and does not say outrageous things and accuse allies of outrageous offenses when those allegations are so far from true.

Yes, I know Secretary Kerry says he wishes he hadn't chosen the word ``apartheid.'' How about intifada, about accusing fellow Vietnam veterans of acting like Genghis Kahn? I always thought it was Genghis Kahn until I heard young Mr. Kerry talking about Genghis Kahn.

It is time for us to regain some respect in the world, and it is time for us to stop radical Islam before there is another holocaust.

I read a fantastic book written by Joel Rosenberg that came out this spring, ``The Auschwitz Escape.'' I didn't even know anyone had escaped from Auschwitz. It is a novel.

When you read about the novel, you get interested and find out there were people that escaped from Auschwitz because they wanted to get the news out to the world about what was happening, that this wasn't just a prison work camp, that they were rounding up Jews by the hundreds of thousands and bringing them in and, at Auschwitz, putting them in showers and, instead of water coming out, poisonous gas did; and then their bodies were taken right across and burned in a giant crematorium. The people that were there always saw the smoke, always smelled the vile smell of Jews' bodies burning.

Then you find out that, once people escaped, they got information out, it still took far too long for America or the Allies to do anything to stop it. We could have bombed the railroads that were taking Jews into these prison camps, like Auschwitz, where they were being killed in masses.

Even after people escaped and got word out, we didn't, the Allies didn't, and the railroads continued running, and the cattle cars cramped with Jews being taken. Initially, they were taken to the prison camps, and a decision was made, as they walked up to an individual, you go here, which means you are going to work until you can't work, and then we will gas you, and then burn you; or you are not worth keeping, so you are going to go get killed immediately.

In the end, the attempted genocide killed 6 million or so Jews. Because they were war criminals? No. Because they had committed a crime of any kind? No. Because they were Jews; that is a crime against humanity.

The leaders of Iran have said they want to destroy the Great Satan, which is the United States, and they want to wipe the Little Satan, Israel, off the map. They want the Jewish vermin, as they sometimes call them, eradicated.

There is some like the J Street Group, say: no, no, no, we can work with these people. And I have to point out to any Jew who wants to work with Iran and the current leadership of Iran, these people can't be trusted.

When the history was written, it turned out there were some Jews that helped the Nazis by pointing out where other Jews lived, where they could be arrested, or where they were being hidden. There is a special place for them in eternity.

People need to understand, the modern-day gas chambers are being constructed. They are too near completion in Iran. Right now, they are called nuclear weapons.

For a number of years now, we have been hearing projections: Iran is this close to having nukes, this close to having nukes. Joel Rosenberg raised a good point in one of his prior novels. He does great research.

In that novel, he had Iran constructing multiple--they waited until they had enough fissile material so they could construct several nuclear weapons, and I am sure that is their thought.

Just as with the 9/11 hijackers, yeah, they were crazy, but they weren't stupid. They were very methodical as they plotted to kill what they hoped would be tens of thousands of Americans, innocent people.

With glee, they thought about all the horror. With glee, some of those that helped plan, but were not actually part of the 19, that were joyful as they saw Americans deciding between being burned to death in the World Trade Centers or jumping a 1,000 feet to their death, and they rejoiced.

These same people in Iran who were so thrilled to see Americans burning, being crushed in the World Trade Centers as they fell or even jumping to their deaths before they fell, they were so ecstatic about that, and these people are working on nuclear weapons. They cannot be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, there is something this administration can do that will regain America's respect around the world, that should stop Vladimir Putin cold in his tracks, that will stop China from evermore aggressive overtaking and reach beyond their borders, to stop thugs around the world who seek to take over countries, something that would stop them because they would fear and respect America, would be the very thing that will protect America, will protect Israel, will protect Saudi Arabia, will protect UAE, will protect Jordan, will protect Egypt, and that is for the United States of America to have its Commander in Chief issue the order: Take out anything that Iran has that may be proliferating nuclear weapons. Take it out.

If they scramble to save something, then let's go back and hit them again and again, not the people of Iran, unless these cruel leaders have buried nuclear facilities in civilian areas. If they had done that, then it would be the Iranian leaders that would be responsible for criminally harming civilians and putting them as cowards, putting them between the criminals and judgment day. We need to do that.

Israel doesn't have our F-35s. They don't have all of our stealth yet. They don't have the capability to carry our best bunker busters into Iran and eliminate their nuclear weapons. We do. Maybe it takes more than one sortie, one group of planes going in. Maybe it takes more than one, two, three.

We need to do it, take them out, whatever it takes, and that stops Iran in their development of the modern-day gas chambers, the modern- day holocaust that will occur in Israel and in America if we don't act.

I read about a survivor from one of the death camps when the American soldiers arrived. They were so thrilled, they went running up, and the Jewish inmate was then free, spit in his face and asked basically: Where have you been?

Six million people killed for nothing more than being of a particular race, and we could have stopped it far sooner. Who knows how many millions we could have saved if we had acted sooner?

But now, we know. We know, without a doubt, Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, is trying to develop nuclear weapons, have said they want to wipe us out, have said they want to wipe out Israel.

It is time to take them seriously; and by doing so, you gain respect from the thug Taliban because they realize, as Qadhafi did: wow, if he will do that to Iran, he would do it to us.

And then we wouldn't even have to because they would fear us and respect us enough, respect our power--not us individually. They would respect the

power, and the world could see more years of peace and could see an end in sight maybe for 100 years or so of radical Islam. Moderate Muslims could live in peace. Jews could live more in peace. Christians could live more in peace.

There are Christians being persecuted around the world, probably in greater numbers than ever before, not in percentages, but in numbers. In countries like Iraq, where we gave them their freedom, they are persecuting Christians and Jews. In Afghanistan, where we gave them their freedom, they are persecuting Christians and Jews.

They were persecuting Christians and Jews in Egypt until the people rose up and demonstrations--literally went arm in arm, a beautiful, incredible scene for world peace, as Muslims, Jews, Christians, secularists took to the streets to rebel and demand the ouster of a radical Islamist who was seizing power, and had they waited another year, they probably would not have been able to do it.

For those who believe in the power of prayer, we need to continue to pray for Israel and we need to continue to pray for Egypt and the Egyptian leaders.

I applaud the Obama administration. I was thrilled and am so pleased that this administration has announced they are going to go ahead and furnish Apache helicopters to the new government in Egypt.

It is going to be tough for the Egyptians. They have got a tough economy. They have too many on welfare. They have got a lot of adjustments to make. But they want freedom. The masses of Egypt want freedom. They don't want radical Islam. They don't want radical Islam like that which rebelled and killed Qadhafi and took over Tunisia. They don't want that.

We need to encourage them. We need to help them. We need to help them eliminate all the weaponization that Morsi encouraged and allowed, it turns out, in the Sinai, as Egypt stands up against radical Islam.

So I really want to thank the Obama administration for following through in supplying the Apache helicopters that were supposed to be supplied.

As General el-Sisi, who has stepped down as general of the military, and who will likely be elected President, said previously, Do you not understand we use the Apaches to keep the Suez Canal open? We are using the Apaches to clear out the radical Islamists in the Sinai. Why wouldn't you want to help us do that? Why would you rather help radical Islam?

I know that in this body a majority would stand with our President and we would be proud of him if he would protect us and protect Israel, stop the nuclear proliferation in its tracks, not by promising to release murderers, not by talking Israel into releasing more murderers, and not giving Iran billions and billions of more money and not eliminating any more of the sanctions against Iran, but just take out the nuclear capability that has developed so far. Because otherwise, if we let them get nukes, they will be glad to supply them to terrorists.

You don't have to have intercontinental ballistic missiles to get a nuke to America. You can put them on a boat and float them right up the Potomac, the Hudson, right up to Chicago, up to Houston, New Orleans, and take out 70 percent of our refining capacity.

So they could put a nuclear weapon on even a sorry Scud missile that is so inexact and launch it from a boat or a barge into the interior airspace. It doesn't need to hit the ground, but there is a huge range that even a Scud missile could make, and explode a nuclear weapon, creating an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, that would fry most of the computer chips in the country, shut down most of our electrical capacity, shut down grocery stores, shut down stores relying on computers, shut down cars that have reliance on computer chips.

They could do all that with one nuke and a lousy missile that is not very exact. They could do that.

It is time we acted before they destroy America as we have known it, as it has come to be the greatest country in the history of the world. It has more individual freedom, but we see that waning. It has the greatest economy in history, but we have seen that wane.

Now we are told in a very short time China will be the biggest economy, unless something happens. How about if the United States stops the modern-day gas chambers from being completed, stops the radical Islamist enemies of America, Israel, and of moderate Muslims?

How about if we do moderate Islam a favor and take out the radicals for them as well?

Let's get peace on track. And you don't do it with a Secretary of State that condemns our closest allies and accuses our allies of being criminals. You don't do it by releasing murderous thugs of countries that hate us and are planning to kill us at some point whenever they get the capability. You do it by self-preservation.

In Texas, we are pretty proud of our self-defense laws. When somebody has told you they are going to kill you, and they are close to having the ability to do that, it is self-defense to stop them.

It is time.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 9 a.m.