Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to speak here on the House floor, and there's been a lot of interesting attention that's been given to an issue of whether or not the Obama administration supports Israel, doesn't support Israel, is more supportive of its enemies, and apparently, according to an article in the Weekly Standard this week, May 30, 2012, by Daniel Halper, and I'm quoting from the article here, it says:

``Obama stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than

any other President because he read about it,'' Haaretz

reports. ``He wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the

House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority

leader Mitch McConnell about their support to Israel.''

Similarly, he said to the group, ``I am not going to tell

you again how I even feel about Israel, but why are we still

talking about it?''

He then suggested that he should not be questioned about

his commitment to the Jewish state because ``all his friends

in Chicago were Jewish.''

I think there's a lot to be learned when we read people's comments or learn of people's comments that were not scripted, that were said just off the top of the head. Nobody put it in the teleprompter. It's not somebody else's words; it's words directly from the individual in question. So I've got to say, you know, the President says all his friends in Chicago were Jewish. I learned a lot from that. I didn't know that Jeremiah Wright was Jewish. I mean, I meet people all the time and it never crosses my mind, you know, what descent is this person.

So it's fascinating for me to find out from the President that apparently Jeremiah Wright was Jewish; Tony Rezko that got the lot right next to the President and got them a sweetheart deal of some kind, that real estate deal, even though Rezko's gone to prison, I didn't know Tony Rezko was Jewish. And Bill Ayers who unashamedly blew up a bomb hoping that he would kill people back in the seventies, the man that gave Barack Obama his first fund-raiser at his home, I didn't know what lineage Bill Ayers was, but according to the President's comment, all his friends in Chicago were Jewish. Apparently Bill Ayers must have been Jewish as well.

So it's interesting to find out about people's friends and who they are and what their background really is.

My background, having been at one time early on a prosecutor--I've been a judge, I've been a chief justice. It helps me, some of us that are a little slower, to work through and plod through material methodically. It helps me to make a chart.

I know, having collected the notes of jurors after they had heard long cases--I guess the longest case I tried was about 10 weeks long, a murder case, as a judge. But it was always interesting to read notes that jurors had left. So, often they would take evidence and they would make notes of evidence and try to decide what category that evidence fit into--did it support what the prosecution was saying, since they had the burden of proof, or did it support a defense contention or an affirmative defense, that kind of thing?

So I found this week, since I read that article about the President's defensiveness, that it would be interesting to take and just run through some evidence so that we could try to decide, since the President says he's not even going to comment how he feels about Israel anymore, I think it would be helpful to go through and look at the evidence and decide whether it supports the notion that the President is very pro-Israel or that he's not.

When the President said that he wondered why no one asked Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner about his support for Israel, well, I know that Speaker Boehner and I have had some rather profound disagreements--and that, I'm sure, will continue--but when it came to the issue of Israel, I couldn't come up with anything that indicated any lack of complete support for the Nation of Israel. In fact, 2 years ago, I started pushing to get Prime Minister Netanyahu invited to address a joint session of Congress here in this very Hall. I know when I approached Speaker Pelosi about it--this was June of 2010--she thought it was a nice idea but there just wasn't going to be time to get that done before the end of the year, we just had so much on our plate. And I think we did have a lot of courthouses we hadn't named yet, so we got those done.

Then, when the Republicans took the majority in 2011, I redid a letter and got lots of Republicans to sign on. The Speaker asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to come and address the House here, and as best I understand it, got the majority leader down the hall, Harry Reid, to go in on it so that it would be a joint session. So all the evidence indicates complete support by Speaker Boehner for Israel. I really haven't been able to find anything to the contrary.

But, again, since the President says he's not going to comment anymore about how he feels about Israel, I thought it would be good-- and it sure helps me--to go through and just chart out evidence and which notion it supports. So I went through, and we took points from stories--whether on television, in the news media, on the Internet-- that appeared to have a good basis for being factual and just decided to chart out: Is this evidence that President Obama is for or against Israel? Does he love Israel or does he love Israel not?

We know that back in 2011, most of us heard the comments--apparently they didn't know that microphone was live--when Prime Minister Netanyahu came up in the comments by President Sarkozy of France, when he made a comment something about what a problem Netanyahu was, and President Obama made comments to the effect that, Oh, yeah, well, I have to deal with him every day. It was clearly belittling of Prime Minister Netanyahu. I know people that heard the comment thought, Ooh, if you're Prime Minister Netanyahu, that's got to hurt to hear the guy that you may talk to quite a bit agreeing with another leader that Netanyahu is just a real pain to deal

with. So it really doesn't show a love for Israel really. That was more of a loves Israel not.

Then, the comments in 2011, when Prime Minister Netanyahu last year was on his way, coming to the United States--he was going to speak to an AIPAC convention here--and it seemed to be rather short notice. The President hurriedly consulted with people that he trusted. Imam Magid, who is president of the Islamic Society of North America. Of course, they are a named coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution for supporting terrorism. ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, he's the president of that organization. And we heard on the news that Imam Magid had been consulted. In fact, Imam Magid, the president of this coconspirator supporting terrorism, was even invited to the inner sanctum of the State Department to hear the speech that he had apparently, according to sources, had helped give advice to President Obama on.

So, during his comments, President Obama says that Israel should return to its 1967 borders. And people that are familiar with Israel and know the history of that area, including going back to 1000 or so B.C. when King David was the ruler in that land--1,500, 1,600 years or so before a man named Muhammad came to Earth. Anyway, he's suggesting that Israel, in those comments, should return to those borders, which military people indicate make Israel indefensible. That's why they were so subject to attack in 1967. So that really was not a comment suggestive of a love for Israel. That's really more of a loves Israel not.

Then the Obama administration, they have wholly failed to condemn any of the Palestinians' building of illegal settlements. Here the Palestinians keep building and building in areas they're not authorized, that are illegal settlements being built, and we hear not one single word from the Obama administration about the illegal settlements being constructed by Palestinians. That also included his criticism of Israeli housing plans for East Jerusalem. So that's really a loves Israel not on that one as well.

You've got the Obama administration's decision to eradicate missile defense programs that would have helped Israel. There are articles and information about that. Obviously, since it didn't help Israel to have eradicated missile defense programs that would have helped Israel, despite some that would, that actually is an act that indicates loves Israel not.

Now, I think it was a wonderful thing that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in 2010, was invited to the White House. That was a great thing, very good of the President to invite him. But all of the reference to that visit seemed to make very clear that when the President intentionally snubbed the Prime Minister who had traveled all this way to meet with the President, and he was left waiting for an hour or so while the President went off with his family--they knew that Prime Minister Netanyahu was coming, he came by invitation, and yet the President created an intentional snub, unless his staff, of course, is so incompetent they didn't let him know that the leader of our dear ally Israel was waiting in the White House to visit. But anyway, he went and dined with his family. Also, it was considered by most who know about internal relations to be quite a snub that, although the President's been pictured with all kinds of folks in the Middle East that would just as soon Israel be eliminated from the map, to refuse to have a picture with him, which was the norm, really was an indication of loves Israel not.

Now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama administration planned to send $147 million to the West Bank and to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

Well, Congress had made very clear, since we have the purse strings under the Constitution, that there should not be money being sent to any organization that is supportive of terrorism. Hamas is a named organization that supports terrorism. And yet, this administration has decided to send a group who has made very clear they want to see Israel eliminated, wiped off the map--sending them $147 million is not really evidence of a love for Israel, so that would go in that category.

Over here, you also have President Obama stating that all his friends in Chicago were Jewish, and that he was sometimes accused of being a Jewish puppet. Well, for those people who accused the President, according to the President only, of being a Jewish puppet, and that always his friends in Chicago were Jewish, well, that is some indication of a love for the Jewish Nation of Israel.

The President's administration though, earlier this year, leaked to The Washington Post of the time window in which Israel would take out Iran's nuclear program. Well, any ally is supposed to know that if you go leaking information, putting it out there in public, that damages an effort of your close ally to defend itself, that's not a good thing. It's not a sign of love and affection for an ally when you leak information that would prevent or harm the efforts of that ally in defending itself. So that was not a good indication of a love for Israel; more of a ``Loves Israel Not.''

And then also, the Obama administration had a leak to the media that Israel was going to use the Azerbaijan airspace to take out Iran's nuclear program. Well, if that's the kind of thing you do for friends, America's not going to have a lot of friends for very long because our friends will know, wow, Israel is said to be one of America's closest allies, and yet they're leaking information about private deals that their so-called ally has made to try to defend themselves. That surely would fall into the category of ``Loves Israel Not.''

And then also, you have the immense pressure that was placed by this administration on Israel not to defend itself without the United States' permission. Does a friend really do that? I thought we believed in the sovereignty of our friends, our nation friends, so they could make their own decisions about self-defense. I thought that's the case. And yet, we keep hearing reports, reading reports about pressure by this administration on Israel not to take action to defend itself. So that's really in that category as well, ``Loves Israel Not.''

Then also, the Obama administration has never rejected or condemned the racist, hateful teachings about Jewish people going on in the Palestinian schools in the Middle East, and in some Muslim schools here in the United States. No condemnation or rejection at all could be found anywhere. And yet, anyone that cares to see the kind of hateful, biased, nasty things that are being said about Jewish and Israeli people just need let our office know.

There are people in Israel, there are Web sites that can provide that information. They've gotten copies of textbooks. There are commercials that are run. There are great events that Palestinian areas, in fact-- that are even named for Palestinian terrorists, Islamic jihadists that blew themselves up and killed a lot of Israelis. And yet, we have no condemnation from this administration of any of that type activity.

Israel, of course is repeatedly warned by this administration to be nicer to the Palestinians, and we can't find any evidence that this administration has ever warned the Palestinians, quit inciting hatred in your children for Jewish or Israeli people.

And the list goes on, helping us assess the evidence of whether President Obama is for or really against Israel. Since his comment this week, he's not going to tell us any more how he feels about Israel. We'll just look at the evidence.

Continuing, we remember not long after President Obama came into office he traveled to Turkey, to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, apologized to them on behalf of the United States. Somebody uses really good word choices, a beautiful group of words about the United States being divisive and dismissive. Anyway, really nice words in what many dubbed as the apology tour. That really was not a strong sign of love and affection for Israel.

And then we have the fact that this President, although he went on an apology tour all around our so-called ally, Israel, he never actually went to Israel. I don't know, you can't blame him. Maybe he'd be concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu would leave him sitting around twiddling his thumbs while Prime Minister Netanyahu went and had dinner with his family.

But I've met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'm not anybody, and yet he took time and was very punctual in his meeting, so I really don't think the President should have to worry that Prime Minister Netanyahu might try to snub him the same way. I think President Obama would find Prime Minister Netanyahu to be very congenial, as he normally is. Although again, we go back to the President's comments when he didn't know the mic was open indicating he didn't have a lot of love for having to deal with Prime Minister Netanyahu every day.

So as for now, until we actually have a visit from President Obama to Israel, that really has to go into the ``Loves Israel Not'' category.

And then of course, we have the Obama administration's support for the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt. This administration was encouraging Mubarak to step down, get out of the way, and actually made quite interesting quotes about the radical Islamist protesters in Egypt.

But anyway, they supported the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt and have reached out in numerous ways to the Muslim Brotherhood, thinking that this may really be a good thing, indicating a great thing for the Middle East. Well, it may be a good thing for the Muslim Brotherhood, but we have the documentation, the quotes are easily accessible, about what the Muslim Brotherhood truly stands for, and they want to see Israel gone.

So some would say, well, it's a good thing when any administration reaches out to a people. But if that people, if the leaders of a group are demanding that a dear, close, friendly ally be wiped off of the map and have to live under a caliphate, not Judaism, which the President says he knows more about than any other President, apparently--but live under a caliphate, which, of course, as Ahmadinejad believes, the 12th imam, the Mahdi, will be coming back.

Anyway, that really wasn't showing a lot of love for Israel. Of course, Israel expressed a great deal of concern. They had concerns about what was going on in Egypt. Mubarak was a problematic man, a problematic leader, but at least he was trying to keep up the agreement, the treaty with Israel. He at least made some pretense that he was trying to protect the Egyptian-Israeli border.

Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood, who has no such intention, and it didn't take an intelligence department to advise this administration of that. It certainly should have been clear. Yet, in 2011, President Obama was calling the radical Islamist protesters in Egypt ``an inspiration to people around the world,'' and he stated he supported a new regime in Egypt. Well, you had radical Islamists; you had the Muslim Brotherhood; and as we see in these elections as they go forward, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking charge, and they have no interest in agreeing to the treaties that have long since been made with Israel. Although they have come back and said, Well, we might put it up to a vote, the same people who are voting the Muslim Brotherhood into power, because they know the Muslim Brotherhood wants to see Israel gone, will obviously not be supporting a treaty.

So those kinds of comments that put Israel at such extreme risk on their border just cannot be deemed to be an indication of a loves Israel. It's more a loves Israel not.

Then we have the fact that, though Syrian leader Assad has been ruthless in killing and abusing his people and has not been helpful to Israel to the extent Egyptian leader Mubarak was, this administration, the Obama administration, has failed to support the Syrian rebels the way it did the Egyptian rebels. That has really been interesting to see how that developed.

For example, in Libya, gosh, the President says he didn't need support from Congress because there were people like NATO and the Muslim Brotherhood. There were folks who wanted us to help get rid of Qadhafi. Well, Qadhafi was sure no angel, and he certainly had blood on his hands, but Qadhafi was not a threat to Israel, and this administration militarily--militarily--supported the people who are a threat to Israel, unapologetically. Now, there were some games, some wordsmanship games--wordsmithing went on by this administration-- saying, Look, look, this is really a NATO action. Guess who makes up 60 percent or more of the NATO military. Guess who gives more to NATO than anybody else. It's the United States. So it was a little bit of sleight of hand to say, You know, Libya really is more of a NATO action. It's not really us.

It is very clear. This administration has not demanded the ouster of a leader with blood on his hands, who continues to abuse and kill Syrians who want some freedom. This administration hasn't supported those rebels the way they did in Libya and the way the administration called for Mubarak to be gone--forcefully. So that's also a loves Israel not.

Then you've got to note that the Obama administration's support for giving Israel's enemies money and weapons has been at the same time Israel has been given assistance. That's not showing a lot of love for Israel, but the Obama administration has supported providing Israel financial aid that they can use to buy U.S. weapons for Israel's defense. Well, now, there's a good one to show some love for Israel. So this administration has shown some love for Israel by pushing to provide them with financial aid to buy U.S. weapons for their own defense. Unfortunately, that comes at the same time the administration keeps supporting Israel's enemies--giving them money, pushing to give them money and weapons--at the same time Israel is getting that same assistance.

Then there is one other thing that I think is worthy of note. I believe it was 2 years ago--in May 2 years ago, I believe--that the Obama administration voted with Israel's enemies to require Israel to disclose any and all nuclear capabilities or weapons. Israel is a tiny country in the middle of a number of countries and of hostile peoples that want to see Israel gone, and nobody has made that more clear than Ahmadinejad. It is certainly worthy of note that it was right after this administration parted from decades of tradition of support for Israel--and their very tenuous situation there in the Middle East--that it sided with all of Israel's enemies and voted to require them to disclose all they really had that could protect them.

It brought to mind that story from the Old Testament about King Hezekiah and how King Hezekiah was confronted by Isaiah. Those of us who believe what's printed there believe that God sent the prophet to confront Hezekiah, and he basically said, What have you done with these people from Babylon, with these leaders that came over from Babylon?

This is a Texas paraphrase, but basically, King Hezekiah said, Oh, I took these Babylonian leaders around, and I showed them all our treasure, and I showed them all the defenses we have in the armory.

In essence, Hezekiah was told by Isaiah, You fool. Because you have done this, you're going to lose your country. And he did. Actually, he begged the Lord to let it not be on his watch, and it ends up being under his son's, but that's another story.

The point here that came to mind, though, is we were demanding that Israel do what Hezekiah similarly did, which made their country vulnerable and caused them to lose their country--and we voted with Israel's enemies to demand that. This administration did. Congress would never have voted in the majority to do such a thing, but this Obama administration did.

It's a dangerous time in the world, and it's time for America not to be stupid. Some have referred to Israel as being the free world's miner's canary, because as people know, in the old days, before sensitive electronic equipment, canaries were taken into mines so that if noxious, poisonous gas began to fill the air, the canary would die before the miners would, and if the canary keeled over dead, the miners would know they've got to get out or they could be next.

Our assistance to Israel is as a democracy in the middle of a hostile world, a hostile area, with people who want to see our type of freedom and liberty gone, whose very definition of the word ``freedom'' means freedom to worship under a joint caliphate under shari'a law. But Israel's definition of

``freedom'' is like ours. We should be supporting Israel. We should not be supporting Israel's enemies.

Those who have studied history, you know that when a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally pulling away from him, that's when their enemies move against them. So was it any surprise that after the Obama administration voted with Israel's enemies to make Israel more vulnerable, that all of a sudden here came a flotilla to challenge the lawful blockade of the Gaza Strip that Israel had to at least try to ensure their own protection?

Of course, that was a disastrous and embarrassing time for Israel, but I can't help but believe it goes back to this administration telling Israel's enemies we're standing with you and not with Israel. Yes, this administration has gone back and issued statements to the contrary. But when you look at the evidence, look at the unguarded evidence, look at the leaks, look at the support for whom, it still keeps coming back that even though this President says, I'm not going to answer any more questions about whether or not I support Israel, the evidence is clear.

I hope in the ensuing months between now and the next inauguration, that this administration will go out of its way to assure Israel's enemies that despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is not loved by this administration from past actions and comments, that it will take action if for no other reason than to try to help this administration win some votes that it's been losing. I don't really care what the reason is. I care about supporting our allies, supporting those who stand for liberty, who will allow freedom of worship by Muslims, freedom of worship by Christians, freedom of worship by other groups in Israel that Jews and Christians are not afforded in other countries that this administration keeps sucking up to.

The evidence seems pretty clear. It keeps coming back--despite some minor indications to the contrary--that this administration loves Israel not.

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

Offered By: Mr. Gohmert

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, it's been quite an interesting day. Apparently it's already been misinterpreted by some in the media. I hope that, though so many publications have had to cut their research budgets and cut their staffing budgets, I hope that those that still are blessed to work for journalistic institutions will do their proper homework and have a better understanding about the Gohmert-Landry- Rigell amendment that passed today and the effect that it has on the underlying NDAA and, more particularly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed after 9/11 by both houses of Congress.

I wasn't here, nor were any of the five cosponsors. Let's see: Mr. Duncan, freshman; Mr. Barletta, freshman. They weren't here, nor were Mr. Landry or Mr. Rigell. So besides me, we had four freshmen on the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell-Duncan-Barletta amendment.

I felt compelled to make my amendment to deal with an issue that was raised--not in the National Defense Authorization Act that was passed some months back. Some people failed to understand, really, the NDAA that was passed previously did not give the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens. And as we understand, a judge has ruled recently that any interpretation that it gave the President that power was unconstitutional. I don't know how that will come out.

But I do know that after we were attacked in the worst attack on American soil ever, the country--I recall, I was a judge at the time-- the country was in a great deal of chaos. Planes were ordered not to take off all over the country. Those that were coming in couldn't come in. We had American citizens stranded at airports around the world.

But what's worse, we had over 3,000 Americans who were dead, done by people who believed their radical interpretation of Islam dictated that they should go about killing innocent Americans and others who happened to be on American soil at the time. It didn't seem to bother them. Some of them could have even been Muslim. It didn't seem to bother them because they had this sordid belief that they would end up in paradise with dozens of virgins. Thank God most Muslims don't believe that. But the trouble is, there are radical Islamists that do.

So the Congress, on September 18--a week after the worst attack on American soil--passed a joint resolution, Public Law 107 40. And it was to be cited, as it says in section 1, as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go to the trouble to read section 2(a) because sometimes there are reporters who don't do their homework. They think that reporting means, rather than digging through, reading things for yourself, and getting the clear meaning of legislation for yourself, that that's not nearly as effective as lazily asking somebody, What do you think this does?

So we get polls; we get surveys; we get opinions. But having been a judge and a chief justice, you didn't do that as a judge. You didn't do that as a justice on an appellate court. You had to look at the law and say, What does it say? And what do other laws, in which this may be in context, cause it to mean?

And look at it for yourself. Most of these folks, they're educated, and so I hope they will take a look for themselves. Those that were most concerned months ago that the NDAA gave unbridled power to the President, what really concerned me as a former judge and chief justice was reading section 2(a), authorization for use of the United States Armed Forces.

Again, it's hard to fault folks because it was a week after this horrible attack, and we weren't even sure who attacked us and why they attacked us. We had gotten a pretty good idea early on.

So one week after September 11, 2001, this joint resolution is passed into law. Section 2(a) says, in general, that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Now as I understand--I haven't read the opinion this week from the district court. The district court is not like it carries the weight of the Supreme Court or even a court of appeals. But Congress really appears to have given the President unbridled, unlimited, indefinite authority to just detain, arrest, do whatever had to be done to protect America from further attacks. And as we know from history, it's after such horrible attacks or incidents in other times in history when there is a temptation to overreact and to give too much power to one body or one person, and later on, when things are calmed down and the people are caught that perpetrated the horrible acts, we realize we lost a lot of our rights, we lost a lot of our powers because we placed them in one person.

And this is what this section 2(a) did. That's the way it struck me when I first saw that after I got to Congress. And that was a matter of concern. And it wasn't until the NDAA--I'm not on Armed Services--it wasn't until the NDAA came up that I really started researching and seeing exactly what this said and did.

I'm sure Speaker Boehner would be the first to tell people that he and I often do not see eye to eye; but he gave me the assurance that if the NDAA passed, he would let me come back with an amendment that would fix the AUMF so that a President did not have the power--unlimited power indefinitely--to detain American citizens on American soil.

So that was the impetus for trying to prepare a proper amendment that

would deal with the main problem, the unlimited power of the AUMF, but also dispel concerns that people may have with the National Defense Authorization Act, because that was going to have to be replaced, redone, reauthorized. And I'm glad to say the Speaker kept his word and we were allowed to bring forward a fix.

My friend Justin Amash and I have many times in his year-and-a- quarter-or-so of being here have consoled each other as being one of only two, three, four, five who voted for or against a bill. And we're kind of out there by ourselves. So I was not surprised to see that Justin Amash was trying to work on an amendment that would fix this same concern that he and I had. I think his concern--and he can speak more accurately toward this--but I think his concern was more with the NDAA. Mine was more with the AUMF. This grant of power was far too unbridled. It needed restraint.

We are blessed here in Congress to have people who have served in so many walks of life. We've been blessed in a number of different ways. And it's great to have such diversity--not just race, creed, religion, gender--but actually differences of opinions and divergent backgrounds.

We have a prayer breakfast every Thursday morning on Capitol Hill, and it's really a blessing to hear other Members' stories, Democrats and Republicans. We take turns speaking at prayer breakfasts--one from the Democratic Party, one from the Republican Party--each week. And it is just incredible the way God has moved in lives and taken people, whether it's being a school teacher or being a ditch digger, all kinds of things, to propel them in life and ultimately land them here in Congress.

It just happens that I have been blessed not with extraordinary intelligence but with having been around people with extraordinary intelligence, including brilliant people who have tremendous intellect and insight into our Constitution.

I never expected to be in Congress. I just liked history and knew I owed the Army 4 years from a scholarship at Texas A&M, and I had the luxury of majoring in history. So I got to study under some incredible historians who gave a different perspective on our Constitution. Rather than a legal perspective, a historical perspective. And brilliant people on policy throughout the history of man.

But when one reads this and one does not understand the Constitution and the powers that are granted to Congress under the Constitution, one can get the wrong impression. I have heard friends that I think a tremendous amount of here in Congress who have said such things publicly as ``every American citizen.'' Every person. The Bill of Rights talks about persons. Yes, in some places it does. But they have the idea it refers to persons in every place--it doesn't--every person in America is entitled to go through an article III court.

And I appreciate and understand that misinterpretation. But when one reads article III, section 1, what it says is:

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in

one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress

may from time to time ordain and establish.

So the Congress has the authority never to even create a Federal district court. The Congress has the power to eliminate every Federal district court if it so chose. I am very grateful that Congress has not chosen to eliminate every Federal district court. But, nonetheless, the power is there to create or not create Federal district courts.

The Supreme Court has even spoken on this issue before and has made clear that the power is entirely in Congress's hands. As my former constitutional law professor, David Guinn at Baylor Law School, used to say, there's only one court in the United States that owes its origin to the Constitution, and that is the Supreme Court. Every other court in the country that is a Federal court or tribunal or commission owes its existence to the Congress.

Now, I have tremendous regard for President George W. Bush. He is a brilliant man, despite what some people think and jokes that were made at his expense. He's a brilliant man, and one of the wittiest people that you can be around privately and just a real joy to be around, but he got some bad advice. He had people who were lawyers who told him, Hey, Mr. President, let's just have the executive branch set up a military tribunal and let the military tribunal try terrorists, whether American citizens or whatever. Let's set up tribunals here in the executive branch.

Well, they had failed to notice that in article I, section 8 of our Constitution, it says that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, and it says, ``to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.'' So really, you could arguably have a Federal district court that is set up inferior to the Supreme Court under article I, section 8 just as you could under article III. I know there are some that say, no, those are article III courts. Well, article I, section 8 really seems to indicate you could call them Federal district tribunals. You could establish those inferior courts under the Supreme Court under article I, section 8.

Congress is also immediately given the power, shall have the power, it says, ``to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.''

We've got the power to make those rules of anybody who's captured on land or water, the power to create the court. We've got the power, we shall have it, to establish uniform rules of naturalization. We have the power to dictate policy here in Congress by our legislation with regard to immigration. We have the power, under this Constitution, it's been determined over and over again, that we can say to immigrants, legally and illegally in this country, You don't get a hearing in front of a Federal district court. You must go to the court we have set up over here that's inferior to the Supreme Court, but we're calling it an immigration court.

In other cases, somebody's broke, we're given the power to set up bankruptcy courts. And it's a sad testimonial for our country that a man that's sometimes referred to as the Revolution's financier--there are actually a few different sources. One was France. One was a Jewish gentleman without whom many say we could not have afforded the Revolution, and another one was a man from Philadelphia named Morris.

Morris, if one goes down the hall to the Rotunda and looks up, one of the drawings, one of the paintings that's painted into the plaster, 189 feet up there at the top of the dome, is supposed to be a depiction of Morris with a money bag, depicting him loaning money to the Revolution to keep things going.

Mr. Morris ended up, after the Revolution, doing well, worked out great for him. But because things were going so well in the country, it looked like they were going to--he had bought a lot of land and a lot of land in Virginia and up around this area, around where the District of Columbia would ultimately be, and he had gotten overextended and he was broke and he couldn't pay his bills. And so he ended up in a debtors' prison in Philadelphia, a man to whom we owe so much for having a successful Revolution so people, as our Founders said, for truly the first time would actually be able to govern themselves. And a principal financier ends up in debtors' prison in Philadelphia.

And yet the Constitution, itself, it said Congress would have the power to create uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. But it wasn't until after Morris got thrown in debtors' prison and he had been in there for long enough that it destroyed his health, it ruined him as a man, that he ended up believing all was lost, dejected, when someone in Congress realized, wait a minute, our Constitution gives us the power to create bankruptcy courts. Maybe we ought to do that. They created the bankruptcy system, and Mr. Morris was released from jail, but he was in such poor health he never really enjoyed the freedoms that he had financed.

There are so many powers in this given to the Congress--creating courts, not creating courts; creating tribunals, not creating tribunals--and that's why, and I know there were friends of mine that were in the Bush administration that disagree with me, but I believe the

Supreme Court got it totally right when they told the Bush administration, You don't have the right to create tribunals, to try terrorists; you don't.

The Constitution, article I, section 8 says that the Congress shall have the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, not the President. That's not in article II under the executive powers. It's not in article III under judiciary power. The power to do that is in article I, section 8--You don't have it. So until Congress comes with military commissions or tribunals, they're not constitutional.

And so in 2006, not long after I got here, people prepared, through our Judiciary Committee, prepared the Military Commission Act that was constitutional because Congress did this.

My dear friend, and I mean that very sincerely, John Culberson from Houston, Texas, is here on the floor with me. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to Mr. Culberson.

Thank you.

And reclaiming my time, let me just say I'm awfully glad we have a conservative person who believes in the 10th Amendment as strongly as I do and States' rights as strongly as I do, and have you on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, what better place for a conservative, limited-Federal-power person to be than on the Appropriations Committee? Thank you. I'm grateful for the work of John Culberson there on our behalf.

It is supposed to be a government limited. As I note, the President said previously--talking about that people interpret this Constitution as a bunch of negative powers, things the Congress can't do or the government can't do. We ought to focus on all they can do. Well, I like the fact that all that Congress, all that the Presidency, all that judiciary is supposed to be able to do is specified. Everything else, as my friend Mr. Culberson pointed out, is resolved to the States and the people.

Congress has this power to create the courts, Federal courts. States take care of their own State system. It's one of the reasons, though, that I voted against a couple of bills recently, because medical malpractice reform was being dictated from here in Congress for every State in the country.

I love what Texas did with medical malpractice reform in its State court system, but it's a State court system. I also know that if the Congress decides we need to start dictating to every State what their State court system can or can't do, then when a far more liberal Congress comes in they will be able to say, Look, you so-called ``conservative'' Republicans dictated to the States what their State tort law should be, so now we're going to dictate to the States what we think it should be, and it ends up being a Federal takeover of something that is entirely a State system.

When it comes to the States' tort system, the State court system, it's none of our business unless there is an adequate Federal nexus. That's guided a couple of votes that may have surprised people that I made, but I simply could not support Federal takeover of State tort law.

Here is a Supreme Court decision from 1922, never been overruled. In that, the Court said--it's at 260 U.S. 226, Klein v. Burke Construction Company. It says:

Only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived

directly from the Constitution. Every other court created by

the general government derives its jurisdiction wholly from

the authority of Congress. That body may give, withhold, or

restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion, provided it be

not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution.

That's exactly what the Constitution intended. Congress can create Federal district courts, Federal commissions--whatever, drug court, immigration court, whatever we feel appropriate as an inferior court to the U.S. Supreme Court. We can do it under article I, section 8, or article III.

In my amendment, to give people adequate feeling of protection, we wanted to ensure that people's rights would be adequately protected, and no President--whether it would be the prior Republican President, this Democratic President, or the next President--would have the power that should not be his were it not for an overyielding United States Congress.

The amendment, the Gohmert-Landry original amendment--originally, the Landry original amendment--just said: Nothing in the authorization for use of military force or in the National Defense Authorization Act shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus. That was what came from the committee.

I was very grateful to Jeff Landry and Scott Rigell for allowing me to discuss and negotiate and work with them, but that's what went to committee. I wasn't comfortable that that protected Americans' rights because we still had the provision in the authorized use of military force from September 18, 2001, that said the President still had all this power and he could detain people indefinitely. That is a reasonable interpretation of this AUMF--not the NDAA but the AUMF. That was a reasonable interpretation of the 2001 AUMF.

And so to simply say someone would have the right to a writ of habeas corpus in a hearing on that habeas corpus proceeding was not adequate for me to gather back to the American people the rights that should be theirs if it were not for the AUMF. So the proceeding, without further amendment to that language, could have gone like this:

An American citizen is ordered detained by the President of the United

States. He is taken to military detention; he is placed therein. He would get a writ of habeas corpus hearing--habeas corpus meaning to surrender the body. You've got to bring the body forward. I've had writ of habeas corpus hearings as a judge many times. You have to determine: Is there sufficient evidence more likely than not that this person committed acts that justify the detention and the retaining of his body in that detention?

If the courts give proper credence to the 2001 AUMF, then the court would have that hearing and say, okay, there is evidence that makes it more likely than not that this person, the writ applicant, committed acts that authorize the President, under the 2001 act, to place him in indefinite detention in a military facility. So there he would have had his writ hearing, but he's still in indefinite detention in a military facility. In my 4 years in the Army, I became very familiar with those military facilities.

So I began checking with constitutional scholars I respected. I even got back with my old con law professor.

I started running different language by. How about if we say this? How about if we say that? And others would make suggestions, and we would tweak the language. This has been going on for weeks. Well, let's change this word. Well, what if we add this phrase and that phrase. Well, that doesn't really do it because you've still got this problem. And so it was great talking with people who are really thinking and trying hard to come up with a solution.

And the goal that I had, and in talking with Mr. Landry, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Barletta, the goal is very simple. The authorization for the use of military force from September 18, 2001, gave the President unbridled discretion in confining, detaining American citizens and others. We wanted to put American citizens--we wanted to put people who were lawfully in the United States in the same situation they were in before the unlimited gift of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch.

I wasn't here, but I'm sure a week after 9/11, while we were still reeling, and those of us in other places had just been out on our courthouse square, holding hands, singing hymns, praying together, hoping, praying that our country would not be attacked again and so many people's lives lost, destroyed, so many losing hope, crushed to know they'd never see their family member, never even be able to have a legitimate funeral with their loved ones' remains.

I'm sure, I know that people meant to do the best they could to protect the country. But 10 years later, 11 years later, almost, we can look back and we could restrain that power once again.

So that was the goal. Let's get people back to the position they were in the day before this incredible extension of power to the President was given.

So the language that, with the help of others smarter than I, we were able to put together to get us to that day before this incredible grant of power to the President, was that nothing in the Authorized Use of Military Force Act from 2001, nothing in the NDAA from months ago, nothing from the NDAA that we're taking up now, nothing was going to be construed to deny the availability of writ of habeas corpus, which were the Landry/Rigell words. And then here's the additional language: or to deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorized Use of Military Force Act.

And actually, and we looked at this a number of different ways, a lot of scholars. Just by referencing the Authorized Use of Military Force Act from 2001, it actually includes the subsequent amendment to that AUMF by the NDAA some months back, or the amendment that we voted on today. The NDAA is actually an amendment to the AUMF.

Some had asked, Louie, why did you say, deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established under Article III constitute for any person--why didn't you just say American citizens? That's who we're most concerned about.

And again, I come back to this: I wanted to get back to where we were before this incredible extension of power to the President occurred for people who were lawfully in the United States.

I don't have any sympathy for people who may be sneaking across the board as we speak, through tunnels or over fences or through openings in fences or across rivers. I've got no sympathy for people coming in who want to destroy our way of life and are sneaking in illegally to destroy this life we have and the freedoms and liberties we have. So those who are not lawfully in the United States, who are trying to do us harm, killing Americans, destroying people, this is not for them.

But for anyone who is lawfully in the United States, we want to return them to the same position of liberty they had before the unbridled extension of power to the President September 18, 2001. To do that, though--there are people who were lawfully here in the United States, not U.S. citizens, but people who were lawfully here, who committed acts, whether of violence or other things, who, before this extension of power to the President in 2001, had no right to go into a Federal district court. They had the right to go to an immigration court, and that's it. No right to go before an Article III court.

And so we wanted to make sure that for those people who did not have a right to get a full jury trial--immigrants do not have that right. They're subject to the immigration courts. If they're going to be deported, they go to the immigration court. They don't have a right to go have a Federal trial in a United States district court over whether or not they get to stay in the United States. That's been ruled on many times. They don't get that kind of court.

So we've added the language at the end of subparagraph A, ``who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.'' So, we reestablished in the Gohmert/Landry/Rigell amendment, and Duncan and Barletta as well, in that amendment we reestablish that for any-- not just any American citizen, but anybody lawfully in the United States that is entitled to these rights before September 18 of 2001, you're entitled to them again. And nothing in the AUMF, nothing in the NDAA from months ago, nothing in the NDAA today, all amending the AUMF, nothing in this shall be construed to deny those rights to an individual.

Now, my good friend, Justin Amash, he wanted to fix things. But actually his fix extended new rights that did not exist prior to September 18 of 2001. And I understand his intentions.

And although I did not appreciate my friend Mr. Smith alluding to a smokescreen, you don't spend hours and hours and hours trying to perfect language to create a smokescreen. You do that to fix legislation. And that's what I believe we did. That's what I believe we've done today here on the House floor.

But, having been in the military, and having continued, as a Member of Congress, to go to each funeral of people who, as Lincoln said, gave the last full measure of devotion for their country, having attended all of those in my district over the last 7 years, I know the price our military pays. I know the rights that you give up when you go into the military.

And so people, without realizing the full scope of the different types of rights to different types of people in the Constitution, who say everybody's entitled to constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights, under the Constitution, yeah, but they're different rights and you're in the military. You don't have a right to freedom of speech.

So we had a young man, a devoted member of the United States military, who said some very bad things about our President, unflattering things. Whether or not they're truthful is not the issue for a member of the military.

It is under a matter of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that was created by Congress because Congress has that power under article I, section 8 to create that court system and to not give members of the military all of the rights that everybody else in America has. There were some mornings at 5 a.m. that I would love to have had the freedom of assembly and that I would have loved to have had the freedom of speech to tell my commander where he

could go with his assembly at 5 a.m. and with the 25-mile march that was going to follow that.

That was a time when we were not at war. Nonetheless, you have to have discipline in the military.

Even though I may have totally agreed with the comments--I don't know what all of them were, but this individual is in the military--when you're in the military, you do not have the right to criticize anyone in the chain of command. And it has to be that way.

In my heart, I was so deeply offended by the way in which President Carter was failing to do anything about our hostages and about the act of war that was perpetrated against our Embassy. Under everybody's interpretation of international law, an attack on a country's embassy is an act of war against that country. It should have provoked a response from this country that made so clear to all of those radical Islamists that attacked our Embassy in 1979 that when you attack the United States of America--in our Embassy or on our home soil, either one--they're both acts of war, and we will respond. You will not get away with an act of war like that against us.

Because we failed to respond in any measurable manner, other than for so long just basically begging them to give us our people back, we appeared to be a paper tiger. We appeared to be a country that didn't have the guts to step up and protect itself. That fact is still being used to recruit people around the world to these radicalized groups of Islamists.

Though I felt strongly about the impropriety of the way the President was handling those things in 1979 and 1980, it was not appropriate for a member of the military to publicly ever criticize a commander in his chain of command. That's what the Commander in Chief is. So whether or not any of us agrees with the soldier who criticized President Obama, you have to have discipline in the military, and that's not appropriate.

So why shouldn't he have had the right to come before an article III court and say, Hey, I'm a member of the military. What happened to my freedom of speech rights?

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to set up the rules and the rights for the military, and you don't have that right because we've got to have a disciplined military.

For immigrants, many have said, Why don't I have the right to go get a jury trial and prove my case? Why, your country should be forced to allow me to stay here.

It's because you don't have that right under our Constitution. The right you have under our Constitution is to go to an immigration court. There are exceptions, of course, but that's the main right.

We have the authorization and the power under the Constitution to create those systems; and as my friend Mr. Culberson pointed out, they're limited to what is prescribed in the Constitution.

So that subparagraph (a) was the extent of the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment originally, but there were others who were concerned--but look, look. What if the President does detain somebody? Even though he doesn't have the power to detain, if this subparagraph (a) passes and becomes part of the law, then the President won't have the power to detain an American citizen or an American lawfully in this court who he didn't have the power to detain before September 18 of 2001. But what if he does that anyway?

And it has happened. People abuse their power. We know that. So what if it happens that a President abuses the power that he does not have?

Let's get that right to a writ of habeas corpus hearing so that you can come forward and establish and bring out the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment and say, Look, that authorized use of military force in 2001 that gave the President the power to just detain people indefinitely, including in a military confinement, got changed today in the House in 2012; therefore, at the writ hearing, that would be granted under subparagraph (c). The judge would have to say, You're right. I see that Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment. The President doesn't have the right to do that anymore, so we're going to have to let you go.

But the key would be to get a writ hearing in order to advocate the proper position of the law as changed in subparagraph (a), because if you can't come before a judge, then nobody is going to have the power to order you released. So, I could understand that. Since I know extremely well that I sure don't have a corner on the market of best language, I realize--and our friend Bob Goodlatte was pushing this issue, and I know Bob to be a brilliant lawyer, just a great American patriot. I know, whether we agree or not on every issue, when Bob Goodlatte talks about an issue, I ought to listen because he's a smart, caring man. I realize he has got a point, which is that (a) does fix the problem, according to the people that I worked with and checked with, and we worked the language together to get it to work.

But he's right, what if the President does detain somebody against what the law says in (a)? How do you get that heard?

Okay. We added subparagraph (b) that says:

Not later than 48 hours after the date on which a person

who is lawfully in the United States is detained pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the President

shall notify Congress of the detention of such person.

So the President, if he does detain somebody against the law in section 103, subparagraph (a), has got to notify us. Then I'm sure there would be a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who would come forward and say, Hey, we've changed the law. The President can't do that. Under subparagraph (a), you don't have that power anymore. We took that away from you the way you had it since September 18 of 2001. That has changed. Now that you've notified us, we are going to help that person file for a writ of habeas corpus hearing in court as specified in subparagraph (a). It will be an article III U.S. Federal district court, and we know we will have a proper hearing.

That's why subparagraph (c) says:

A person who is lawfully in the United States when detained

pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force shall

be allowed to file an application for habeas corpus relief in

an appropriate district court--not in an immigration court,

not in a military tribunal, but in a Federal district court--

not later than 30 days after the date on which the person is

placed in military custody.

Now, there are some who've tried to say in the last couple of days that, actually, this Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment restricted the right of writs of habeas corpus. Hopefully, they meant well; but the truth is we're aware of writs of habeas corpus that happen long after 30 days. There is no requirement that if there is ever going to be a writ of habeas corpus hearing that it has to be within 30 days.

So what we were doing was not restricting the right of writs of habeas corpus. We were actually making them stronger so that the President, unless he is going to break the law and act illegally by not notifying Congress within 48 hours--well, guess what? Things have a way of working the truth out.

And if the President were to violate this kind of law, it might be the basis for an impeachment proceeding. To go around and to intentionally violate the law? This is serious stuff. We knew by putting it in the law, it would give that kind of ability to Congress, to enforce what we've done.

With regard to my friend Justin Amash and Adam Smith's amendment, it appeared to be a choice. With their amendment, it was going to give new rights to terrorists that would be greater than any member of our United States military has; or under the Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment, it would return the power to people that they had before September 18, 2001, this unlimited ability of the President to detain people indefinitely in potentially a military detention facility.

I appreciated the bipartisan support for our amendment today. We had Democrats that voted with us on this issue, people that care very deeply about this issue. We had Republicans that did not vote with us. I think 19 Republicans didn't vote with us, but I believe 243 people from both sides of the aisle voted for this amendment to fix this power. We needed to rein in the power of the Presidency, and we did that.

I'm very grateful to Heritage for embracing the concept that was pursued

here rather than a concept that would extend greater rights to terrorists on American soil than our own American soldiers would have.

I think it's a good day. I think it's a good day. People have heard me, Mr. Speaker, talk about how we have messed up what's going on in Afghanistan. The Taliban was defeated; they were routed. We had less than 1,500 Americans in Afghanistan when the Taliban was defeated. And so many Americans have forgotten, but for so much of the Iraq war people were saying--now, the way the Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan, that's the way to fight a war on foreign soil. You empower the enemy of our enemy, give them support. We gave them aerial support, we gave them embedded Special Ops and intelligence people that were a tremendous help. I've heard that personally.

The biggest hero of those battles, General Dostum, I met with again just last month. That was over in Afghanistan. They're our allies. For those that say you Republicans are a bunch of xenophobes or Islamaphobes, these are Muslim friends. They buried family and friends while Americans were burying family and friends because they had fought together. They initially defeated the Taliban, and they did it very effectively. Then we began to add troops by the tens of thousands, and we became occupiers in Afghanistan. We began to pour billions and billions and billions of dollars into Afghanistan. Then Pakistan began supporting the Taliban, and they continue to support the Taliban and we're continuing to support Pakistan.

Another good thing today was amendments that said, Hey, Pakistan, if you're going to keep funding our enemies and helping our enemies, we're not going to keep giving you any funds. That was another good measure that got bipartisan support today. That was a good measure.

But as long as we've got troops--I don't think President Obama has handled this very well in Afghanistan. I think he's gotten some bad advice. I think President Bush got some bad advice. But as long as we have troops on foreign soil, we should never again do what was done to our military in Vietnam, yank their feet out from under them and leave our allies to be killed.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana, also a cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Landry.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 40 seconds to another cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do have the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. Chair, the issue here is, do you want to fix the possible problems with the Authorization for Use of Military Force back in 2001 when all of the cosponsors were not even here and possibly the NDAA? Or do you want to extend new rights that are not constitutionally required? Because those of us that have sponsored this amendment want to fix the possible problem of inappropriate detention. That's why this amendment was offered.

I take a particular affront because I do not question the motivation of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash). We've stood alone on too many bills together. I know their intent is good.

This is not a smokescreen. This is intended to fix a problem. In the underlying bill that came before the floor, it has a fix for habeas corpus in paragraph A. I added the provision that gets us to where we were before the AUMF. That's what I wanted to fix, not as a smokescreen. But what this does is say, if you had these constitutional rights before the AUMF, you've still got them now. And nothing in the AUMF, nothing in the former NDAA, nothing in the new NDAA can change that. You have those rights.

I understand we don't have CARE supporting this amendment as they do the following proposed amendment. But listen, what this would do if the subsequent amendment wins instead of this one, you are giving rights to people illegally in this country, for example, to people who are foreign terrorists, who sneak their way in here and kill people, rights that immigrants who are undocumented don't have.

People say, Gee, we have a right to an article III court. This Congress has the right to never create an article III court. No one in America has the right to an article III court. This Congress has a right under article I, section 8 to create or not create inferior courts.

I'm glad we created them. I would say we should if we didn't. But the right is to go back to where we were before the AUMF. That's what this amendment does, and we appreciate the support of Heritage and The Wall Street Journal in saying that the subsequent amendment is not the way to go, extending additional rights. Let's fix the problem, and this amendment does that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We hear repeatedly people say persons are entitled to their constitutional rights, and, yes, they are.

When I was in the Army for 4 years, I was entitled to constitutional rights, but I had no right to freedom of speech. I had no right to freedom of assembly. There were a lot of people in the military that would rather not assemble at 5 a.m. in the morning, but you don't have that constitutional right.

The same way with immigrants. Immigrants do not have all of the rights under the Constitution that others do.

What we're saying is that people who are terrorists and kill Americans on American soil should not have more rights than an immigrant who is here peaceably but that is subject to the laws and subject to detention without going to an article III court. There are constitutional rights, yes, but not everyone under the Constitution has the same rights. Ask somebody in the military.

So I implore my colleagues, please do not give foreign terrorists on our soil more rights than our own military has under the Constitution.

I appreciate my friend yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's such an honor to pay tribute to such a great man as Chuck Colson. I first read about Chuck Colson, of course, after the Watergate event occurred and all of the events surrounding it. And then I was in law school when I read his book, ``Born Again.'' It sounded like this was a brilliant man who really and truly had had a conversion experience. Life had been materially changed. Then, again, there are those who as a judge I saw that would get in trouble and grab a Bible and say, I'm changed, so go easy on me. Things like that. But this really appeared quite genuine with Chuck Colson. And I knew, as the Bible teaches, we'll be known by our fruits. What incredible fruits this man produced. Amazing.

So over the years I stayed in touch. He didn't know me personally during those years, but I listened to cassettes of his sermons, his lectures. That tells you how far back it goes--they were cassettes. Then I listened to CDs of him speaking and his lectures and sermons, and I would read his books. Thank God he was so prolific that he was moved to write such extraordinary books.

In fact, I came to realize with this kind of brilliance--and others have pointed this out, but it struck me back in the eighties--this is a modern-day Apostle Paul. He has that kind of intellect, that kind of ability. And yet he's able to discuss anything with anybody on any level. But his life is a living, breathing, walking testimonial.

I love the quote that Steven Curtis Chapman used in Chuck Colson's own voice in ``Heaven and the Real World,'' where you hear Chuck's voice say these things. Chuck said:

I meet millions who tell me that they feel demoralized by

the decay around us. Where is the hope? The hope that each of

us has is not in who governs us or what laws are passed or

what great things we do as a Nation. Our hope is in the power

of God working through the hearts of people. And that's where

our hope is in this country. That's where our hope is in

life.

As he pointed out on more than one occasion, our hope--the Kingdom of God--will not arrive on Air Force One. And any hope of that happening is just misplaced.

Well, I have a brother about 8 years younger, now a Baptist pastor near Richmond, and Bill had acquired Chuck Colson's new novel called ``Gideon's Torch.'' And as a man who had worked in the White House, to have him write a novel which, as you read it breathlessly, you realize these things could easily happen, every one of them, just as he spells out. It was an incredible book.

When I met Chuck Colson, I asked him, Are you going to write any other novels? That was just a fantastic novel. And he said, My publisher tells me people are not buying my fiction. They want my nonfiction. And I want God to use me however he can use me. If it's more productive, more helpful to people to write nonfiction, I'll write nonfiction.

He also said writing ``Gideon's Torch,'' a novel, was far more difficult than writing the nonfiction, which he does. I'm not sure that it's still in print, but I would hope that after his passing there would be a resurgence of requests and people would get that book and greatly grow and benefit from it.

I just wanted to share a couple of things from his book ``God and Government.'' He came to the Hill to provide this to many of us. As my friends here know, one of the benefits of being in Congress--and there are plenty of things that aren't benefits--but one of the benefits is getting to become friends with people you have as heroes. And Chuck Colson was one of my heroes. He was someone I truly looked up

to and I benefited from. And even before he knew me, he was a mentor.

At page 69 he says:

Whether or not God's existence can be proved, the evidence

can be rationally probed and weighed. (Author C.S.) Lewis

does so compellingly, and he cites moral law as a key piece

of evidence. Clearly it is not man who has perpetuated the

precepts and values that have survived through centuries and

across cultures. Indeed, he has done his best to destroy

them. The nature of the law restrains man, and thus its very

survival presupposes a stronger force behind it--God.

Or consider the most readily observable physical evidence,

the nature of the universe. One cannot look at the stars,

planets, and galaxies, millions of light years away, all

fixed in perfect harmony, without asking who orders them.

For centuries it was accepted that God was behind the

universe because otherwise ``the origin and purpose of life

would be inexplicable.'' This traditional supposition was

unchallenged until the 18th century's Age of Reason, when

Enlightenment thinkers announced with relief that the origins

of the universe were now scientifically explainable.

But in the past few decades, science has completely

reversed itself on the question of the origin of the

universe. After maintaining for centuries the physical

universe is eternal and therefore needs no creator, science

today has uncovered dramatic new evidence that the universe

did have an ultimate origin, that it began at a finite time

in the past--just as the Bible teaches.

Chuck Colson will be missed. But thank God and thank Chuck Colson that he has left us so much in the way of wisdom that we can draw from in the days ahead. We will be remembering his family and all of those who loved and miss Chuck in our prayers.

With that, I appreciate being yielded to on behalf of Chuck Colson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are really blessed here in the Capitol with some of the greatest people that work around here and touch the lives of so many. So many come from around the country to admire our great national Capitol, and the people that work around here touch them one way or another.

Albert Caswell is one of those great folks. It seems every day we see him with wounded warriors, in addition to his regular duties as a tour guide. He's taken them through the Capitol, doing poems for them, having them signed by Members of Congress, getting them entered in the Record, getting them to individual warriors. He just does great work, so I'm quite pleased my friend Steve King read that into the Record.

The truth is, freedom is not free, and we're surrounded by people who have given a great deal--given limbs, given so much. I was standing by a Gold Star mom in Texas this past week, and I really wasn't sure who gave the most. Her son gave everything--gave his life. But his mother gave her son.

We're told by Jesus, Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

This Nation has experienced so much love by people who have laid down their lives for their country, but at the same time millions of parents have given their children proper teaching to love the things that make this country the greatest country in the world. Instill those values in their children for them to be willing to show the greatest love that anyone can have.

I do know, from being so close to parents who have given their children, that that is an unfathomable love. To care about your country and its freedoms so much that you're willing to risk a child's life for the good of others, and ultimately give that child for the good of the country.

It is so terribly difficult.

So we have people on foreign soil who are risking their lives; some have given their lives for this country. We have law enforcement. We have intelligence agents, agents from all parts of State, local, and Federal Government who put their lives at risk every day so we can enjoy the freedoms we have. We owe them not to be stupid about the way we carry out the government's business and the way in which we protect the citizens of this country, the people in this country, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Now, we have some very noble patriots that serve at the various levels of our Federal entities that are charged with keeping us safe. Having visited with Secretary Panetta, who called me a few weeks ago, having had multiple conversations with Director Mueller as Director of the FBI, so many others in our Federal law enforcement, our Federal intelligence, justice, we have a great lot of noble people. But here again, we cannot be foolish about the way we go about protecting America.

There are people who have been at war with the United States since 1979. President Carter hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace as he came back from exile and for the first time in so many years gave a foothold for radical terrorizing Islam to have a country in Iran. Americans soon found out the price of bad judgment in international affairs.

Not too long thereafter, there was an attack against the American Embassy in Tehran. I know at Fort Benning, Georgia, where I was, a lot of folks were put on alert that it may be necessary for us to go and defend this Nation because an attack against a country's embassy is an attack against that country. It is an act of war. So there was an act of war committed in Iran in 1979, and our response was so benign that it is still being used as a recruiting tool by radical Islamists today to show how Americans are not very smart, they don't have the stomach for a strong fight so we can still prevail.

We had a benign response in 1983 after the attack on our marines and lost around 300 precious marine lives in Beirut. The response was to pull them out without a fight.

So many times we've been attacked in the last 30 years, acts of war, and we failed to recognize what they were until 2001 when most of America woke up at that point, that there are people who want to destroy America. When bin Laden wrote that they had spent around $500,000 to train those people and to carry out the mission of crashing planes into American buildings to destroy buildings and to kill thousands of Americans--apparently they were hoping for more, in the range of 50,000 or so to be killed in the Twin Towers. But as bin Laden has pointed out, an investment, from their standpoint, the way they saw it, of around $500,000 cost America trillions and trillions of dollars. And even before he was taken out,

it was clear to him that they helped put America on track to be bankrupt. From his standpoint, that was a tremendous investment. Invest $500,000 in an act of war and cost your enemy not only thousands of lives but trillions of dollars, not only in damage but in the money spent to try to secure the Nation.

That's why it is so important that we be smarter about the way our money is spent, that we utilize a little bit more discernment, a little more wisdom in the way that we take on those who are bent on our destruction. They are still there. And the Taliban's strength, as both Senator Feinstein and Representative Rogers, the two chairs from the Senate and House, respectively, of our Intelligence, our Homeland Security--I guess, Intelligence--they understand and they believe the Taliban is stronger now than it was before. It is growing in strength. We have not been very wise about the way we took on an enemy that wants to take this country down.

Now, there are some who have been a little oversensitive, and it seems that some who are our Muslim friends who have been more defensive about any questions about radical Islam than they have been about condemning the radicals that have hijacked their religion. And it would be helpful for those of us who know there are moderate Muslims who just want to live in peace, to have their help in condemning radical Islam instead of condemning those of us who stand up against and condemn radical Islam.

America, one of our great traits is we don't want to really offend people around the world. There have been some ugly Americans over the years who give us a bad name, but all in all, Americans are loving, caring, forgiving people. And the only nation in the history of the world that has ever sent treasure in the form of money and our greatest assets, our individuals, to fight and die on behalf of people in another nation over which we want no control, we want no territory, we just want freedom to reign in the world so we can live in peace and help extend that freedom to others around the world.

That's why, over the years, as stories have unfolded about high- handed leaders in other countries who say, We want Americans out; we don't like you. And the response has come in some situations, Do you want us to remove all of the dead bodies of Americans who gave their lives so you could have the freedom to tell us where to go and what to do?

Americans have had a place in history like no other nation.

Ironically, as one general recently said in conversation, virtually every deployment he has had into harm's way, he has been sent there by the United States on behalf of Muslims who were being mistreated by others, including Christians. So, for some of us it gets a little discouraging that our Muslim friends who want to live in peace will not take notice of the fact that this country has stood up against tyranny, against moderate Muslims around the world, and we continue to do that.

We are doing that in Afghanistan and we get no credit for that. Instead, we get condemned because we want to protect what we have, and we get so caught up in political correctness that we're afraid to call things as they are.

Now, I mentioned before, but that line in the ``Patton'' movie may or may not have actually been said. But it is a fact for military strategists, as Patton looked over the carnage from a battle in which his tanks took on the tanks of that incredible German Field Marshal Rommel, and reportedly Patton said something like, paraphrasing, Rommel, you glorious, childless son--or apparently, son--I read your book.

Going through military science, we were taught that if you want to be able to fight effectively on behalf of your country, you have to know your enemy. We would prefer we have no enemies. As Christians--those of us who are--we're taught to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus, himself, said, when he was asked by a lawyer, What's the most important commandment? He said, Love God. The second is like it, Love your neighbor. And on those two things, those two laws, hang all the law and the prophets.

The full face of Moses depicted above the door in the center back in the gallery is there because he was considered perhaps the greatest lawgiver of all time. Of all the lawgivers who have side profiles, Moses has the one full face. And if you were to outline the Ten Commandments that Moses was used to provide, you could outline them under two headings: number one, love God; number two, love each other. They all fall under those two commands.

Since we have a very rich Judeo-Christian heritage here in America, for at least the first 130, 140 years of our country's history people have been proud to constantly quote the Bible here on the House floor as the ultimate authority for reasoning behind good legislation. As one goes right out those doors, straight down the halls a matter of feet, you come to Statuary Hall. It is the place where the House of Representatives met for most of the 1800s. And except for after the fire in 1814 that the British set, a fire which was put out by what insurance policies would call an act of God, a deluging rain that put out the fire, preserved this Capitol's shell so that it didn't implode and become a bunch of ruins, right down the hall in Statuary Hall-- formerly, the House of Representatives--for most of the 1800s, it was a place of nondenominational Christian worship services.

I hope one day we'll have a plaque down there so that the 15,000 or so people a day that come through can read and understand that the man, Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase ``separation of church and State''--not in the Constitution, as most Americans apparently believe, but in a letter to the Danbury Baptists about why, really, we shouldn't have an official denomination of the Christian religion--Jefferson attended church virtually every Sunday he was in Washington just down the hall. They had nondenominational Christian worship services.

So it is amazing the lack of education that has occurred in recent generations so that you can have one of the cable channels--is it BSNBC or something like that? They reported that in the past week there was some kind of a prayer service in Statuary Hall by a bunch of right- wingers, when what was actually done was not nearly as stout in Christian nature as what Thomas Jefferson used to do as President when he attended church down there, and the Speaker's podium was used as the pulpit each Sunday for most of the 1800s.

Most people credit Madison with having more to do with the Constitution than anyone else of our Founders. Madison also attended church, a nondenominational Christian church, in Statuary Hall--back then, the House of Representatives--and he found no affront to the Constitution to attend church in the U.S. Capitol. For much of the 1800s, the largest Christian church in the Nation's capital was here at the Capitol in the House of Representatives where they attended church each Sunday.

The Congressional Research Service did some research on material that we provided to see what they believed was documented and what wasn't. They said Jefferson normally came down Pennsylvania Avenue on horseback by himself. One story is of Jefferson coming down Pennsylvania Avenue with a big Bible under his arm, and one of the citizens said, Mr. President, where are you going? Well, it was Sunday morning, and he said, I'm going to church up in the Capitol. He said, Sir, you don't believe everything those Christians do up there. And he said, Sir, I am the highest elected magistrate in this country. It is imperative that I set the proper example.

So he came to church, and he did not find attending church down in the House of Representatives as offending the notion that he dreamed up of a separation of church and State--his words.

He's also the person that coined the phrase having a ``wall of separation'' that the Supreme Court has many, many years later misconstrued because they didn't know their history, weren't properly taught. But Jefferson did not find it an affront to his concept of separation of church and State to bring the United States Marine Band into the Capitol to play Christian hymns for the Christian worship services.

So what to some cable channel may have been this strange, weird thing

that happened because they have not been properly educated, to Thomas Jefferson, to James Madison was just a matter of propriety and course. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with bringing the Marine Band to play hymns in the House of Representatives for a nondenominational church Christian worship service, because it was nondenominational. They weren't putting emphasis on any particular denomination.

When Randolph, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, saw that things were falling apart and heard this inspirational speech by Benjamin Franklin, how Franklin, in his words--we have his words because he wrote them down in his own handwriting--said:

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

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

the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the

ground without His notice, is it possible an empire could

rise without His aid?

Franklin went on to say:

We've been assured, sir, in the sacred writing that, unless

the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

Some of us were taught he was a deist, but in his own words, in his own handwriting, the speech that he gave to the other members at the Constitutional Convention, he urged them by saying, Firmly believe this. He said:

I also firmly believe without His concurring help, we shall

succeed in our political building no better than the builders

of Babel.

We'll be confounded by our local partial interests and we,

ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages.

Well, Randolph, his proposal, after Franklin, was we basically have had so much disagreement, such a spirit of anger in here, I move that we all go to church. Here we are, the end of June, we're about to celebrate the country's anniversary. I move that we all go to church together, and all of us--the irony of this, all of us, as part of the Constitutional Convention, that are going to give this Nation the Constitution that will one day cause the Supreme Court to say we don't think that you can constitutionally do what the Founders and the writers of the Constitution did, he said, we all ought to go to church together in celebration of the anniversary and then come back and pick this up.

One wrote that there was a new spirit. They all went to the Reformed Calvinistic Church. They all went to the same church. They all heard the same sermon. And it evoked a spirit of unity and collaboration, that although there were differences, they were able to come together thereafter and give us the Constitution.

So it's part of our heritage. And as part of our heritage, we welcome people from all faiths, or no faiths. But just because you don't have a faith, don't come in and tell us we can't have and enjoy what the Founders provided and assured in the First Amendment that we could have.

Don't try to mis-educate any more Supreme Court Justices, so that although they're brilliant of intellect, they're ignorant of our history and what the Constitution means so they do not really understand the freedoms that we were provided and that there is a prohibition against our practicing our religion.

Some have twisted those words, the language, our Constitution, and political correctness to the point that it is exposing us to unnecessary danger. And although these people that we have in authority here in this town mean well, and they all want to see the country do well and thrive, we can't be stupid about the way we go around helping protect the country.

So, we have people in America that are more concerned with political correctness and more concerned that someone does not get offended while we are fighting for our Nation's life, fighting for the Nation's existence against powers that want to destroy us. They're concerned we might offend somebody, we might offend those who want to kill and destroy us, and, what's worse, we might offend someone who is a moderate and practices under the name of the same religion of those who want to destroy us.

And just like Patton was pointing out, you can't defend yourself unless you know the enemy that wants to destroy you.

9/12 was a day like I've not experienced in my lifetime. We were scared. Americans across the country came together. We prayed. We didn't care about political correctness. Courthouse squares around the country, we grabbed hands. We did in Tyler, Texas. They did all around the country, people holding hands and singing hymns, singing ``Amazing Grace,'' singing ``God Bless America,'' people praying for God's protection once again, just like Ben Franklin told us we would have to have or we would succeed no better than the builders of Babel.

We came together, and for that day, and for a time thereafter, there was no such thing as a hyphenated American. There was no Euro-American, there was no African-American, no Asian-American, Native-American. There were Americans here in America, and we were concerned about having a future for us and our children and, hopefully, their children and their children. And we were smart for a short time, and in a bipartisan way, this Chamber came together.

I was on the bench at the time as a judge. I was qualifying a jury panel when the Twin Towers were hit. Nobody was concerned about hyphenated Americans because we were Americans. And what this Chamber did, in coming together with the Senate and saying, You know what? Let's study where we went wrong. And a bipartisan commission was put together to study, in complete candor, what had gone wrong. How did the worst attack against America on its own soil occur without us realizing what was coming?

We had the 9/11 Commission report that came out of that, and the 9/11 Commission report used words like ``enemy'' 39 times, ``jihad'' 126 times, ``Muslim'' 145 times because those who wanted to destroy us and tried used that term about themselves. That's who they said they were before the attack. They used terms in the report 32 two times like ``Islam'' because those who attacked us in the worst attack in our history on our soil used that term about themselves.

And I am very sorry for our moderate Islamic friends who want to live in peace with all Americans because they're Americans. And I'm sorry if people are offended that those who hated us so much they would bring down the World Trade Centers, try to wipe out the Pentagon, try to wipe out what some say is the most recognized building in the world, this Capitol, I'm sorry if they're offended that those people call themselves Muslim. They call themselves Islamists.

``Muslim Brotherhood'' was mentioned five times in the 9/11 Commission report because it was important. There was an interwoven nature to what was going on in the attack. They used ``religious,'' that word, 65 times. They mentioned ``Hamas'' four times. They mentioned ``Hezbollah'' two times. They mentioned ``al Qaeda'' 36 times. They mentioned ``caliph'' seven times. They mentioned ``shari'a'' twice.

But apparently we have leaders who mean well, I know that, who think they're protecting America, who are more concerned about not offending people who don't want to hurt us than they are about just speaking truth. And how can you deal with an enemy unless you're willing to recognize them in truth?

So now, because in the very recent months, the FBI counterterrorism lexicon, this effort by our FBI that's going on in the Justice Department, it's going on in the Intelligence Department, it's going on in the State Department, it's going on in the White House, itself-- they're leading the charge--we don't want to offend anyone.

So no longer is an FBI agent who is new, someone who may barely remember what occurred on 9/11, allowed to be taught what the enemy who attacked us said about themselves. They're not allowed to be taught what they said motivated our enemy. How can you deal with your enemy? How can you take them on and win that fight and come out victorious unless you recognize what motivates them? Because, when you know what motivates them, you can predict more likely what they will do next.

That's why there are novelists in America who do a better job of projecting where we will be hit next than

our own government intelligence agencies, other than our own government FBI. It's why some noticed that there was a soldier on al Jazeera who was saying exactly what Major Hasan had said: in essence about how, with his being a Muslim, if he were sent to a Muslim country where he might accidentally kill another Muslim for one of the unrecognized allowances to kill another Muslim, then they would have to act up and kill Americans to avoid having to risk going to a Muslim country and killing a Muslim.

The guy is saying basically the same things Hasan did before he killed 13 of our precious servicemembers in an act that in our political correctness this administration now refers to as ``workplace violence.''

I came to know and love some Pearl Harbor survivors. They had no idea that what they experienced at Pearl Harbor, according to the thinking of this administration, was an act of workplace violence, where someone came into the workplace of all of these civilians and all of these soldiers and sailors and marines in Pearl Harbor and killed them in their workplace. They didn't understand that because that's not what it was--nor was it workplace violence at Fort Hood. It was an act of war against our military.

I am grateful we have Members of the House and Senate who had the foresight to file a bill to make sure that they should have Purple Hearts, because it was not workplace violence. They died for their country. They died for freedom. They laid down their lives, which they knew were at risk from the moment they took the oath, which is just like all of us who have been in the service have taken.

Political correctness must be set aside so that we can speak candidly and truthfully. So, if there really is nothing to fear from the radical Islamists who have hijacked the name of a religion away from the mass moderate Muslims, it is time for more than just three or four or a handful of moderate Muslims to step forward and help us in calling it what it is.

Now, I recognize that, for any Muslim to step forward and condemn another Muslim, it is a very, very risky proposition. It's far more risky for them to do that than for a considered infidel like me to step up and condemn radical jihadist Islamists, because I'm already an infidel in their eyes; but moderates know that if they speak out publicly they could be targeted for turning on their own religion. Among the radicals--crazies--who are trying to highjack the religion, they get angrier at a moderate Muslim than they do at an infidel for speaking against another Muslim. So it is very risky for a moderate to step up and join those of us who want to recognize accurately what our enemy is.

But, in the name of political correctness, not only have we cleansed our National Intelligence Strategy, which is becoming a misnomer--how can you have intelligence if you're not allowed to recognize your enemy for what your enemy calls himself?--our FBI counterterrorism lexicon, how it has been cleansed of the terms that those at war with us call themselves.

It is important that we learn from our mistakes because, if we refuse to learn from our mistakes, we're going to keep making them. Most people have been taught the old adage: ``Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.'' We should not have to experience another major attack on our own soil and the loss of thousands of American lives before we have another heartbreaking day like September 12 of 2001 on which we come together, embrace, and say we're not hyphenated Americans--we're Americans. We are one people, and we will stand together. We shouldn't have to have more Americans killed as they were on 9/11 to bring us together like that.

But I beg, Mr. Speaker, of my colleagues: Let's help educate our Federal Government that it's okay to call people ``radical Islamists'' if they have called themselves that and that it's okay to describe people in our FBI counterterrorism lexicon and in our intelligence materials what the terrorists, themselves, call themselves. It's okay, and we won't be mad at each other when we do that.

What happens when we try to become too politically correct is that we have things like the FBI and a wonderful Director who, I believe, unintentionally has hurt the FBI by his 5-year up-or-out policy, which we now know has cost us thousands and thousands and thousands of years of experience by running off our more experienced FBI agents in favor of agents in charge, who may go from having 26 years of experience to having 5 or 6 years of experience, who may not even have been out of college at the time of 9/11 and who are now in charge as the most experienced people we have in our offices around the country. That has hurt us.

At the same time, for example, in June of 2002, our FBI Director took fire for giving a speech to the American Muslim Council, which the Director's spokesman described as ``the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.'' But, at the time of the speech in 2002, the head of the American Muslim Council was a man named al-Amoudi, who was videotaped in October of 2000 delivering a speech just yards away from the White House, proclaiming:

I have been labeled by the media in New York as being a

supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish

they'd added that I'm also a supporter of Hezbollah.

That was also the same year, 2002, that the AMC, the American Muslim Council, board adviser and former acting president, Jamil al-Amin, was arrested for murdering a Georgia police officer. Al-Amoudi was arrested in 2003 in a Libyan assassination plot targeting the Saudi Crown Prince, and was later identified by the U.S. Treasury as one of al Qaeda's top fund-raisers in the United States.

At the time of our FBI Director's speech in 2002, al-Amoudi had been under investigation by the FBI for almost a decade for funneling money between Osama bin Laden and the ``Blind Sheikh.''

In October of 2003, just days before the ceremony honoring a Detroit Muslim leader, Imad Hamad, and bestowing on him the FBI Director's award for exceptional public service, the FBI had to contact Hamad and tell him he wasn't going to receive the reward.

The FBI initially claimed they had decided to give the award to a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks, but later an FBI spokesman revealed that unflattering information about Hamad had been made public during the deportation proceedings for one of his close associates. In fact, the INS fought for two decades to deport Hamad for his suspected support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organization by this government. That information came to light not due to any checking or vetting by the FBI, but thanks to an article published by the New York Post.

It brings me back to the point about a young soldier after the 13 military members were killed at Fort Hood by Major Hasan who was on al- Jazeera saying the same things Hasan did before he went to kill. We had people that actually noticed that, but it would have been politically incorrect to do anything about it. You know, they say those things. If it had not been for a gun dealer in Texas who found this young private suspicious, if it had not been for that gun dealer calling in local authorities and alerting them, we would have had another Fort Hood shooting and lost other precious members of our military. They were saved not because of the intelligence community, the FBI counterterrorism, or the Homeland Security countering violent extremism, because we don't want to use the term jihad or Islamic jihad. So it's countering violent extremists. No, none of those picked it up. There were people who noticed and reported it, but nothing was done because it might be politically incorrect. They risked the lives of our precious military in political correctness. If not for the work of a gun dealer in Texas and local law enforcement jumping right on top of it, we could have lost military members.

Here are some other examples. Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian had meetings and conversations with high-ranking officials at the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department despite being the subject of FISA wiretap warnings since the early 1990s and having his home raided in 1995. He was still having meetings at the DOJ, Homeland Security, and having access to our government's inner sanctum. As part of a plea agreement, al-Arian admitted to being

a part of the leadership structure of the terrorist group, and they were meeting with him.

In 2008, our FBI director handed one of his Director's Community Leadership Awards to Imam Yahya Hendi, who had testified during al- Arian's trial as a defense witness. Hendi had served as a moderator during a 2000 fundraiser for the Benevolence International Foundation, which was shut down in November 2002 by the U.S. Government and designated a terrorist organization for its support of al Qaeda and a number of other Islamic terrorist groups.

An FBI agent testified during the Holy Land Foundation trial that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas, and the FBI was publicly forced to sever its ties with CAIR. They had all this information, and yet they continued to, as their own information says, partner with CAIR, though CAIR--they knew we had evidence--was partnering with terrorists.

In September of 2010, known Hamas cleric, Mustapha, who was a part of a 6-week FBI Citizen's Academy, was treated to guided tours at the top- secret National Counterterrorism Center, FBI headquarters, and the FBI Academy at Quantico. Mustapha's participation in the FBI program came after he was personally named a coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and after his appointment as a Muslim chaplain to the Illinois State Police had been revoked. Illinois had already figured out what he was and what he believed before he was given tours of our top-secret National Counterterrorism Center.

Time magazine featured a profile of Mohamed Majid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society--or they call themselves ADAMS for short. I'm sure John Adams appreciates that. He is the current president of the Islamic Society of North America, which also was a named coconspirator to fund terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the record and said there is plenty of evidence here to support their being named specifically as supporters of terrorism.

But in November 2005, Majid was awarded by the FBI for the imam's cooperation in the war on terror, claiming, ``Majid regularly tips off the Bureau.'' But in a letter to the ADAMS center community the very next day, Majid told his mosque Members he did no such thing. Majid made clear that he never reported on anyone in the Muslim community and that his relationship with the FBI was one-sided, and the outreach meetings, ``are solely to create avenues to work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights.'' Majid has met with top DOJ officials urging the criminalization of criticism of Islam. It's okay to burn a Bible; it's okay to criticize Christianity and Judaism; and police allowed people to scream and cuss obscenities about God during a prayer at a Tea Party, but it's not okay to be critical of these people.

It's time to wake up. It's time to set political correctness aside. And Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this letter, signed by 22,000 Americans begging us to end political correctness that risks our liberty, be made a matter of the Record.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 11, 2012, at 11 a.m.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the wonderful work our chair has done to work with the ranking member on this issue.

It is critical that the world know how united this Congress is behind our ally Israel. It's a maxim in history, it's a truth that when a nation's enemies see their strongest ally turning against them, that is when their enemies move against that nation.

We saw a couple of years ago when this administration voted with Israel's enemies to require that Israel disclose certain of its weapons. It was shortly after that that a flotilla challenged the blockade at the Gaza Strip. That's how it works. When a nation's enemies see an ally that may be turning against a nation, they move against that nation.

This is what is so important, that we show the world that when it comes to this issue, we may bicker back and forth about all kinds of things, but when it comes to support for Israel--the analogy could be applicable here, that it is a miner's canary. When Israel is under attack, it's a potential attack on all of the rest of those who love liberty as well.

I agree with Mr. Hoyer, our friend from Maryland, when he says that Israel's enemies need to know that when it comes to support for Israel, we have solidarity and complete support for our friend. Israel's enemies need to know that, and the world needs to know that. And I'm very grateful for leadership on both sides for making that clear to the world and to Israel's enemies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have an article that is dated today, Monday, May 7, 2012, from the Associated Press, Congress's Intelligence Heads: Taliban Has Grown Stronger under Obama.

Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, who I just saw outside, a smart guy, former FBI agent, well respected in the areas of law enforcement and the security of this country, well, as the article points out, and there are other articles as well, I believe Human Events also had one, but this article from the AP says:

The leaders of congressional intelligence committees said

Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger

since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to

Afghanistan in 2010.

The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D Calif.,

and Rep. Mike Rogers, R Mich., challenges Obama's own

assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the ``tide

had turned'' and that ``we broke the Taliban's momentum.''

The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the

region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

``President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come

back. I'm not so sure,'' Feinstein said. ``The Taliban has a

shadow system of governors in many provinces.''

When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded

since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago,

Feinstein said: ``I think we'd both say that what we've found

is that the Taliban is stronger.''

I was in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago. I was in Afghanistan a couple months before that. And as one of the Afghans pointed out, former ally--well, they are still allies, as far as they are concerned. This administration has thrown them under the bus--but they pointed out, you know, from the Taliban's perspective, they have said we, the Taliban, do not have to win a single battle. All we have to do is be here when the United States leaves.

Now, a couple of weeks ago, of course, the administration, two Cabinet members, were requesting that my dear friend, Dana Rohrabacher, not go into Afghanistan for one reason--that President Hamid Karzai didn't want him to come in. Now, apparently, Karzai, ignorant of what is actually going on in Washington, had said that my friend, Congressman Rohrabacher, proposed a bill that would partition or divide up Afghanistan. Well, I worked with Congressman Rohrabacher on his very good bill, and basically it is a sense of Congress that says we support the Afghans' right to vote for their leaders.

Now, I understand Secretary Clinton inherited a State Department and a situation in Afghanistan that was not of her making. I get that. And, in fact, we sat by and even assisted as Afghanistan created a constitution based on sharia law that has now resulted in the last public Christian church closing. It's a system where the President gets to appoint governors, mayors, chiefs of police, many of the higher- level teachers, slate of legislators. He gets powerful control over so much of the purse strings. So it was amazing to see the President over kind of doing what appeared to be a victory lap around Afghanistan and back home: gee, the Taliban's back is broken, things are looking good, and we now have an agreement going forward with Afghanistan. Great news.

Well, when you find out from Afghans that actually the Afghanistan Government has a $12.5 billion budget and all the sources of revenue that Afghanistan can come up with provide $1.5 billion of their $12.5 billion budget, and the rest comes from other countries, you would presume largely from the United States, and when one considers the billions of dollars that we are spending for humanitarian projects, training farmers to farm as I've met with the teachers, American teachers teaching Afghans to farm, and they were so depressed because the billions we've spent, given basically to Afghanistan to create farming projects so the people can maintain themselves when we're gone, have not made its way to any of those projects in that region of the country. There is one region where apparently some has made it to projects, but certainly not all and probably not most of them.

So it would seem if you're the President of the United States and you go to a country whose government has a $12.5 billion budget and they can only come up with $1.5 billion of that and you're the big force behind all of the other $11 billion, it would seem to me that there shouldn't be a whole lot of negotiation that has to take place.

What kind of person does not understand leverage? The President accepted, of course, because it appears that the foreign policy that we've run into from President Obama's administration is we've got people around the world that hate us, want to destroy us, so we're going to give them money. We're going to buy them an office in Qatar, as we've offered the Taliban. We're going to be releasing their murdering thugs that we've got in detention, and then maybe they will like us enough to agree with us. That sounds like somebody that spent too much time community organizing and not enough time studying history. That's no way to negotiate.

If one wishes to approach an individual, and like in my situation, being a Christian, we're supposed to help the needy--``blessed are the meek.'' The Beatitudes are quite compelling.

The government has a different role. The government is to protect the people. As Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, be afraid, because the government does not bear the sword in vain. The government's role is to protect people so individually they can live the kind of life that so much of our heritage embraces. The government is supposed to protect the people; it's supposed to punish evil, and it actually is supposed to encourage good.

We've gotten so far off track. Back in the sixties, well-intentioned, we began paying young women to have children out of wedlock, born out of the best of intentions--deadbeat dads were not helping, so let's help them out. Instead, what they did is lure young women away from a high school education, in many cases--I've had many of them come before my court--and lure them into a rut they couldn't get out of.

We have senior citizens on Social Security whose religious beliefs embrace marriage as being the ultimate living situation between a man and a woman. Yet they have guilt because they know they can't live on what little they have, and they know that if they marry another person that they're living with--I've heard from folks like this--that lives on Social Security as well, then their Social Security will be reduced if they get married, so they live together.

The President's own proposal, although he's been out saying he was going after millionaires and billionaires, when you look at the specific proposals--which he finally put in print so we can see in print what he really believes--as he continues to say we're going after millionaires and billionaires, the Buffett tax, that kind of thing, you look at the specific proposal and he goes after everybody making more than $125,000 a year if you're married, $250,000 if you're filing jointly. If you're single, it can be $200,000 to $225,000. So, once again, the President wants to promote living together rather than being married, as evidenced by what he provides money for.

Now, we know that we've been told by this administration repeatedly, look, if we just show the Taliban how good a people we are and how good our motivation is, then they'll fall into line. I've said and will keep saying: You don't have to pay people to hate you; they'll do it for free. We are wasting billions. We have wasted trillions of dollars over all these many years. So this administration continues to try to buy the affection of the Taliban.

Let's see. This article was from CNN, and they reiterate:

The heads of the Senate and House intelligence Committees

Sunday said the Taliban was gaining ground.

The President added, the administration was in direct

discussion with the Taliban, saying the group can be a part

of the country's future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce

violence, and abide by Afghan laws.

We saw that same kind of effort by this administration. There was a Taliban leader who was released with the consent of this administration basically because it was the humanitarian thing to do, to let him go die in peace. Well, he was released from detention. As the Afghans, who have buried family and friends while fighting with American troops against the Taliban initially--before this administration threw them under the bus--they've said, hey, that Taliban leader that you released, the U.S. authorized the release because he was going to go die and this would be the humanitarian thing to do, guess what? He is back in Afghanistan, and he was on Afghanistan's biggest television station. He said three things. Two of them were that it is very clear to the world that the United States has lost, and that's why the United States--as everyone in the world knows who's paying attention--the United States is begging the Taliban to come just sit down and negotiate with us. Please, we know you murdered thousands of Americans. We get that. That's okay. Just sit down with us. We'll keep releasing your murdering thugs if you will just agree to sit down with us and talk. Why, we'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar so you will have international prestige to spread whatever goodwill you wish to spread. Well, that would be known, Mr. Speaker--if the President would pay attention--that would be known as radical jihad. That is what they wish to spread.

Here's a news report today from foxnews.com from Kabul:

The U.S. has been secretly releasing captured Taliban

fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to

strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group,

the Washington Post reported Monday.

Who in the world who has ever studied history comes around and says we're releasing the murdering thuggish war criminals to strengthen our own end? We're letting our enemy have their murdering thugs back to strengthen our hand. Perhaps a community organizer would think that.

The article says:

The strategic release program of higher-level detainees is

designed to give the U.S. a bargaining chip in some areas of

Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise

control. Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must

promise to give up violence and are threatened with further

punishment, but there is nothing to stop them from resuming

attacks against Afghan and American troops.

``Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done

and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these

are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,'' a U.S.

official told the Post.

In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama

confirmed that the U.S. was pursuing peace talks with the

Taliban.

You know, there was once a policy in this country that we did not negotiate with terrorists, but that's the old days. This administration's policy is, not only do we negotiate with terrorists, we give them stuff.

What do you want? Do you want more of your murdering thugs released so maybe they can kill more of our Afghan allies or more American troops? Eighteen hundred, is that enough? Do you want to kill more? We hope you won't; but if you'll just say, we won't kill if you'll let us go, then we'll let you go.

It reminds me of the naivete of Secretary Madeleine Albright and President Bill Clinton who, in essence, told North Korea, look, we will give you everything you need to make nuclear weapons if you'll promise us that you will only use it to make nuclear power.

Really? North Korea basically said, really? All we have to do--you know we're liars. You've caught us in lies repeatedly. But all we have to do is tell

you we'll never use it for nukes, and you'll give us all this stuff? Well, sure, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you've caught us in so many lies? What's one more?

So, guess who has nuclear weapons now that we worry about? The same people the Clinton administration gave nuclear materials and information, simply on the promise that they wouldn't use it to make nuclear weapons.

What a lovely world it would be.

Back to the article from Fox News:

We have made it clear that they, the Taliban, can be a part

of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce

violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the

Taliban, from foot soldiers to leaders, have indicated an

interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before

them, Obama said.

The upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago, the U.S. coalition

will set a goal for Afghan forces to take the lead in combat

operations across the country next year.

Look, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that all of us should want peace. All of us, I know in this body, want peace. But just as we've seen signs around this Capitol since I've been in Congress saying war never brought peace, there is a naivete of some people who think if you apply individual blessedness, turn the other cheek, those kinds of things, from a government standpoint, that other governments controlled by terrorists, war criminals, mad men, that they will respond to that, when the truth is that's an individual approach.

The Nation's government must be about providing for the common defense, number one, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We should be doing that. And that means when there are murdering thugs in the world who have sworn to do everything they can to destroy the United States of America, we have to take them seriously and take them out, if necessary. We have that obligation to the people we were sent here to protect.

When I took an oath to the United States Army, it was the same kind of oath. We were supposed to serve and protect. And best of intentions, good will does not defeat terrorists who have made clear they will not stop until they're dead and, they think, in paradise, or we are dead and our government gone.

Now, we know that the term Islamophobia, Islamophobe have come from-- been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Conference as a way to further their goals. Anybody stands up to point out that there are radical Islamist jihadists who want to destroy everyone who does not believe as they do--we know that those people were behind 9/11, killing 3,000, over 3,000, innocent people, and that the only regret that those individuals had was that more people were not killed. They'd hoped that perhaps 50,000 55,000 would have been killed in the two World Trade Centers.

You can't, as the United States Government, just turn the other cheek when there are people coming into this country illegally wanting to destroy us. They're not just people coming for jobs anymore. There's the OTM, as they're classified.

So some of us who will call radical Islamic jihad what it is, a policy of a minority, a small minority of Muslims, they want to call some of us Islamophobes. Islamophobes. Give me a break.

Two weeks ago I was in Afghanistan. Karzai didn't want our friend, Dana Rohrabacher, to go in. Dana, ever the patriot, he was persuaded by Secretary Clinton not to push the issue because talks were in such delicate shape at the time.

Delicate shape? We pull out, don't give any more money, and Karzai collapses. He'll either be out of the country with money he's stowed away, or he'll be subjugated by the Taliban if we pull out and don't provide any assistance. And we have to go begging him for talks? Excuse me? Delicate talks?

We know that President Karzai is Pashtun. He can deal with the Taliban. It appears he's dealing with them somewhat like Maliki is dealing with the Iranians who want to take over Iraq, caving, as necessary, to keep his position.

There are ways to execute foreign policy that don't cost thousands of American lives, that don't have to exist on the good intentions of people who are sworn to murder and destroy us.

The enemy of our enemy is our friend. And that was seen, once again, a couple of weeks ago in Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher had hoped to be at the meeting with our Northern Alliance friends. Most of them are part of the National Front now. I would hope that one of them would be elected President of Afghanistan.

My friend, Massoud, his older brother, might have been the one person to unite the country; but the day before 9/11 the Taliban knew that, so they assassinated him. Massoud's father-in-law, Rabbani, was assassinated last September.

General Dostum, many consider the great hero of late 2001, early 2002, when the Northern Alliance tribes defeated the Taliban on horseback, fearless warriors. And this administration thanks them by publicly calling them war criminals. These were our allies. These are the enemy of our enemy.

Yes, Muslim. No Islamophobe here, because I recognize the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Those people fought with us and for us. There is something very strong in the bond--or should be--between the people of the United States who fought, buried family or loved ones, and those in the Northern Alliance who fought with us and who buried family or loved ones, friends. There is a bond there. But instead of embracing that bond and utilizing that bond, those who fought for us and with us, who did most of the fighting when the Taliban was initially defeated, have been thrown under the bus.

So when they were gathering on Sunday 2 weeks ago and when they wanted to meet with someone, three Members of Congress went. At first, we were told, Well, gee, there's just not enough security to get you there.

Then I pointed out to the person coordinating the security for our five Members of Congress, Sir, do you see that gate out there at the embassy? You're going to have to take me down before I get out the gate.

He said, Sir, we're not authorized to take down a Member of Congress.

I said, Well, then, you will not stop me. I'm going to see our friends. Massoud, who is the head of security, has assured me they're going to have bulletproof vehicles to pick us up, and I'm going with them.

Amazingly, thirty-or-so minutes after our next meeting, we had American security taking us to the meeting. We were quite safe there. They made sure of that. They didn't want anything to happen to their American visitors.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Michael Burgess, we would have had to have taken an additional vehicle had more than three Members gone. So John Carter, being the gentleman, said, Mike Burgess, why don't you go. Mike Burgess and Michele Bachmann and I went to see our friends--Mohaqiq and numerous other leaders of the National Front.

Now, it's interesting. They pointed out--and you've probably heard-- about Karzai saying, Gee, he believes so much in our Constitution--and the Constitution says, if you serve two terms, you can't run for a third term--that he may resign a year early. He said, Your people, your leaders in America seem to be eating that up.

The truth is that the people who are advising Karzai are all trying to figure out--How can we get around that prohibition from running for a third term?--and they think they may have it. They think that, if he resigns a year early and if somebody else takes over Afghanistan for a year, with or without an election, then he could say, Gee, I never served two terms. I didn't make it two terms. I resigned before the second term was up, so now I can run for a third term. Gee, the U.S. is going to have troops out by 2014. Therefore, I could run in 2014. The U.S. will not be around with any strength to enforce such an agreement of my not running. And, gee, what if the people really want me to run?

We know there has been corruption in those votes over there, but the system that's set up in Afghanistan is a system that creates conduits for fraud. We could strengthen Afghanistan if we would simply allow the people to elect their regional-provincial governors, elect their mayors, let them pick their own chiefs of police, not the President

Karzai cronies. That's a system that's fraught with the kind of danger you found, fraud you found in the old Roman Empire, where they would appoint a governor of a region, but of course you had to kick back to the one who appointed you. That's the kind of system they have right now in Afghanistan.

In talking, there are some who say, Well, there are some supplies of the Taliban's coming through northern Pakistan; but most people are saying, We think the Taliban is getting most of their supplies through southern Balochistan. The Baloch have been terrorized for decades by northern Pakistan. Before 1947 48, when lines seemed to be arbitrarily drawn in creating countries, Balochistan had never been a part of Pakistan. For decades now, it has. The people have been terrorized.

After Congressmen Rohrabacher and Steve King also met with Baloch leaders, the idea struck me: since these Baloch leaders are tired of being terrorized by northern Pakistan, by the leaders in Islamabad, they could be quite self-sufficient in having natural resources, which is much of what the nation would need to survive on its own; and they're our friends. There may be a lot of Muslims. This non- Islamophobe knows that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. We can support them. We can help each other. So that's why Congressman Rohrabacher and I proposed a bill that would support the creation of an independent Balochistan. As one person in the region over there said, Wow, if Balochistan were independent, that would change everything.

Now, I know this President is not gifted on foreign policy--I get that--but it doesn't mean he can't learn. Then you look at Pakistan. While this administration is trying to play footsie with Pakistan and while they're trying to play footsie with China, who was it they let in to see our stealth helicopter? China. Who was it that they harbored in their country--the greatest enemy, public enemy number one, of the United States--and kept there, supposedly, for years? This administration wants to placate them, how they can, just like it's trying to do with the Taliban and our other leaders. Maybe we can buy them off. Maybe we can do something to show them how sweet and kind we are.

Those types of people see that as weakness. It's like blood to a shark. They're drawn to it, and they will devour us if we don't show strength rather than weakness.

So an independent Balochistan gave me an interesting idea. Congressman Rohrabacher and I had done an op-ed that was published, and it was my conviction that we stick in there a line about the potential for an independent Balochistan. Interestingly, after that was published, there was an article published in the Pakistan Daily News. I thought I had a copy of it here. I must not. Oh, here it is. It was published back in January. It says this in the article in the Pakistan Daily Times:

In another interesting development, Louie Gohmert, a U.S.

Republican Representative, proposed that, in order to beat

the Taliban, the U.S. should carve out a new, friendly state,

Balochistan, from within Pakistan, to stabilize Afghanistan's

western border.

The article goes on:

Even if Mr. Gohmert does not necessarily speak for

Washington, it is logical to assume that he made this

observation after picking up the buzz in American political

circles. The U.S. wants a consulate in Quetta, but so far,

Pakistan has resisted this request. The geo-strategic

location of Balochistan and its potential in minerals, gas

and oil is something that interests the world's sole

superpower.

So says the Pakistan Daily Times.

They say the Baloch resistance movement is one of the few, if not the only one, that has not been declared a terrorist movement by the U.S. The U.S.'s soft attitude towards this resistance movement does not necessarily mean that they are enamored of the complaints and aspirations of the Baloch, but that the Americans have their own vested interest there. They may now want to snip away at the roots of the Pakistan military's dual policy in the war on terror by a flanking move in Balochistan.

The Pakistan Daily Times says:

Before this loud thinking is embraced as policy by

Washington, for our own territorial integrity, we should do

away with our double game in the war on terror and

politically settle Balochistan's issues. By helping the

Afghan Taliban and other jihadi groups, we have only weakened

our own country. It is time that the military realizes this

folly. Indiscriminate killing of the Baloch by the military

and its intelligence agencies cannot and must not be

tolerated. The political leadership must talk to the Baloch

resistance. Only through negotiations and a dialogue can the

Balochistan issue be settled peacefully.

The enemy of our enemy should be our friend. That is why when Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess, and I got to the home of my friend Massoud, with all these other National Front leaders there waiting, and I got out of the vehicle, they knew my heart. They know we are friends who have the same enemies. And there was embracing all around because it truly was good to see them, to see them alive, and to see them in their own country in Massoud's own home. They fought with us, they fought for us, and they bore the brunt of the battle against the Taliban in late 2001 and early 2002 when they were routed initially. We added over 100,000 troops, got over 100,000 under this President, and things are not going as well as they were when the Northern Alliance was fighting them with simply a matter of hundreds of Americans embedded with air support. It's not going as well as it was then.

Occupiers in Afghanistan--Russia for example. Going clear back to Alexander the Great, we know he died leaving that area, that things didn't go as well as he might have hoped. They've learned that occupiers don't do all that well in Afghanistan. Empower the enemy of your enemy. Don't try to buy off your enemy that is sworn to destroy you. Empower the enemy of your enemy.

I mentioned earlier about the Taliban leader that we released who is now back with the Taliban. I mentioned one of the three things he said. He said, It's apparent to everybody that the U.S. has lost because they're begging us to come negotiate. Another thing he pointed out, which is consistent with sharia law, is that anyone who has not been supportive of the Taliban in the past needs to first come to the Taliban--and under Karzai they've been able to be more public, and they have a public presence. He says, Come to us, ask for forgiveness, ask for our protection, and you may be spared. From my understanding of sharia law, you can avoid being killed under sharia law if you come ask forgiveness and ask for protection in just such a way as this Taliban leader--fresh from his U.S. reprieve--is out there saying.

And again, the Taliban position is, we probably can't defeat the U.S. in a single battle. We don't have to--we've just got to be here when you leave. And the heartbreaking aspect of that, for those of us who have attended too many funerals of Americans who have paid the full measure of devotion, is that if we leave and we leave a situation where the Taliban is empowered again, other Americans will have to come down the road in the future and fight the Taliban, and more American lives will be lost. It's not necessary.

Had President Carter realized in 1979, when he welcomed the Ayatollah Khomeini back into Iran as a man of peace, had President Carter realized that Americans would be dying in America to protect America because radical Islam had then been given a country in which to be nourished, you would hope he would not have taken the same steps and would not be as bitter toward so many as he is today after his failed presidency.

Perhaps even President Reagan--with the best of intentions--if he had realized that we were in a war, but only one side knew we were at war, when our precious Marines were killed in an explosion in Beirut, perhaps we wouldn't have run out so quickly. But for Heaven's sake, as American buildings, embassies, individuals were attacked--and in 1993, the first attempt on the World Trade Center, another act of war, was a signal letting us know that since 1979 these people had been at war with us. There was the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, further acts of war. We've been at war; we just didn't know we were. Then we come to 9/ 11, and we're totally shocked, totally unprepared because we did not realize there was a war going on. We just didn't know we were in a war.

Now this administration seeks to go back to September 10, and it is cleansing its training materials of any reference to Islamic jihad. It is bringing in noncitizens. It is bringing in Members of the Muslim Brotherhood to advise it. It is bringing in officers of named coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial supporting terrorism. It's bringing in people who have ties supporting terrorism. It's bringing them in to dictate our policy toward radical Islam. What have they said? The first thing you've got to do is eliminate any reference to Islam, any reference to jihad. So this administration, from the Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, intelligence agencies, has been very compliant. That is ongoing. As one intelligence official said, we're blinding ourselves from the ability to see our enemy.

What's going on these days will be the subject of historic articles that will continue for centuries to ask how this Nation could be so naive and/or stupid that we would be at war and not know it for 30-plus years, and that in the fight of such a war, we would bring in people who support our enemies' actions to tell us how to fight the war. There will be articles and history books that will repeat the question: How could they not see what they were doing was going to bring either an end to America or devastation to America, one or the other?

Well, we know that in the news this week, we have such people down in Guantanamo, the 9/11 detainees, as they're referred to. I have got a couple of articles here. The New York Times is talking about the detainees showing defiance, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other detainees: ``9/11 mastermind, four cohorts to be arraigned.'' That was last week. ``Mohammed Joined By Four Codefendants in Deferring Pleas,'' a couple of days ago. There's another article: ``Outrage as 9/11 Defense Counsel Insists Women Cover Themselves.'' What happened to the freedom the people in our military are fighting for? Amazing. ``Lawyer Defending 9/11 Suspects Wearing Burqa in Court `Out of Respect.' ''

Well, there is a great article--and it certainly wasn't recent--that points out that these detainees are ready to plead guilty. They're ready to come in and plead guilty. And this is a New York Times article: ``Five Charged in 9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty.'' Most people had not seen that title. All they've been hearing about is how they're disrupting the pleadings. This trial could go on for years and years. They're making a mockery out of it. And the reason people haven't seen the title of this article, ``Five Charged in 9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty,'' by the New York Times is because it was published December 8 and 9 of 2008. In 2008, these detainees indicated they were willing to plead guilty.

These detainees--particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--had been through a lengthy questioning by the judge. He had spelled out his role in different things, not only in the 9/11 plot but his role in other terrorist acts. He had filed a 6-page pleading where he sets out that, if we have terrorized you, then praise be to Allah. He said, in essence, in that pleading, if you are Jewish or American, you deserve to die; you are an infidel. And he prayed that Allah would help them to continue to terrorize America.

But a sad thing happened on the way between those guilty pleas in late 2008 and here, going on 4 years later. Virtually nothing has been accomplished. In fact, we are further back from where we were in December of 2008 because we had the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy--of, Gee, we're going to give you the chance--this isn't what they said. But anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear could understand that what the Taliban, what al Qaeda, what radical Islamic jihadists would hear is, We're going to give you a show trial. Why would you want to plead guilty?

So these guys, as of December '08 said, Whoa, this guy Eric Holder-- hey, he's represented terrorists. He will identify with us. The President, the community organizer he is, he's going to help us. So they're going to give us a way that we can have a show trial. In fact, the Attorney General wants to give us that show trial in downtown New York. Wow. Allah be praised. We're going to get to go back to the scene of the crime and create all that chaos and all the heartache for the people of Manhattan.

Well, Congress, fortunately, said, that's not going to happen. They are going to be tried at Guantanamo. But the damage had been done by the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy to give them a show trial-- had taken hold. It had developed the imaginations of the 9/11 plotters and planners. So now we're having a show trial. This time in Guantanamo. Fortunately, not in the middle of where so much grief and anguish took place in New York City.

Some had said at the time, Hey, this is New York City. You are an outsider. You have no business saying anything about what we do in New York City. This was an act of war against our country. The whole country suffered together and came together as one on 9/12/2001. It does pertain to the whole country.

As our friend Representative Weiner from New York chastised me, he said, We all want to see them put to death in New York, and you have no right to say otherwise. Well, having been a judge and chief justice, I know those kinds of statements would be exhibit A or B of any motion to transfer venue, that they can't possibly get a fair trial. They were not well reasoned comments.

So here we are, going on 4 years later. Justice has not been done. A travesty has been done to all the families of the victims of 9/11. They can forgive. They can turn the other cheek. But as a government, our role is different. We are to provide for the common defense. We are to punish evil. We are to encourage good. And that means, any nation in the world who has a government that wants to declare war on us, then be advised: Many of us don't believe--like in Iran, we don't believe we should go to war with Iran, but we'll take out the government that wants to go to war with us. Obviously this administration feels like we can buy time and has even given hints that they think they can live with a nuclear Iran. Well, a lot of people would not live with a nuclear Iran. A lot of people would die because of a nuclear Iran. It does not need to be allowed to happen.

One other comment, though. There is a great article today out about one of the banes of my existence, and that was TARP. George W. Bush is a great man. He got a bad rap, was accused of lying when he did no such thing. He didn't bother to defend himself when truckloads of yellow cake uranium were taken out of Iraq, feeling that history would judge him fairly. But he trusted a pitiful Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, and we had something called TARP.

There is a great article in Human Events from today. ``Inspector General report ends myth that TARP 'turned a profit.''' And David Harsanyi goes on and points out very clearly that the money hasn't been paid back, as promised. Some of it has been paid back by other giveaways and gifts and loans by the Federal Government. And the government, printing money to pay debt and then having interest on the new money they've printed, is somehow making a profit. When the truth is, as the article points out:

It's tricky to track $700 billion of emergency funding that

was haphazardly dropped into the economy by a panic-stricken

government, when accounting for the Fannie Mae and Freddie

Mac bailout, the American taxpayer is probably owed somewhere

in the neighborhood of $237.7 billion--

But we were told it's all been paid back. Yeah, right.

--though some estimates are far higher. And it will be more.

The Treasury Department says that a large part of the money

lost via TARP is the result of the housing and car bailouts,

also not paid back. When the next Fannie and Freddie rescue

comes--as a number of reports have indicated will be needed--

taxpayers will be on the hook.

Most of the banks that were ``too big to fail'' when TARP

was implemented are now even bigger. The report to Congress

points out that a recent working paper from Federal Reserve

economists ``confirms that TARP encouraged high-risk behavior

by insulating the risk takers from the consequences of

failure.''

That's why you never set aside free-market principles to save the free market. If you have to do that, the free market is not worth saving. But it was

worth saving and there were free-market principles that could have been followed to get us out of that mess to avoid encouraging further risk taking.

And I would commend, Mr. Speaker, people to Mike Franc's work at the Heritage Foundation that disclosed that despite the rhetoric of the President, how he's going after fat cats on Wall Street, the Wall Street executives and their immediate family donated to President Obama four-to-one over Senator McCain. And they've done extremely well under this President. It's almost as if there is a deal: Look, I'll call you ``fat cats,'' I'll call you all kinds of names--millionaires, billionaires--I'll trash you, but you'll make more money than ever and then I'll put taxes on those that make over $125,000, and then I'll say I'm going after major oil, Big Oil, and probably nobody will read the bills.

I read it. I read the President's own words. He's going after independent oil companies. He's eliminating their deductions, not the major oil. He's not going to hurt major oil, from what he's proposed, but he'll put the independents out of business. The majors will make more money than ever because 95 percent of all wells drilled in the continental U.S. are drilled by independent oil and gas producers. So he says he's going after major oil, but they'll make more money than ever if he gets his way.

One other thing: This is an election year, and my colleague from Texas was really going after Texas over the voter ID. I would point out to my friend from Texas, and any others, Mr. Speaker, that the fact is that bill in Texas says, if you can't afford a State ID card, we'll give you one. There are people that volunteer to even get you there to get it done. Let's avoid fraudulent elections further.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to be able to speak here in the House of Representatives.

It has been a good day because here in the House, despite what some may think, we voted overwhelmingly to

leave student loan rates at the same rate they are right now, 3.4 percent. If the government had had to subsidize a rate, if interest rates were higher, that would be more difficult to justify because of how much overspending this administration has had as dictated during the time when Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid had full control over all of the spending.

But while the President was very busy running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about student loan rates and the plight of students, we were busy here at work making sure that student loan rates did not increase. While the President was out there telling students that Republicans don't care about you, that they're going to double the interest rates of your student loans, he didn't bother to come check and find out what was happening in Washington. If he had, he would have found out we felt the same way about the student loans.

Let's see which Democrats were as concerned as we were today about the student loan rates going up. This was bill H.R. 4628, and it's basically two pages, not 25 pages or 2,800 pages. It is two pages, and it keeps the rates at the same rate so they won't go up.

One of our clerks just brought the printout of the Democrats that voted with the Republicans to extend the current interest rates, and there were 13 Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the interest rates where they are. All that's on the printout are the last names: Barrow, Bishop of New York, Boren from Oklahoma, Donnelly, Higgins, Hochul, Kissell, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Peterson, and Walz.

Those are the Democrats that voted today with the Republicans to keep the student loan interest rates the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's my great hope that while the President is running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about the plight of students who have to pay student loans and about the fact that he says Republicans are going to double the student interest rate, I hope that somebody who's not out campaigning--like the President, as he flies around at government expense--I hope somebody down Pennsylvania Avenue, right down the street that way, will get something into the President's teleprompter that advises him, Hey, you may want to back off of that.

The Republicans, with only 13 Democrats voting with them, actually voted to extend the same interest rates. Now, I feel like the Democrats would agree with the fact that we believe that in order to keep from having expenses continue to go out of sight, as they did during the 2 years that Congress was completely controlled by Democrats and they had the White House, they did whatever they want, they passed a rule, pay- as-you-go.

Actually, I broke ranks and voted with them. Others told me they don't really mean this pay-as-you-go thing. Yes, they're going to pass it, but they don't mean it. I go, But I do believe in pay-as-you-go. I do believe things should be paid for.

I found out from those who had been here longer than I had that they were right in their cynicism, because over and over big bills that our friends across the aisle brought when they were in control of things, they would make an exception. So this bill and that bill and this bill and that bill weren't paid for, so the pay-as-you-go didn't mean much.

But some of us believe that when we create a law we ought to either abide by the law or change it. This needed to be covered. In looking for ways to come up with funds to cover these current interest rates, some of us were reminded of the fact that ObamaCare, that most of the country didn't want--most of the country begged Congress, under Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid, not to pass--and that Americans, even in Massachusetts and other places normally controlled by Democrats, expressed their will by electing Democrats, this time elected Republicans so they could stop ObamaCare. It took a procedural twist that was quite unseemly in order to get it passed, but the American people didn't want it.

I realize that since President Obama sees ObamaCare as his defining issue, his biggest issue, that he would not ever sign a bill that repealed ObamaCare in its entirety. I can get that. I understand that. I respect that. But it seemed to some of us that surely, as the President in every speech talks about being financially responsible, surely he would see that we shouldn't spend the $105 billion implementing ObamaCare until we find out if it's constitutional; because to use $105 billion to implement a bill, actually a takeover of people's rights, to implement that only to have it struck down would mean we had wasted tens of billions of dollars. My thought was, surely--surely--President Obama would be willing to meet us at that point. Sure, he won't agree to a complete repeal, but let's just suspend the spending until we find out whether the Supreme Court says it's constitutional or not. How could you be against that?

Well, he was, because as the bill was shoved down the throats of Americans, it became very evident that they didn't care what Americans thought, don't really care what the Supreme Court thinks. Apparently, many don't even know what the Supreme Court thinks or says because the President, himself, said it would just be such a fundamental change from what the Supreme Court had ever done before.

Obviously, he was not aware of recent cases like Marbury v. Madison. I think that was around 1803. Not all schools have copies of those newer cases like that.

Anyway, it's not fundamentally different from what the Supreme Court has done in the past. What's fundamentally different is to have a Congress push through a bill like ObamaCare that's about one thing, the ``GRE,'' the government running everything, with a majority, a big majority of Americans saying, Please, don't do this. So it was done.

In looking for ways to pay for this bill today, it seemed to many of us that a good and appropriate course would be to say let's take some of that money, a tiny, tiny bit of that money from ObamaCare that many of us think will be struck down, that shouldn't be spent till we find out if it's going to be struck down, and let's use that to pay for the $6 billion for this program. It made sense to some of us.

But as I have already read, there were 13 Democrats that stood up and said, Okay, we can go along with that. Let's wait and see if ObamaCare is struck down or not before we spend any more of that money on ObamaCare. In the meantime, we will use it to pay for the student loan rates that we're out there blasting Republicans for not caring about.

This was a way to be bipartisan, and 13 Democrats were bipartisan, and we appreciate them reaching across the aisle to pass this bill with us with a big majority. The President, on the other hand, apparently did get word that despite all his rhetoric that we don't care about the student loan rates on our side of the aisle, we don't care about students, as he runs around the country condemning us, somebody at the White House got word, because there was the issue of a veto threat if we passed this bill that keeps student interest rates where they are.

Now, when I first heard that we were going to potentially pass a student loan bill that would affect interest rates, I considered that I may have to vote ``present'' because my wife and I have student loans for our children that we are paying back. Well, it turns out this bill will not help me one bit. My interest rates are still way above this.

My wife and I took out student loans for our children. They're way above this. This doesn't affect our loans that we have, and, therefore, I was able to vote for this bill to help those students that are getting loans in the present.

The reason I feel compelled, my wife and I felt compelled to start taking out student loans and to take responsibility for paying those loans, was because, before I ever ran for office as a judge, my wife and I had set aside money in accounts that would pay for our kids' college when they got there, would increase in value, increase in value. By the time they got ready for college, the money would be there to pay for it.

But when we took, we believed it was, a calling for me to run for judge--they badly needed a new judge--we knew it would be a big hit financially. Just as when I ran for Congress, we had to really feel compelled that this was the course for our lives.

Once we felt that, we cashed out every asset except our home, our retirement accounts, everything. Now, a little scarier to some than others, I knew I could make a lot more money because I did before. I made a number of times more in the private sector a couple years before I started running. The practice was going good. I didn't want my children to have to be encumbered with massive college debt for one reason, because I felt called to be a public servant. So we've taken on those student loans.

So it doesn't go over too well with a person like me who has sacrificed all our assets except our home to come be a part of Congress and to try to get things on track. It doesn't make me feel too pleasant when people say that I don't care about students, student loans and their rates. We get it. We understand. We want students to do well. But more than that, we want them to have a vibrant economy and a job waiting for them when they get out of college.

And it should be an exciting time of renaissance and economic boon in America, except for this President. If he would simply get out of the way. We have found that we can be energy independent, and we don't have to send billions and billions of dollars, 42 cents out of every dollar of which we're borrowing, we don't have to send all that money to the Solyndras and all the cronies of this administration, if he could just get out of the way and allow the market to work and collect the revenue that comes pouring in from the income tax, from the businesses, including the oil companies and the independent oil and gas companies as they start producing more of our own energy.

It should be a new day in America. It should be a time of renaissance here. Instead, people are struggling to figure out how much food can I afford for my family when I'm paying $70 and $80 to fill up my gas tank when it shouldn't be more than $40, because this administration has given every indication by its actions--not its words but by its actions--that it will do nothing to help us become energy independent.

We talk about, gee, natural gas, from this administration, natural gas can really help out. I'm for all of the above. Well, apparently that means the President is for all of the above up in the sky somewhere because he's doing everything he can to keep us from drilling and producing the energy we've got.

We should be thanking God every day for blessing this country with more energy than any country in the world. And people like the Chinese are wondering: What is going on with these people? They've got more energy than anybody in the world. We're having to run to South America, Africa, and other places to buy their energy because we just don't have enough. They've got all they'll need, but they're putting it off-limits and won't produce it.

It's kind of strange to thinking people that we're not utilizing the blessings that are found in this country. Well, it's time we started, and if we do that, then the students will have jobs, and they can pay them back more quickly. We do care, and this bill today shows that.

Now, I want to take up another topic right quickly here, something called the United States Post Office. Now, there are some who think we ought to just get the government out of the post office business altogether, and normally I'm a guy that believes, if a private entity can do a better job than the government, then let's let the private entity do it. But there's a problem here, and it's called the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have power to-- and you go through the listed empowerments--establish post offices and post roads.

If you go through our history, you will find out that actually they were quite concerned about the King being able to prevent them from sending newspapers, news and messages around that could inform people of what was really going on. They thought it was so important that there be a government post office, and I do think. But we can't be stupid about the way it's running, and we have people in management positions in the United States Post Office who have been worse than stupid. Incompetent doesn't begin to touch what some in management of the U.S. Post Office have been doing. It's as if they want to kill it off.

Now, there are a lot of issues, but I think the biggest issue is in the middle and upper management of the post office. Because I've seen, on more than one occasion, an announcement by the United States Post Office that we are going to close this post office, we're going to close this facility, and that was followed with a statement that, and therefore we are going to pay for an independent study to show that we should close these facilities.

Well, duh. If you go pay somebody to do a study to justify the decision you've already made, you've got no business being in a management position because you're not using the facts and information at hand to make your decisions. You make your decisions willy-nilly regardless of what the facts dictate should occur.

We got a good indication of that recently in east Texas. We got a map sent out by these brilliant managers of the U.S. Post Office explaining a decision they had made.

I'm going to get this up here because it's important that the management that sent this out understands how silly and how ridiculously incompetent they are.

Now, they were making a decision with regard to a postal processing facility near Tyler, Texas. Tyler, Texas is located in Smith County. Now, in Texas, though, we do have a Tyler County, and in Tyler County you find towns like Woodville, Chester, and Warren, places like that; but you don't find Tyler, Texas, or the Tyler, Texas, processing facility in Tyler County. It's in Smith County. Yet we had a determination by the management of the U.S. Post Office that it would be more effective to shut down the Tyler processing facility, and they sent out this map to show this.

This is an exact enlargement of the map the U.S. postal management sent out to justify their closing a processing facility near Tyler, Texas. In the center of this circle is Tyler County. It's not near Tyler, Texas. It's not near the processing facility.

Now, you might say, well, surely they went out and talked to the people at the processing facility, looked to see if there were decisions that could made to make it more efficient and more economically viable, those kinds of things, and the answer would clearly be: How can they go out and talk to them when they don't even know where Tyler, Texas is? They think it's in Tyler County.

We've got some morons. Maybe they're just incompetent. Who knows?

But when we look to see, okay, how is the post office adjusting, we figure, well, as any business would know, you don't want to hurt the retail business and you don't want to make it more difficult for people to use the retail end of your business. That would be the local post offices. So what have these mental giants done? They've said, We're going to close lots of post offices and make it much more difficult for you to use our services.

Not only that, we're going to close processing facilities that make the mail move many times more quickly, more efficiently, and save tremendous amounts of gasoline because we do the processing close to where it occurs. They're talking about closing a processing facility in Lufkin, Texas--I'm sure they don't know where that one is either. But when you look at what they've done, it makes no sense.

Now, this is the map they sent out with Tyler County as the center. This tells you, down here is Tyler County; up here is Tyler, Texas. They're not even close. They don't cover the same areas. And yet they were using information down here about Tyler County to justify closing a facility up here. Surely, they found their error, but they don't care because they're in middle management. What difference does it make? They're not accountable. They don't have to show a profit. They don't have to show efficiency.

So what do they do? Here's part of what's going on with the post office. Well, times are tough, so let's create more senior management staff. How about that. Percent management change from 1997 to 2012, up 41.25 percent. Wow, that's some smart folks. Gee, we need more retail, we need people using our services more; let's close

retail facilities, make it more difficult to use them. Let's get more senior management in there, and gee, that will make a lot of difference. We've gone up 1,006 percent on inspector generals, and local management losses have been rather dramatic. That's not the way to become more efficient.

Not only that, they could take a clue from what America is doing. It used to be that you pulled into a service station and you got service. Now you pull into a service station, the only service is what you get out of the car and do yourself. I prefer to do that anyway. I've worked in service stations, and I actually enjoyed it. So I don't want anybody else pumping my gas. When I finish and the thing clicks off, I raise the hose up and I get every bit of the gas that I've got in that hose.

Well, let's look at the routes. Right now, if you mail a letter in Tyler, Texas, to go to Lufkin, Texas, it will travel 84 miles. You mail one from Tyler to Palestine--and it is Palestine in East Texas--total is 47 miles. You mail a letter from Tyler to Longview, it's 38 miles.

Under the new plan--that's certainly not going to save any gasoline-- our brilliant postal management will have you mail a letter from Tyler that's going to Longview, the 38 miles, now it will go to the Dallas area, then over to Shreveport, then back to Longview. We're not going to process it here. We're going to go from 38 miles to 389 miles to deliver a letter.

If you're going to send a letter down here, let's see, I can't tell where that is. It looks like down 35, so maybe that's to Waco or Austin. So you want to send it there--oh, I see. If you want to mail a letter from Tyler to Palestine, instead of 50-something miles, it will go Tyler to Dallas, down here to Austin, then back to Palestine. If you want to mail a letter the short distance to Lufkin, well, we're going to make it go 10 times further. We're going to go to Dallas, and then clear down--I guess that's to Houston, and then back up to Lufkin. We're going to go about 10 times as far to deliver a letter as we did before. This is nuts.

What we've seen in America is, as times got tough, service stations said, you know what, we're going to let you do your own pumping. That will help us save and be more efficient. As time has gone on, they said you know what, let's put other services in this gas station, so you see banks, you see other things. In some post offices, they were beginning to do that. They have agreements with the State. Let's let the State lease or pay us to do some of the State services here. Let's allow them to come in and get passports here. There were some people that were thinking--and thinking right--you combine other services, this post office will be the center of the community. It will be efficient, it will be local, it will bring people to our retail outlet, and they will have more people using our services at the post office.

Not the way these mental giants figure it; oh, no. We're going to close post offices. We're going to close processing facilities and make it cost a tremendous amount more. We're going to make these decisions, and then we're going to go out, and we're going to hire people to do a study to come to a conclusion--we tell them, all in the name of making the post office more efficient. That is nuts.

It's time to clean out the management of the United States Post Office. I've dealt with postal employees all my adult life. Those are hardworking folks. People that deliver the mail, people that stand there behind the counter, take abuse all day, lines getting longer because we're not replacing the people when they leave, they're good people. They're hardworking people. There are some issues with pensions, we can deal with those. But for heaven's sake, it's time to get rid of top-heavy management making ridiculous decisions, and we can improve our lot here.

One other thing. Last night, I was on a telephone town hall with Rusty Humphries and a lot of Tea Party folks. A question was asked-- they slipped in a ringer in there, a Democrat, who said: Gee, you say you're a Christian. How could you vote to take money away from helping seniors with their health care? And how could you help the major oil companies by giving money to them? Quickly let me just say, a subsidy is a gift or grant of money. Look it up. No oil company is getting a gift or grant of money. They're getting deductions.

If you forget what the President said, he said he's going after major oil, declaring war on them. Ridiculous. We have, in the President's jobs bill, exactly what he's doing. He's eliminating the deductions that will bankrupt the independent oil and gas companies in America. It won't affect the major oil companies. He says he's declaring war on the major oil and big evil oil, but the truth is he's going to bankrupt the independent oil and gas producers that produce and drill and maintain 95 percent of the wells in America.

So what will be the effect of this President's so-called ``war'' on major oil? It will put the independents out of business, 95 percent of the wells will not be drilled and maintained. That will mean more profit than any time in the history of the world for the major oil companies. It's time to get that under control.

And to the gentleman that we got cut off with last night because we were out of time, let me just say: Son, dumb, dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 43, 112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Madam Speaker, there's a lot going on in the world these days. I had an interesting trip to Afghanistan this weekend, a country into which we are pouring billions and billions of dollars and have military there that is keeping President Karzai in office.

And he's a very grateful man. That was demonstrated when he told our government, this Obama administration, that Dana Rohrabacher, my very dear friend, one of the greatest patriots I know, would not be allowed into Afghanistan, as if he had that power, because he had been very critical of President Karzai.

So we're spending billions and billions of dollars so that a cantankerous President of Afghanistan, who is only there because of the lives and treasure that Americans have sacrificed, can turn around and tell Americans, we don't want Members of Congress that actually control the purse strings to money flowing into this country, we don't want them here. It was rather interesting.

And as might be expected, President Karzai had his facts entirely wrong. He was representing that Representative Rohrabacher had a bill that was attempting to partition, divide up Afghanistan. Entirely wrong. I knew that because I assisted with the bill and cosponsored it, proudly, because it was a resolution that basically was encouraging Afghanistan to allow elections of their regional governors. It encouraged elections.

Somehow President Karzai found this very offensive, as a threat to him. And I can see it from his standpoint. If one puts one's self in his position, you realize, gee, I'm President Karzai. I get to appoint every regional governor. And gee, that would be a system, like ancient Rome, where you would be appointed to be governor, but you had to kick back to Caesar in order to keep your seat. Interesting.

That is a plan fraught with the potential for corruption. That's one of the reasons that Dana and I, and so many others, think it would be a good idea, help strengthen the country, if the people in the various regions were able to elect their governors.

President Karzai not only appoints the governors, he appoints the mayors. They don't get to elect them. He appoints them. You want to be a mayor of a city, you better go suck up to President Karzai because he's going to make the appointment.

If you would like to be the chief of police, don't worry with some local city council in Afghanistan. Don't worry with the governor. You'll be appointed, that's right, by President Karzai.

We're told by Afghans that actually it goes so much further than that. He even appoints many of the teachers. You want to be a teacher at an upper level? Afghans tell me that he appoints them as well.

President Karzai gets to appoint a slate of potential legislators. He has tremendous control of the purse strings in Afghanistan, not someone to be countered with, you would think, unless perhaps you're from a government that assists the government of Afghanistan in meeting its budget needs.

As I understand it, Afghanistan has a budget of $12.5 billion. As I understand it, Afghanistan provides $1.5 billion of that $12.5 billion budget. That's all the revenue--taxes, fees, all kinds of things. That's the extent of their revenue.

Gee, what would happen to President Karzai if all of a sudden this Congress did what the 1974 Democratic-controlled Congress did when, without any regard for those who had fought with us in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia, every penny was just completely shut off, when every penny being spent in Vietnam back in '74 was cut off? What happened after we left was an absolute horrible bloodbath of those who had assisted the United States in any way.

So I don't think this Congress will be as abrupt as the Democratic Congress was in 1974, but it certainly has the ability to do that. The difference is, I think, there are enough people in this Congress who realize, unless we empower those who fought the Taliban in late 2001, after 9/11, and in early 2002 when they basically routed the Taliban with U.S.-embedded support and air support, unless we empower those allies by allowing them to elect their own regional governors, by allowing them to elect their mayors, taking some of the power away from a central administration where, regardless of whether or not reports may or may not be accurate about corruption at the highest level, then there is certainly corruption in Afghanistan.

It is also interesting that this administration refuses to replace the inspector general, who is supposed to supervise and audit the money that's going into Afghanistan. Surely, that couldn't be because it's an election year. Surely, that couldn't be because, if we had somebody actually monitoring where all of the billions of dollars were pouring into Afghanistan are going, the report would indicate widespread corruption, which would reflect poorly on this

administration, throwing away billions of dollars not only to the Solyndras around the country but to corrupt administrations who are fattening their bank accounts while Americans don't have any.

Many Americans struggle to have any money in their bank accounts, yet we're propping up an administration over there that thinks that, on a whim, they can say, I don't like this Congressman because he has been critical of my administration, so we're going to keep him out.

I realize that Secretary Clinton inherited a very difficult situation that was not of her making, but it is important in dealing with matters of foreign policy and in dealing with matters of State that we not be duped by people who have made careers out of duping Americans and Russians and other nationalities.

So we have a great ally in the nation of Israel. They believe in freedom as we do. They have a truly representative government, one in which the Prime Minister of Israel does not forbid the elections of other officials so that he will be the only one who has the power to appoint. Israel allows elections, and as others have pointed out, they're more likely more free than any of the other neighbors immediately surrounding Israel. Even Muslims in Israel have greater freedom to elect whomever they wish in fair and free elections. We have an ally in Israel.

Now, I realize there are differences in views, whether the Old Testament, the Torah, the Tanakh have valid legitimacy these days. Some of us believe them and are proud to do so just as the Founders did. Heck, of the 56 signers of the Declaration, over a third of them were ordained Christian ministers who believed every word of the Old Testament.

So I've been looking in the Old Testament for wisdom in application to our current situation because we know, back earlier this year, The Washington Post was told by this administration that the window during which Israel was going to likely attack Iran was between two different dates during a certain period. Well, that's not very helpful to an ally when we tell the world about when an ally may choose to defend itself. That's more a heads-up to an enemy of Israel's and the United States, a sworn enemy of the United States, led by people who have sworn to the destruction of the United States and Israel.

So it's a little bit confusing to see how this administration could be going about betraying our friend Israel. It would seem, when this administration leaked to the media that our dear friend and ally Israel was going to utilize the relationship with Azerbaijan to attack, that such a release was not something you would do for a friend but, rather, a betrayal of a friend and ally.

It appears that those were efforts to keep Israel from doing what it needed to do to defend itself when this administration is telling Israel, Hey, just trust us. Trust us. We'll take care of your national security, and yes, there is a window beyond which you could no longer do any good in trying to stop the nuclear proliferation in Iran and beyond which we in the United States could. So, if we can just force Israel past that window, then they would have to rely completely on the United States to do all in its power to protect Israel.

If Israel looks at what has been happening already this year with a couple of betrayals of our friendship, that would not bode well that the top in this administration for this country will protect Israel at whatever cost. That has to be considered by Israel.

Then we have this report. This was dated April 19, 2012, from the Middle East Media Research Institute. The introduction reads:

An important element in the renewal of nuclear negotiations

with Iran in the talks in Istanbul April 13 14, 2012, was an

alleged fatwa attributed to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali

Khamenei, according to which the production, stockpiling, and

use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the

Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

Indeed, U.S. leaders, among them Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton and even U.S. President Barack Obama, along with

other representatives to the talks, the International Atomic

Energy Agency Board of Governors, and even highly respected

research institutes considered the fatwa as an actual fact,

and examined its significance and implications for the

nuclear negotiations with Iran that were renewed in Istanbul.

However, an investigation by the Middle East Media Research

Institute reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever

published, and that media reports about it are nothing more

than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime

apparatuses in an attempt to deceive the top U.S.

administration officials and the others mentioned above.

Iranian regime officials' presentation of facts on nuclear

weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa,

or religious edict, when no such fatwa was issued by him, is

a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously

valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors'

access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the West does not

consider mere statements by Khamenei or other regime

officials to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a

fraudulent fatwa the West would be more inclined to trust.

It goes on to talk about, and I'll just read from this:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clarified that she

had discussed the fatwa with ``experts and religious

scholars,'' and also with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip

Erdogan. At the NATO conference in Norfolk, Virginia, in

early April, she stated: ``The other interesting development

which you may have followed was the repetition by the supreme

leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, that he had issued a fatwa

against nuclear weapons, against weapons of mass destruction.

Prime Minister Erdogan and I discussed this at some length,

and I've discussed with a number of experts and religious

scholars. And if it is indeed a statement of principles and

values, then it is a starting point for being

operationalized, which means that it serves as the entryway

into a negotiation as to how you demonstrate that it is

indeed a sincere, authentic statement of conviction. So we

will test that as well.''

During his visit to Tehran in late March, in an interview

with Iranian state television, Prime Minister Erdogan said,

``I have shared the Leader's [Khamenei's] statement with U.S.

President Barack Obama and told him that in face of this

assertion, I do not have a different position, and the

Iranians are using nuclear energy peacefully.''

On April 7, 2012, Kayhan International reported, citing

Press TV, that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had

told the Turkish Kanal D TV that there is no possibility that

``Khamenei's fatwa forbidding the possession and use of

nuclear weapons might be disobeyed in Iran.''

So we can all celebrate. There's has been a fraudulent false report of a fatwa by Khamenei. So, gosh, nobody in Iran would violate this fatwa making it against the Islamic religion to develop nuclear weapons. When the truth is, if Israel is not going to defend itself by itself, as President Obama said it absolutely must on more than one occasion, if it is going to rely on the representations of this administration to, Trust us, we'll take care of you, we got your back, then Israel may want to note how easy it is to deceive this administration into believing what it wants--that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons.

It is important to note that this administration has been praised in messages coming from the Islamic Society of North America and other groups actually named coconspirators in funding terrorism in the world. They've been praised by these named coconspirators in funding terrorism for their cleansing of training materials of our FBI, of our intelligence, of our State Department. We have gone through and eliminated words like ``jihad,'' words like ``Islam,'' words like ``radical,'' replacing them with things like ``violent extremism.'' When the trouble is, it is so easy to deceive national officials in any country where they refuse to study the enemy who has sworn to destroy them. If you will not study the enemy who is sworn to destroy you and your country, then you will continue to be easily duped.

So we have these named coconspirators for funding terrorism out there praising this administration and their meetings inside the hearts of the administration at the State Department, in the White House, in the Justice Department. They've been praised for eliminating all of these references to such inappropriate things as ``Islam.''

Well, this weekend, despite efforts by some in this administration to prevent it, a few of us met with our allies, members of the national front, one of which could be elected the next President of Afghanistan. These are people who, while we in America were burying Americans, they were burying family members who had fought with us against the Taliban. These are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. They

should be our friends, and they are my friends.

Therefore, when I saw my Muslim friends there at the home of my friend Massoud, there were big hugs all around. This administration calls them war criminals because some of them fight as viciously as the Taliban that they fight against, but they were friends. They fought with us. They did much of our fighting for us before we became occupiers in Afghanistan.

Yet, when this administration throws our allies under a bus, it means for them to stay there. Well, some of us believe that if we ever hope to have other allies, then it is critical that we treat our allies with respect. We don't stab them in the back. We don't throw them under the bus. But that's a lesson hard learned.

There are international reports that say President Karzai may be willing to resign a year early. That's been heard different places around the world. Gee, wow, isn't that wonderful if Karzai would resign a year early. But in meeting with my friends who have talked to some of Karzai's circle, they point out: Do you in America not understand that when this President Karzai says he's looking at retiring a year early, it's not because he is some big-hearted, wonderful, democracy-loving person? If he loved democracy, he'd let us elect our governors. He'd let us elect our mayors. But he wants to appoint them, and he's not ready to give up power. But the Afghan constitution apparently says that if you've served two terms, you cannot run for a third term.

So, this President Karzai is looking at a way, when perhaps if he resigned a year early, then he could argue, I didn't serve two terms. I served 1 year short of two terms, therefore I can run for a third term.

Being as how the President of Afghanistan appoints the governors, the mayors, the chiefs of police, so many of the positions of power in Afghanistan, it's quite conceivable that he could ensure that he got elected again next time if he ran a third time. And if he were to be allowed to run a third time and get elected, that puts him beyond 2014, which means the United States will not be around to enforce the promises that President Karzai made.

Oh, it's a hope and prayer that this administration will quit living on the false promises of people who say they're going to help us, but are sworn publicly and privately to destroy our way of life. And there are those we continue to hear say, Look, Israel is just occupiers. They're occupiers in this land. The Palestinians have more claim. But as Newt Gingrich pointed out, the term ``Palestinian'' is a very recent word that found usage. If you go back, as one reporter did, who ended up being let go, she marveled that these people ought to go back to Poland or wherever they came from, when actually if you look at where they came from 1,600, 1,700 years before Mohammed existed in the city of Hebron, a King named David ruled for 7 years. He then moved the capital up to Jerusalem, and a beautiful capital it was.

Some have said, ``Well, where is the evidence of the Israelis being in Jerusalem?'' Well, we know that Mohammed never went to Jerusalem. He had a dream, as I understand it at one point, that he had gone there; but he never physically went. That's for sure. But here is the current city of Jerusalem. This is the city of David here, south of the Temple Mount, Mount Moriah, where Abraham went. It's interesting, because people have said, gee, where is the archeological evidence? And we see people around the country in Hebron where Jesse was buried, where his tomb is, in what I call Shiloh and they were calling Sheloh. The Ark of the Covenant, they've found the location, it certainly appears, where it was kept for over 300 years, long before there was a Mohammed.

People have said, well, where is the evidence? It is beginning to show up in droves. Quite interesting, as the archeologists have begun to look, they've realized, you know what, the city of David may have been south down the hill from where the current Temple Mount is. They began excavating, and they found all kinds of dramatic evidence of Israel's existence. It's dramatic. There is no question from the things that are being found and the way they're being dated and the dates that are coming to light that Israel existed in the land where it has its country now. Not just in part, but throughout the West Bank. That was Israeli territory many, many centuries before a man named Mohammed lived.

I'm not attempting to push my religious beliefs on anybody else. These are simply the facts of history that we have to look at and understand. Until we have an administration that stops blinding those who are supposed to protect us, we're in big trouble. So it is important that we pay tribute to our dear friend Israel, stop the betrayals, and say thank God for the nation of Israel and the dear friend that they are to the United States.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, April 27, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, these are interesting times we live in, and I've appreciated my friends, my doctor friends. We have got two physicians who would certainly like to help heal America, but we have people in powerful positions in the Senate, as well as the White House, that don't appear to be interested in their prescriptions. I sure am, and I appreciate their observations. Also, they alluded to some of the energy issues before us in the country right now, and that's certainly worth noting.

First, I want to address something that we are hearing that the President, over and over and over, he is spending millions and millions of tax dollars running around the country telling people that the cure to what ails us and the cure to all unfairness is the Buffett rule. We are told that since Buffett may pay a lower percentage than his secretary, Warren Buffett and the President are saying we need to tax the wealthy more.

We found out the President pays, apparently, a lower tax rate than his secretary, 20 percent compared to a higher percentage that his secretary pays, and it leaves some of us baffled. If somebody really feels that it's fairness or a moral issue for Warren Buffett and the President to pay more taxes than their secretaries, then at least have the morality to do it. Don't come to Congress and say we demand you pass laws to force us to do the morally right thing because we're not going to do the morally right thing unless Congress passes a law making me, Warren Buffett, me, President Obama, do the right thing. We can't control ourselves and make ourselves do the morally proper thing, the fair thing, unless Congress passes a law.

Really? Is that what we have come to--that the leader of the free world just down Pennsylvania Avenue has to have Congress pass a law to get him to do what he says is the moral and fair thing to do? Come on. Are we in that bad a shape now?

I have had one of the smarter economists in the country, Art Laffer, Ronald Reagan's economic adviser--what a great guy. Served us good spaghetti and meatballs at his home in Nashville. I personally got to try them out. Wonderful family, delightful family, a brilliant economist.

I have had him explain to me how anybody who says we're going after the rich, we're going to go after the rich, and we're going to make them pay their fair share, is probably not being honest. They're just probably not being honest, because if they think through their proposal, if they will look at current history, if they will look at immediate past history and long past history, what they find is this. If you're a union worker, if you're a mechanic, if you're working on an oil well somewhere, if you're working as a waitress, you're working in a restaurant, you're working in a pharmacy, you're working in any of millions of businesses across America, and you're not rich, you're part of the working middle class, you cannot move if you get taxed a higher amount because you are reliant on that job.

Taxes, no matter what kind of tax you put in place, it's most likely only going to affect those who are in the middle class, no matter what else you do, because only the wealthy are not tied to a restaurant, to a car company, to an auto manufacturer, to an auto repair place, they are not tied to those. They can own them, and they can live in the next State or the next country, but they don't have to actually live at the place of business they're making money from.

When you go after the wealthiest in America and want to make them do the morally fair thing because, without Congress passing a law, these wealthiest among us can't make themselves do the moral and fair thing, according to their own words--Gee, we can't do it unless Congress makes us--what you do is tell the wealthy, we're going to slap a big old tax on you, and the wealthy can say, no thank you. I look stupid, perhaps, but I'm not that stupid. That's how I have either gained or been able to hold on to my wealth. So I'm moving. I'm voting on where I want to live with my feet, and they pick up and they go to where there are less taxes.

We've seen it in the wealthiest moving from country to another country, or island, or buying an island. We have seen that repeatedly. If the government says, gee, well, we'll outsmart the wealthiest among us. They've moved to another country, so we'll figure out a new way to go after the wealthiest. And every time it fails to work.

So after a while you get the idea, wait, let's look historically, every time a city, state, or nation goes after the wealthiest people in the world to make them pay higher taxes, unless the whole world collaborated at the same time to make it happen, they will simply move.

The middle class cannot do that. The middle class does not have that luxury. If you're very wealthy and gas goes to $4 or $5 a gallon, it's an inconvenience and you can't be tied up with trivial details like gas going up $1 a gallon or $2 a gallon or, like it has under this President, go from $1.80-or-so up to $4. And now we're heading toward $5. And in some places I have seen $5--certainly, over $5 for some time this year in some of the premium gasoline lines.

The wealthiest, they're not really bothered. It's an inconvenience. They can choose to live in an estate out in the country. They can choose to live in a town home worth millions in the middle of town, or they can choose to live on an island. They can choose to live anywhere. Because of the Internet, the telephone, Internet meetings, the wealthiest among us can do their business from anywhere.

So it becomes very clear that the only reason somebody really intelligent that understands what is going on and is willing to look at historical precedent, anybody that's really going to be fair, will realize the only reason they would say we're going after the wealthiest among us is for political gain, because they're going to drive them out of the country otherwise, or drive them out of the State or city where the taxes are going to be raised dramatically.

The thing to do that's fair for those of us who want those making more money to pay more and those who are making less money to pay less, those of us that feel that way, many of us have begun to say, To do that, let's have a flat tax. Some, like Steve Forbes, have been saying it for a long time.

The Heritage Foundation has got a new flat tax proposal that looks to have wonderful merit. There are a number of flat tax proposals. Steve Forbes was at a 17 percent flat tax, it doesn't matter how much you make. In my conversations with Art Laffer, he said you can have a flat tax and actually even be lower than 17 percent--I'm looking forward to getting the full details--and have two deductions, one for home mortgage interest and one for charitable contributions. I'm not talking about when you give underwear to some charity and say, Congratulations, you've now got my undergarments. I'm talking about real charitable contributions.

Make those things deductible, but otherwise eliminate all the loopholes, whether it's 12, 17, and the economy would explode. There would be more jobs available. And at this time when there are so many that are just on the edge of desperation, when they don't know what they're going to do, they can't keep paying $4 a gallon for gas, for those who have been looking so long, the millions that are out of work because they just got tired of looking so they're not counted in the unemployment numbers.

So we realize, gee, the unemployment is probably much, much, much worse than the administration is telling folks. For those folks, I would like to provide a little hope. It won't be under this administration; but if we have a different President and we get a different majority in the Senate, it truly ought to be spring time in America, figuratively, as it is literally right now.

We now know, many of us, we can be energy independent. Seven years ago, when I got to Congress, I didn't think so. The natural gas we've found is extraordinary. And how have we done it? The technology has gotten so good at slanting holes, the technology has gotten so good in sealing the hole and fracking a formation. And for those that understand how it works, if you do not have a sealed formation there, and you frack, then you have lost the formation. There will be no pressure to bring the oil or gas up.

We've also had hearings in Natural Resources--and Chairman Doc Hastings has done a great job there--we've had hearings and we've discussed a lot of these things. And we have some Chicken Littles in the Interior Department, Energy Department, and the EPA running around saying, gee, hydraulic fracking keeps polluting drinking water. They've shut wells down. And each time when they've brought in the scientific study to actually analyze--because there has been some drinking water polluted by something--but when they analyze, they find there is not anything that was utilized in the hydraulic fracking process that was able to make its way through the thousands of feet of rock formation to get to the drinking water and that there is nothing in the polluted drinking water that could possibly have come from the fracking.

Yet this President keeps saying, I'm for all of the above. And the best I can figure is when he says I'm for an all-of-the-above energy process, it means: I'm for anything we don't get out of the ground. So we'll give hundreds of millions, actually billions, of dollars to dear friends who have bundled money for the President's reelection and original election and we'll give them those billions of dollars and say, Go try to make solar panels, even though it's not financially feasible. It's not a viable enterprise. Go do it and I will help you by giving billions of dollars--42 percent of which we're having to borrow. We'll give them all that money.

Some day we should be able to use solar energy; but for heaven's sake, we should not be depriving our Social Security funds of money while this President is giving away billions of dollars to cronies for energy ideas that don't work and that are not feasible and that are bankrupting America. And yet that's what's been happening. A 2 percent payroll tax cut for workers to divide Americans.

Seniors have been told, You don't have to worry. This Democratic administration is going to make sure we take care of our seniors. And the very times that's being said, they are gutting the Social Security trust fund. Even though it's IOUs going in there, there's Social Security tax money that has been coming in since the 1930s in enough sufficiency to pay for the outgoing checks. It was not supposed to be for many years that we were supposed to reach that point where there was more Social Security money going out than Social Security tax money coming in.

Well, this President doubled down, and in what is a divisive--I guess, to use his terminology--divisive, dismissive gesture from this administration, we have undercut our seniors. This administration has been pushing to gut the Social Security trust fund. And it has done so.

Now, the friends in the mainstream media, trying to cover for the President, are not talking about the fact last year there was 5 percent of Social Security payments that we didn't have money to pay from the Social Security trust fund payments coming in. So we had to borrow around 42 percent of the rest, and we had to take tax money to make up the rest. And there's projections that though it was a 5 percent shortfall last year, it will likely be 14 or 15 percent this year. That's not a good road to stay on.

It is a road to Greece. It is a road that will so undercut our senior citizens, who deserve better from every administration, including this one. Seniors have been hurt by this administration, 5 percent last year, 15 percent this year, and if we don't get a different administration and a different majority in the Senate, it's going to be worse after that. It will be 45 percent the next year. If it triples in 1 year, it could triple again. We're in trouble if we continue the policies of this administration.

Now, since hydraulic fracking has brought us 100 to 300 years of natural gas, even at vastly expanded rates of usage, we could be energy independent, we could put not merely city buses on natural gas, but move cars to natural gas. At the same time, the Bakken play up in North Dakota has found a huge amount of oil we didn't realize we had. And in northeast Utah, northwest Colorado and southwest Wyoming, we are told there are tremendous amounts of energy. We're told there's clean coal technology.

And what's the answer from this administration? Let's shut down any use of coal. Why? Because this administration has ``all of the above'' as their energy policy, which means they're not going to use coal because it comes from underground.

We in the United States have been blessed beyond measure. We have more natural resources and more energy than any nation in the world. China, Russia, you name it--we've got more natural energy than anywhere. And this administration has continued to put our energy off limits. The second-largest coal deposit in the world is in Utah, we are told, and it was put off-limits by President Clinton.

This administration, of all the campaign promises you would hope the administration would break, you would hope they would break the promise to see energy prices ``necessarily skyrocket.'' I would love to have seen that promise broken, yet that seems to be one of the very few that's been kept. Energy prices have necessarily skyrocketed. And then we find out today, because hydraulic fracking has delivered the ability for this Nation to become energy independent, today, the EPA has declared war on hydraulic fracking.

People are desperate. The rich--we've seen how this works. The President calls the wealthiest among us, the Wall Street folks ``fat cats.'' All they have to endure is a little name calling from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and in return, they get richer than they've ever been. Most people can endure a little name calling by an individual when they know the individual is going to see that they're wealthier than ever. Wall Street has done pretty well under this administration. It's done a lot better than most of America.

Americans deserve better. The President says he's going after Big Oil, declaring war on Big Oil. Well, this is one of the few areas where the President actually does have a substantive plan to go after what he calls ``Big Oil.'' Well, we've learned from the way Wall Street has been handled, call them names but make them richer than ever. Say you're going to war against Big Oil, and what happens? We get this proposal in writing from the President, this is his Jobs Act, and subtitle D of the President's job act is entitled, ``Repeal Oil Subsidies.''

Well, that word is extremely disingenuous. The President uses it all the time, but the word, if you look it up, means a grant or gift of money. There is no grants or gift of money. There are tax deductions for expenses. So he says he's going after Big Oil, but if you look at the specific deductions that he now has in print that he is going after Big Oil with, what do you find? You find out these deductions don't help Big Oil companies. It's so marginal, it's a drop to them. Who it will devastate and put out of business are the independent oil and gas operators who drill 95 percent of all the oil and gas wells in the continental U.S. There is a repeal in here by the President of the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs in the case of oil and gas wells. There is a repeal of the percentage depletion for oil and gas wells, there is a repeal of the deduction for injectants, and there is a repeal of the oil and gas working interest exception to passive activity rules.

Now, if anybody is interested in really finding out the truth, they can go to major oil companies and ask them, would these repeals of these deductions really hurt you as a major oil company in the world? And the answer would be, no, not really. You can go to the accountants, as I have, for independent oil and gas operators and say, if these are repealed, would it affect independent oil and gas operators who drill 95 percent of the oil wells in the continental U.S.? And the answer is, it will

devastate them. Not only is he going after the deductions that keep them afloat, they're going after the investment in oil and gas wells by the mainstream public.

Now, if you're British Petroleum or Exxon, you don't put out a proposal that says, we're drilling a well, and here's the proposal, here's the geology, here's the other wells in the area, here's what we think it will do. And if you invest X amount of dollars, then we will give you X percentage amount of the working interest in this well. That's the kind of proposal independent oil and gas companies have to make to get investments for people to invest in their oil well. If they hit a gusher, hit a huge well, then those who invest and take a percentage of the well will do very well. If they hit a dry hole, then they lose money. And when you invest in a dry hole and it costs you money, you would hope you would be able to deduct your expenses of the investment that failed.

What this President is doing not only is going to destroy the independent oil companies by taking away deductions that keep them afloat and keep them able to keep drilling another well, he is going after their investments.

So once you begin to see these specifics, you realize--and there are some other things in here, repeal marginal well production, repeal of enhanced oil recovery--when you see the specifics, you realize, oh, wow, maybe he doesn't know that he will destroy oil and gas independent operators. Maybe he doesn't know. But it doesn't take a genius to realize if you put oil and gas operators out of business who are the independents, who are not big enough to have all the employees they need to do the drilling, who have so many subcontractors who go out and eat and go to the entertainment places and they go invest in things around town, and they go buy clothes--those people, those subcontractors, their subcontractors, all of those people will be without anything to do because this administration says he's declared war on major oil, but instead, it's really a war against independents.

If he stops 95 percent of the drilling for oil and gas in the continental U.S., then what happens to major oil? You've eliminated all of their competition among the small independents. Well, what does that mean? Well, there are only a small number of massive international oil and gas companies comparatively, and you've wiped out their competition in America. It means they will charge more for gasoline, more for diesel, and there's nothing we can do about it because they're the only ones that have any energy.

Right now, before this President finishes driving or trying to put independents out of business, we've got to stop this train wreck that's coming.

This should be springtime in America. It should be a time of renaissance. People shouldn't have to pay $4 a gallon. And as soon as this President takes substantive actions, just to announce that he's going to take substantive actions, not to declare war on hydraulic fracking as they have now, not to declare war on oil companies in North Dakota because there have been eight mallards that died that had some oil on them and, therefore, they have the Justice Department under the President's thumb who is prosecuting the oil companies for violations of the Migratory Bird Act even though they've got windmills they support that are chopping them up by the thousands and thousands.

No, don't go after the windmills. They're above. So when the President says he's for all of the above, that includes all of the wind being generated here in Washington and other places where there are windmills that are driven by the hot air.

It's time to start saying what we mean, so that when this President tells the leader of Israel, ``I have your back,'' the leader of Israel doesn't realize he's got to put on something that will stop a knife coming from the back. It's time for our allies to know we support our friends, and we're going to stop supporting and trying to buy off our enemies. It's time to bring peace and prosperity back to the continental U.S., all 50 States, all our territories, by truly having an all-of-the-above energy policy. And if we want to pursue renewables, don't be letting the Social Security trust fund or the tax money dry up and leave seniors so vulnerable. Don't take away $500 billion from Medicare and hurt the seniors like that as ObamaCare has done. Don't do those things.

If you want to go spend billions giving it to your friends in solar energy, for heaven's sake, let's start leasing the Federal land like it used to be done, and then use 25 percent royalty, use part of our royalty, to throw away on the President's friends, not be borrowing from China, not be taxing people to give to his buddies, and we can return to springtime in America.

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