Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

As this will be the last session before we go into the Easter district work period, I thought it was appropriate to look back at something historically, and I have a prayer that was given in the United States Senate in the 1940s by Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall. He said:

We pray to Thee, O Christ, to keep us under the spell of

immortality.

May we never again think and act as if Thou wert dead. Let

us more and more come to know Thee as a living Lord who hath

promised to them that believe: Because I live, ye shall live

also.

Help us to remember that we are praying to the Conquerer of

Death, that we may no longer be afraid nor be dismayed by the

world's problems and threats, since Thou hast overcome the

world.

In Thy strong name, we ask for Thy living presence and Thy

victorious power. Amen.

That was Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall. It is a good prayer, Mr. Speaker, to pray as we head for the Easter recess.

Mr. Speaker, we've just had a vote on H.R. 5, something very important. It's one of the horrible parts of the ObamaCare bill that we would have a board that would dictate to people what they could or could not have in the way of treatment or care.

The Federal Government has no business getting between people and their doctor. They have no business taking over health care, because if the Federal Government has the right to take over people's health care, then they'll have the duty to tell people how to live, what they can eat, what they must do.

But I had to vote ``no'' on this bill for this reason: in order to pay for this bill, under our rules, they added a provision that has the Congress dictating to every State in the country what their State med- mal tort laws have to be.

In Texas, we did tort reform, and we have doctors coming back. Some say, well, Louie, other States don't have it. That's fine. It's their right. Their doctors can come to Texas.

But when Congress wants to usurp State law, I have to say, ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, a couple of issues I want to address. I appreciate so much my friend, Dr. Fleming, who has the adjoining district to mine, across the Sabine River over in Louisiana. He makes great points. We need to get the Federal Government out of the business of controlling people's health care. We need to get them back in the business of being a referee, making sure insurance companies and health care providers do the right thing, butt out of the business of dictating and controlling health care.

Very clear from ObamaCare, the IPAB, we got a board of 15 people going to dictate people's medical decisions for them, and, of course, all of the pandering back during the debate on ObamaCare how you can, as my friend Dr. Fleming pointed out, the President, all those who mirror his comments, all those that read from the same teleprompter and say, oh no, you like your health care, you can keep it. You like your doctor, you can keep it. Well, we knew they were wrong. They were wrong.

So most people have already lost their health care exactly as they had it before if they liked it, and if they haven't yet, they will. That's why it was a good idea, not only to repeal the provision on that board that will dictate people's lives, what health care they can have, what they can't have. That was a good idea.

We need to repeal the whole bill. It is unconstitutional, and of course the President did us a wonderful favor by showing what many of us knew, that if ObamaCare is considered constitutional--it's not, but if the courts considered it that way--then it is very clear, the President believes, and I think, under the bill, he has the authority to step on, suppress, override people's individual liberties and freedoms.

We were assured by our Founders that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, ObamaCare modifies that to the extent that you can have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness only if it meets with the approval of the administration in power and the people they've put on IPAB, and what they have to say about whether you're too old to have a treatment, whether, or, like the President said in one of his town halls to a lady that said, will you at least consider the quality of life on people like my mother and whether she could get a pacemaker since she'd lived for 10 years with the pacemaker. And he said, ultimately, you know, maybe we're just better off telling your mother just take a pain pill. The part that he didn't say is take the pain pill and die. Don't live 10 years, because that's what ObamaCare will do for us.

So, hopefully, the Supreme Court Justices that will take this up and consider it will also realize that since ObamaCare gives the President the power to override the Constitution and prohibit the free exercise of religion--I'm Baptist, but, obviously, it does clearly restrict the free exercise of individual Catholics, of Catholic institutions, and that's because the President says so, because ObamaCare gives him the power to do that.

I hope that the Supreme Court Justices will take note of that. They could take judicial notice of what has been publicly done and by order, and take note of the fact that since our freedom of religion is clearly expressed in the first part of the First Amendment, and it's there in black and white, the government's not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

And since the ``privacy rights,'' as the Supreme Court has come to call them, are not written in the Constitution, they were somehow found in the shadow of a penumbra somewhere and, gee, if ObamaCare gives the President the power to override people's constitutional rights, for rights that are put in stated words in the Constitution, then it's certainly going to give some redneck President down the road the right to just say, you know what, the privacy rights aren't even there, and so we're setting those aside too. Just like I set aside Catholics and other religious beliefs, now we have the power to set aside a right that's not even mentioned in the Constitution.

And it ought to scare every thinking liberal--we won't get the ones that don't think--but every thinking liberal ought to have that go to their core and give them goose bumps.

Oh, my goodness. I didn't think about some redneck person possibly getting--becoming--President because at some point the American people are going to get so fed up with having Washington dictate all of their individual decisions that they may just elect the biggest redneck they can get.

And because the Supreme Court, if it were to do the unthinkable and rule ObamaCare as constitutional, then the administration will have not only a right, they will have a duty to dictate to people how they can live, because if the Federal Government has the right, under the Constitution, to control all our health care, putting some providers out of business, picking winners and losers, telling who gets a pain pill, who gets a pacemaker, if they have the right to do that, the government has a duty to tell every person how they can live.

We're told that the Federal Government, if it wanted to, could look at every debit purchase, every credit card purchase. I mean, I got in this discussion with some government attorneys back before I ever got to Congress; and they were saying, look, if banks have the right to review all of your banking records, why shouldn't the government? I explained because the government can put us in jail and a bank can't. That's why there are protections against the government.

But ObamaCare will give the government control of our health care; and, therefore, at some point it will only make sense that they live up to their duty to say, you know what? Of course, under ObamaCare the Federal Government will have every person's health care records. It becomes the repository for everyone's most private information about their lives.

There's nothing in mine I'm worried about, but it is quite bothersome to think that there is nothing that can be private from the Federal Government once they have all of everybody's health care records.

Well, if they've got everybody's health care records, wouldn't it make sense at some point down the road to say: You know what? You're costing us too much money. You're not living properly. And we noted that in your health care records, you've got a 280 cholesterol level, and then we noticed you went to the grocery store and bought a pound of bacon this weekend, so we're going to have to change your health care, change the charges.

Folks, that is a reasonable conclusion of where ObamaCare has to take us if it's ruled constitutional. It's got to stop.

One other thing I want to mention, Mr. Speaker. It's been reported today in a couple of places, one in my friend Breitbart's online news blurb from A.W.R. Hawkins; another is from The Washington Post. Two different ends of the spectrum, perhaps. They're both reporting the same thing: that this administration, through Secretary Hillary Clinton, is going to announce that

it could care less what Congress has ordered about helping the enemies of Israel, about helping those who are terrorizing and persecuting Christians in Egypt and destroying churches and eliminating freedom of religion, and are saying they want to rethink their peace accord with Israel and setting themselves up to be the enemy of Israel. And now this administration, knowing that Congress passed a law that says you can't give people money in Egypt unless you can certify to certain facts--and they cannot, not honestly. If they do so now with what we know publicly, we know they will not be honest in doing so, and they're going to give $1.5 billion, not in humanitarian aid, according to this story, not food--military aid.

So forget all of those speeches that this President gave at AIPAC: Oh, gosh. We're Israel's best friend. We're going to help them. Because, oh, no, we're going to give people who have the power to destroy Israel, on the border with Israel, military aid, as they are planning--many there make it clear they hate Israel, they hate us, and I've said over and over: We don't have to pay people to hate us. They'll do it for free.

We have to quit funding the enemy of us and the enemy of our friends. This is insane. And I hope somewhere in this administration is a cooler head that will say, Mr. President, Madam Secretary, Israel is our friend. Remember the speeches you've both given about what a friend they are? And it's time that we do not provide military aid, abetting, and assistance to people that want to destroy Christians, that want to destroy Israelis, and that want to put the world in turmoil and have everyone living exactly as they dictate. We want to keep some freedoms here and in Israel, and the way to do that is not to fund and provide military assistance to anyone unless we know they are our friend, they're Israel's friend, they're the friends of our friends.

To do otherwise will bring calamity on this country like they will not realize until it's too late.

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 3 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 26, 2012, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, it's always a pleasure to get to address the House in your presence.

I tell you what. There was quite an election in November of 2010. One of the results was a freshman named Rob Woodall from Georgia, and the gentleman from Georgia does his constituents proud. It's a pleasure to serve with him.

His comments, most meaningful. When we think of what is going on today in the world of energy and the world of constitutional rights, in the world of religious freedom, there are things to be excited about, and there are things to be greatly saddened about.

When I came to Congress as a freshman, was sworn in in January of 2005, it looked like our days of being an energy giant in the world were over. Sure, we were the kings of technology, but we were hearing from people that use natural gas for most of the stuff it seems like-- you look around the room and see whether it's plastics, or if you've got food, probably had fertilizer, natural gas used to make the fertilizer--it has had such a role in many things.

In recent months I've asked some scientists, do you see anything on the horizon that might replace natural gas for the use as a feed stock for so many things we make, and manufacture, in this country. I was told not for at least 30 years or so.

The amazing thing, though, in the last 7 years that should have everybody in America excited, is all the energy that's been found in America. Here we are having to all wring our hands, lower our heads, oh, woe is us, gas prices going up. We've got a President, unfortunately, seems like a nice fellow, but he doesn't know anything about energy other than what's handed to him that he could read about. I wish that it was otherwise, but the fact is he keeps making statements that are not borne out by the facts with regard to energy.

I've been excited as a member of the Natural Resources Committee to find out all of the things that are being found. In east Texas, where I am, we are fortunate because there was a natural gas formation that Louisiana was

kind enough to share with us. It's called the Haynesville shale. For that reason, there's more natural gas being produced in east Texas than any of the other 31 congressional districts in America.

There's the Marcellus shale, Pennsylvania, runs up into New York State. But a massive natural gas formation. The ability of hydraulic fracking, which has never been shown by a single scientific study to pollute water, despite some of the stories--once they're investigated people find out they're not true. Because the purpose of hydraulic fracking is to push oil or natural gas out of the formation and up. There is a vested interest in making sure that everything is sealed thousands of feet below where drinking water would be found. There is no scientific study that finds hydraulic fracking has polluted drinking water.

Yet, you look at the things it's done. Depending on who you believe, we probably have at least 300 years of natural gas, even at an accelerated rate. People are now looking at having their cars running on natural gas.

Then, just when we think, well, natural gas is the thing of the future, now we've got 300 years in which to find a suitable alternative without bankrupting the country trying to create something in the way of solar power or wind power--one day solar power I think will be a very viable source, but in the meantime, this President, in supporting his cronies who are manufacturing solar panels, some of them not doing anything but enriching themselves--but the market will take care of these things.

When it is economically feasible and economically viable, then we'll see things like solar power become a reality. But it's no time soon. In the meantime, the President's friends are being enriched, the country is being taken to the poorhouse on a fast track. There is no need for that.

Natural gas is the cleanest burning form of energy we could hope for.

We're the largest repository of coal in the world.

Then we find all of this oil, this huge place in North Dakota. I've met with a third group now who tells me that in Utah, this hard reddish brown rock that you wouldn't think has oil, when put under intense heat, without oxygen, you get oil. They say it's $60 a barrel. They can make $10 or more a barrel. They're doing it right now in Estonia. The same kind of rock, the same kind of thing. Now the third group has told me they believe they think they can get 3 trillion barrels of oil from just one area of Utah. Then it goes into northwest Colorado and southwest Wyoming, from what I'm told.

We know that there have been enough wells drilled in the Middle East that all the oil that is there, we pretty well know where it is. We have a good idea from the way the wells and the fields are being depleted about how much is left.

Information that I've been given indicates that there is probably somewhere around a trillion barrels of oil left in the Middle East--a trillion. Yet, in one area of Utah, we're told there may be three times that much. Sadly, however, this administration does what it has done repeatedly for over 3 years: they put more and more of our resources off limits. So when the President reads the teleprompter and says, There's just nothing I can do to change the price of gasoline, would that we could get information to him to show him how wrong that is. There is oil; there is natural gas; there is coal.

We've also been given the information that when gasoline hits $4 a gallon, normally at least 25 percent to a third or so is purely speculation. So I realize the President wouldn't say there's nothing he can do about the skyrocketing price of gasoline. He surely means that, or I'm sure he wouldn't say it.

Yet the truth is, if the President were to go on television tonight and announce, Do you know what, folks? My Secretary of the Interior in January of 2009 immediately on coming into office announced that he was sending back the checks for leases in this small area. It may have involved some in northwest Colorado, but it was certainly in Utah. He sent back the checks and said that we're not going to allow leases on these areas that were let at the midnight hour by the Bush administration. Well, we'd give him the benefit of the doubt and just say, apparently he didn't know at the time what he was saying was not true.

Those leases, as he admitted in one of our hearings as I had to keep pushing to get the answer, were part of a 7-year process. Companies can't just come in and bid massive amounts of money on a lease on which they expect to produce oil or gas until they've had a chance to study the information. It was a 7-year process--not the midnight hour, but 7 years. Secretary Salazar finally admitted that. It was 7 years just to get to the point where people could bid on those leases--a massive amount of Federal land. The majority of Utah is Federal land. He put it off limits and returned the checks after the 7-year process was completed. Fortunately, during the prior 7, 8 years of the Bush administration, there were other areas where leases were let and permits were granted and drilling commenced.

I don't think we ought to be allowing anybody to drill who has had as many safety violations as British Petroleum had in the gulf. If you can't have less than 800 egregious safety violations in your drilling, you've got no business drilling on American soil or over American waters. Yet they were allowed to drill when, during comparable times, Exxon and others had one, two, none. They had about 800.

It appears the reason they were allowed to keep going, even though there was such a great lack of safety, is that they were about to come out publicly as being a big energy company that embraced the President's cap-and-trade bill. That was going to be big news, so they didn't want to alienate a big energy company. Of course, they were going to be getting even richer dealing in the carbon credits. Consistent with the crony capitalism, they were going to be thrown lots of bonuses through that.

But anyway, this ought to be an exciting time in American history. We have energy galore. A man from China told me that he thought they had figured out what we were doing for our energy policy. We keep declaring all of our energy off limits, more and more of it. We don't use the energy we've got. We do have more energy, when you consider all of the resources, than any other country in the world.

While the President is busy out there deriding America for using too much energy, we make the world safer; we make the world more peaceable; we make the environment cleaner. When manufacturers leave America and go to other places in the world, they pollute four to 10 times more in most of the places that those manufacturers are going to. If you really care about the environment, then keep them here. Many of them are union jobs. You'd think the unions would embrace what we're trying to do rather than what the President is doing, but I understand loyalty runs deep.

We've got health care that has been rammed down the throats of Americans. The majority didn't want it. The elections revealed that in November of 2010. All of the polls revealed that throughout 2009 and 2010. We got it forced upon us when, really, what this government does best is play referee. It makes sure everybody is playing fair and playing by the rules. The problem is, when we become a player, when we become a coach and the referee, we're terrible at all three. When we get so involved in owning part of Wall Street that we're not watching what's going on, you have things like Madoff ripping people off right and left. We should be the referees, making sure everybody plays fairly--not the players, not the coaches, but the referees. The government, Federal Government especially, is a terrible coach when trying to tell people how to make a business work.

The best thing that could happen is if we get insurance companies out of the health care management business that they're in now. They're really not in the insurance business anymore; they're in the health management business. If we don't get them back into the insurance business and out of managing our lives and our health, then they'll be out of business, and the government will take over it all just as ObamaCare anticipates. That's where it's all headed. If we don't get the Federal Government out of being a player and a coach and a referee in health care, then the government will ultimately be the only player and coach

and referee, and that does not bode well for Americans.

We have a chance now, for the first time since the sixties, since Medicare was thought up, to allow our seniors to take control of their own health care and to give them the resources to do it. There would be nothing like a real test: Medicare here. If you want Medicare, have it just the way it is or we'll buy you health care, a private insurance policy; and we'll be referees and make sure they pay fair. We'll make it a high-deductible policy because those are so much cheaper. Then we'll give you cash in a health savings account that will be enough to cover the amount of your deductible each year.

In the end, it will be cheaper, and it will give people the dignity and patience--the control--of their health care so they don't have to beg the Federal Government, so they don't have to beg this board that ObamaCare has set up, so they don't have to beg some insurance company--please, please, let me have this treatment. You'll have insurance; you'll have the money to cover the high deductible; and we will move people into being in charge of their own lives, because the alternative is rather grim.

But let's be clear: this government wants to control people's lives. As soon as ObamaCare were to be fully operational, then the Federal Government has every right to tell people what they can eat; to tell people what medicines they can have; to tell people when they won't get that pacemaker, as the President told a lady at the White House during a town hall.

Maybe it's time we tell people like your mom, who would have 10 extra years of life with a pacemaker, you don't get the pacemaker--just take a pain pill. If we don't get this turned around, the government will have every right to tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much you have to exercise, what you can and can't do.

Our freedoms will be gone.

I've got a great quote here from one of the Founders, a man named Thomas Jefferson:

If people let the government decide what foods they eat and

what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as

sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under

tyranny.

Those that say: Gee, I want to have unlimited sex, and I want the government to pay for it. Somebody's got to. I want the government controlling my life. People that feel like they need the government telling them what to do whatever it is, whatever aspect of life.

Sam Adams is given credit as being one of the most influential Founders in giving us this great Nation:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of

servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go

home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.

Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your

chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye

were our countrymen.

Now, once the government has the right to control everybody's health care, it will have the right to tell you what freedoms it will recognize and you can practice and which you can't. That's why one of the reasons ObamaCare is so objectionable. It's the government intrusion into so many areas of our lives.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

We're not supposed to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. ObamaCare does that. It gives this government the power to say: You know what? People ought to be able to get abortions paid for by the government, which means the taxpayers pay for it. They ought to be able to get contraceptives as they wish. So never mind the fact that right now if there is somebody in America that needs contraceptives, they can be obtained, plenty of sources, still the President feels the need to intrude upon religious belief and say: Folks, you can't practice this belief. If you believe abortion is murder, it's murder of an unborn child, well, I will tell you what we'll do. We'll just say your money doesn't go for abortions.

Yet in ObamaCare, it's very clear there will be clinics, there will be policies that will provide abortions, and people that pay into policies, those policies insure across the board and they will cover that. And money is fungible; it will be used for abortions; it will be used for contraceptives, even though there are people putting in money to the system that object and feel they are violating their religious beliefs.

So it struck me that the President recently found time to apologize to someone who had been up here on the Hill testifying, but he never found time to apologize to those whom he told: You cannot practice your religious beliefs. Oh, yes, he tried to make an accommodation for a church and a hospital, but Catholics that have these closely held beliefs--I'm a Baptist, but, good grief, if you're going to tell a Catholic they can't practice their religion because, as some in this body have said, a majority think you shouldn't, you're going to tell people they can't practice their religious beliefs? For heaven's sake, at least give them an apology. But not so, no apology there. So I thought, well, maybe it would be helpful to track exactly what deserves apology and what doesn't.

Well, we remember when the President first came into office, the first thing he did was take what a lot of people refer to as the apology tour. He went around the world apologizing for America's arrogance toward countries where we had Americans buried who gave their last full measure of devotion to free those countries. But the President found time. Do they get an apology or no apology? Yes, you got an apology.

All right. There were Bush policies that our President said--toward countries that we actually give a tremendous amount of money to but who vote against us over half the time in the U.N. Do they get an apology? Bingo. He found time to give them an apology.

The family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, murdered by an Operation Fast and Furious gun that our government forced to be sold to criminals, well, well, no time for an apology. They don't get one.

The CIA enhanced interrogation that saved lives and led to finding Osama bin Laden, we do have time to apologize to them. They get one. All right.

Detaining terrorists who killed or conspired to kill Americans at Guantanamo, even though there hasn't been a single incident of waterboarding or torturing of any kind remotely at Guantanamo, even though when they throw feces or urine on our guards, we will take away 2 hours of their movie watching, still, they get an apology from this White House.

The accidental 2012 burning of these Korans that were desecrated by the writing of detainees, yes, they got an apology.

The families of the American soldiers who were killed after President Obama said he ``calmed things down'' by apologizing to Afghanistan. No, didn't get an apology. No apology there. Our own soldiers, but, no, no apology.

Death of two Pakistani soldiers in Pakistan and the death of four other Pakistanis in 2010 when a plane, we were told, made a mistake. Yes, Pakistanis, they get apology; but Americans don't, Pakistanis do.

The President's support for the Ground Zero mosque at 2010 White House Iftar dinner opposed by most Americans, including 9/11 survivors, most Americans didn't want a mosque at Ground Zero. The President said it was a matter of religious freedom. So, basically, the word ``apology'' I don't believe was used, but it was an apology. We believe in them being allowed to do that, even though it offends most Americans and victims' families, yes, yes. They were at the White House hearing how sorry he was that Americans opposed that.

Comments in 2011 that Israel should return to its 1967 borders that would have subjected it to relentless attacks and vulnerability, as Prime Minister Netanyahu explained, no, Israel doesn't get one. No apology for Israel.

His good friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the first people to have a fundraiser at their house for him, they were part of a radical left-wing group, Weather Underground, detonated a bomb at the Pentagon in 1972. And we know there are still people serving in the military that were

around when the Pentagon was attacked by his biggest, earliest supporters. They don't get an apology. No apology there.

Ordering many Christians to violate their religious beliefs and pay for abortion, drugs, and contraceptives, no, no apology there. Violates your religious beliefs; too bad, no apology.

Comments by President Obama and President Sarkozy in 2011 at the G 20 summit where they belittled Prime Minister Netanyahu. He's Israeli. No apology for that.

Comments made by Rush Limbaugh in his radio program about pro- abortion activist and Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, yes, the President found time for that apology.

The President's support for not allowing nurses to save babies that were born alive after a botched abortion, we've heard from some of those--at least one of those nurses--how brokenhearted they were sitting there and being forced to watch a baby die. No apology for those folks.

Attendance for 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ where radical pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright used racial and anti-Semitic terms, inflammatory rhetoric and insulting comments about Hillary Clinton from his pastor--I believe the comment was he could no more disown that fine gentleman, which he later did. No apology for anybody offended by that.

And inflammatory and indecent comments of one of President Obama's biggest supporters, Bill Maher, regarding Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, tens of times worse than anything Rush Limbaugh would have ever dreamed of saying. That's right, no apology for that.

So I think it helps to chronicle exactly what deserves an apology from the White House these days, you know, just so we know where policies lie and where this President stands and with whom he stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're glad that the President took time out of his schedule from apologizing to people who apparently want others to pay for their contraceptives so that he could see Prime Minister Netanyahu today. He reiterated again what he said last May at AIPAC when he said--in the middle of a lot of other comments--that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself. He reiterated that again yesterday and today. The problem is for Israel to defend itself means they're defending us. We've been described as the Great Satan, the United States, and Israel the Little Satan.

It's time for this President to quit trying to suppress our friend Israel and stand with Israel; but if this President will not stand with Israel, then don't make threats to them about what we're going to do if they defend themselves without our okay. They've already been given the okay by the President, saying they must defend themselves by themselves. I hope and pray we will stand by Israel as they defend themselves--and us.

Mr. Speaker, there's so much going on in this country. There are so many great folks and some that are not so much. There are stories out indicating that this administration is considering releasing the Blind Sheikh. He's credited with helping mastermind the first attempt to bring down our World Trade Centers. He is credited as the Islamic fanatic who issued the fatwa that was considered by the radical extremist jihadists to justify killing thousands and thousands of Americans--what they hoped would be tens of thousands of Americans-- at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One report indicated that with regard to the Pentagon, if the plane had not just brushed across a berm outside the parking lot before it hit, it probably would have gone all the way into the interior, doing a massive amount of more damage than it actually did. Because of the valiant work of so many first responders, there weren't tens of thousands killed at the World Trade Center. But we suffered the loss of 3,000 murdered because of some religious fanatics, the Blind Sheikh being one of them.

The story is out yesterday and today that the administration is considering the release of the Blind Sheikh and other American murderers so that we can obtain the complete release from Egypt of people that went there to try to help the Egyptians have free and fair elections. And in return for going there and providing the billions of dollars this country gives to Egypt and continues to give, in return, the people in charge--that this administration welcomed in charge of the Egyptian Government, as they stabbed an ally name Mubarak with whom they had written agreements--I'm not saying he's a great man; I'm saying this country, this administration, had agreements with that man, and this administration broke those agreements and stabbed him in the back. As a result, now we have Americans in harm's way, some of them in the Embassy in Egypt.

Now, the reports are that the administration is considering releasing murderers, people who planned and were complicit in murders and attempted murders of Americans, and this administration is considering releasing them and may be negotiating that.

Now, I'm hoping that this report is what this administration has done many times, and that is release a trial balloon to see how people react. And if people react violently enough--verbally, that is--against it, then they will say, hey, no, we never planned to do that. And I'm hopeful that that will be the case here. People who have been responsible for murdering and attempting to murder Americans have no business being used as bargaining chips. If the rule of law and of justice is going to mean anything in this country going forward, we cannot be bargaining with American liberty.

Now, some of us recall very well in 1979 when an act of war occurred by the people, by the Government of Iran in Tehran, against the American Embassy. Everyone's idea of international law indicates that the soil on which an Embassy exists is the soil of that country. If you attack the Embassy, then you have attacked that country. And it

was my recollection, and those of us that were stationed at Fort Benning at the time, we knew it meant that many of the people, many of us at Fort Benning, may have been sent to Iran if a war broke out. Everyone was watching to see if, as the term was used, the flag were to go up, who was going to go. Nobody was dying to go, but everyone was willing to go and die in defense of our country.

The Carter administration, instead, began pleading with the Iranian Government to let our hostages go. It was my recollection back during the time as we watched from Fort Benning, I'm not sure what the fate of those of us at Fort Benning would be, but the spokesman for the Iranian Government kept saying, the students have the hostages, the students attacked the Embassy. And it just seemed to me, as a captain in the Army at the time, do you know what it sounds like? The Iranian Government is trying to give themselves a backdoor so that if President Carter stands up and finally becomes a great leader and shows great leadership and stands up and says:

All right, you're saying that students have the American hostages? Well, then, here is the deal: An act of war has been committed, and either you release, you deal with those students and you get those American hostages released, or we're bringing the full weight of the American military against Tehran for the release of those people. And if those hostages are harmed before we get there, then we will overthrow your government and we'll leave. We're not going to nation- build. You can pick whatever government you want, it's your business, unless you attack the United States of America. Because when you attack the United States of America, it is our business. We won't nation- build, but we will take down any government of any nation anywhere that commits an act of war against us.

That's what President Carter should have done. And now these rumors swirl around, these reports from media resources that tell us they are reliable, that this government now is thinking, well, maybe we'll dodge what the Carter administration did that got President Carter defeated for a second term. Maybe if we just release murderers of Americans, maybe if we'll just give them whatever they want, they'll release these people or allow them to leave the Embassy and travel back to America, and we'll be okay.

Wrong. You release people who declared war on America, who declared war on the World Trade Centers, on New York City, on Washington, D.C., you release those people, you have not made America safer. You've endangered far more lives than you got released.

I like Ray LaHood. He's a good man. We haven't agreed on some things, but he's a good man. I know that. It broke my heart when I saw that his wonderful son, who believes in liberty and freedom, was being kept against his will from leaving Egypt. He went over there to help them have a free and fair election. But from what I know--having not met Ray's son--I don't think he would want the lives of tens of thousands or millions of Americans jeopardized because this administration might be trying to avoid losing an election as President Carter did.

The thing to do is the thing that President Carter didn't try. He tried the negotiations. He offered all kinds of things. The thing to do is say: Egypt, we have given you American treasure. We supported your efforts in electing leaders. Here is the deal. We sent you people to have free and fair elections. If you're going to hold them hostage, then that is an act of war on us and we will come to Egypt.

We're not going to go to war with the nation. The whole nation of Egypt is not against America. But if the regime in power is going to take Americans who came over there to help them, who were participating in helping a process so that Egypt could continue to get U.S. funds to stabilize their country, if they're going to declare war on those individuals, then we will take out that group that is presiding and attempting to govern. We won't nation-build, but we will allow you to put whatever government you want in place. If they come against America, we will come against that government; not against the people, but against the government. We will take that government out and then you pick some other government. We don't care who it is. We don't care what kind of government you have, as long as they're not at war with America. But if you commit these kind of criminal acts of war against American citizens, against America, we will take that group out that is governing in that manner and then you find one that won't declare war on America.

That's what needs to be done, not releasing the Blind Sheikh, not releasing American murderers. That is not the thing to do. I hope and pray that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of American lives will not be jeopardized by this administration just hoping to avoid a hostage crisis like arose in Tehran.

That arose because of a weak administration refusing to do what it should have in response to an act of war. Because what we saw after those initial periods where they said, ``No, the students had them; we're trying to negotiate; we're trying to work with them,'' eventually they saw the Carter administration was not going to do anything, and so they began saying, ``We had the hostages; we had the hostages,'' and started making demands and threats and things like that.

The thing to do is say, look, we want to live at peace with every nation in the world; but you declare war on Americans, we will take that government out and let the people choose whatever kind of government they want. We should not be nation-building. You pick what government you want and we will live in peace as long as they don't declare war on us. If they do, we're coming. We'll take them out and then you pick your next government. That's what should be done, not the release of murderers, of those complicit in American murders, such as the Blind Sheikh.

I hope that enough people in America will rise up, Mr. Speaker, and make their voices heard. Don't be releasing people who declare war on America, who have American blood on their hands. We do not want to put the future of America in foreign hands that are covered with American blood. That is not the course to take.

Civil Rights Movement

One other thing I wanted to mention before I get to a tribute, and that is with regard to the Selma march, that is with regard to the civil rights movement.

There are some in America who think people like Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, others who were such participants in the civil rights movement--people see that and say that was a movement by blacks or African Americans to try to have equal civil rights. But having read a great deal about Martin Luther King, Jr., it's very clear this was a Christian minister, an ordained Christian pastor. I haven't heard anybody in the wonderful tributes that have been paid here today as we commemorate that march in Selma, I haven't heard anybody mention this.

As a Christian minister, Martin Luther King, Jr., and those who participated, did more than help African Americans move closer toward having full equality, toward equal rights. It did more than that. For those of us who were young, white Christians, for those who would come behind us as Euro Americans, white Americans, they did something wonderful for us. They created an environment in which all Christians-- whites, all Christians--would be able to treat brothers and sisters as being brothers and sisters. They did a great service for all Americans.

So I will lend my voice, such as it is, in tribute for the service that was done for all Americans, and anxiously long for the day--we're getting so close--but long for the day when people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin; where there are no quotas, there is no need for a Justice Department to review everything, because people are acting and treating each other in ways of equality, so that we finally achieve the dream.

Andrew Breitbart

Now I want to turn to a tribute to a great man. This Nation and freedom has lost a great proponent and defender.

Andrew Breitbart, who was reported to have died this early morning in California, was and is an American hero of

mine. This man, in what appeared to be the prime of his life, knew that the key to keeping our endowed freedoms was shining the bright rays of sunlight on whatever issue was stealing away our Nation's prosperity and liberties.

Many came to know Andrew as the brains and the will behind the exposure of a cancer on our system that was exemplified by some of the things going on with ACORN, where they were not bothered by the thought of underage girls being placed in the bondage of sexual prostitution and they were not bothered by the idea of getting people in the country illegally for immoral and illegal purposes. He figured out a way to deal with these issues and to address what was sucking the nutrients and the life from this host country as, really, a cancer.

He figured out how to shine sunlight inside offices of what was happening and gave a good dose of chemotherapy to the cancer.

He also innovated ways to expose the extreme bias within many in the media that were holding themselves out as being objective. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of the press. But there should be some degree of honesty. If someone is expressing an opinion, it should be reflected as an opinion and not as unbiased journalism.

Andrew had been in the process of exposing that, as well as so many other issues that were weakening our Nation and infringing our liberties, were deceiving rank-and-file Americans of the truth and our factual history. Andrew was serving as a clarion call to action for honorable Americans across the country to seek truth, justice, and the American way.

In visiting numerous times with Andrew, he was so excited. He could see that he was literally, and profoundly, making a difference for truth.

Often, when innovators or impassioned innovative visionary people depart this world, they have not had the benefit of seeing any of the fruits of their labor. God had favored Andrew with a glimpse of the difference that he was making.

In this book that--and I acquired this copy from the Library of Congress, ``Righteous Indignation'' by Andrew Breitbart--this is a new conclusion to Andrew's recent books. He wrote this new conclusion himself.

These are Andrew's words:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I

love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that

the complex refuses to report. I love fighting back. I love

finding allies and, famously, I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who

linked to stuff on a very popular Web site. I always wondered

what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for

what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens, but

I've gained hundreds, thousands, who knows, of allies. At the

end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror and I sleep

very well at night.

He now sleeps in the arms of God.

Andrew was being demonized by those who were profiting from their deceptions of people and their cronyism with the government. He was rallying like-minded Americans to seek and take back the liberties with which they were endowed and upon which liberties vast encroachments have been occurring.

I would like to speak straight from the heart, but I typed these lines up just moments ago because of the difficulty. It's easier to read. Let me finish with what I wrote moments ago.

Andrew had two films coming out in the near future, of which he was so proud, as he showed me and my friend, Steve King, here the trailers very recently. Those films can and will be quite powerful in furthering the cause of sunlight on darkness, though they may now have to be modified because of his passing.

But Andrew was so kind to be an encourager to my daughter in California, was always complimentary of her when we talked. He knew how to make a father proud.

In considering Andrew's works, the life and death of John Quincy Adams comes to mind. Adams had been elected President in 1824, first son of a former President to be so elected. In 1828, he was defeated by Andrew Jackson.

In 1830, John Quincy Adams did the unthinkable. He had been President of the United States; and yet he was driven by a God-placed feeling, a need to stop slavery in America. So after having been President, he lowered himself to run for the House of Representatives and was elected in 1830, sworn in in 1831, and served until 1848 just down the Hall in what we now call Statuary Hall. He was a driven man.

He believed God had called him, as he did William Wilberforce, to bring an end to slavery--Wilberforce in the British Isles, the United Kingdom, and Adams in America. He was concerned, appropriately, that it would be difficult to expect God to keep blessing America if we were putting brothers and sisters in chains and bondage.

He gave powerful speeches over and over down the Hall trying to convince the other Members of the House to pass bills that would end slavery, that would free slaves, and he never got it done. In fact, at one point, he had so alienated the Rules Committee, they passed a rule, he couldn't even bring those types of bills anymore. So then he had to fight the rule so he could go back to filing bills to end slavery and free slaves, and eventually he did. And he preached those powerful sermons down the Hall against slavery.

In 1846, a young man, not particularly handsome, some at Gettysburg that heard him years later said he didn't have all that pleasing a voice to listen to, he didn't have a beard at that time, but a young, skinny, some-would-say homely-looking guy was on the back row, just down the Hall of the House of Representatives.

Adams liked this guy. Adams was not necessarily referred to as being a warm and fuzzy, cozy kind of guy, easy to warm up to, a bit cantankerous at times; but he liked Lincoln.

In 1848, having spent so many years devoted to many great causes, but particularly to the cause of trying to end slavery, sitting at his desk, John Quincy Adams had a massive stroke. He was moved back into the Speaker's suite just off the floor, died 2 days later. 1848.

Thirteen years later, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States. It was reported that someone had asked Lincoln was there anything memorable that happened during your two brief years in the House of Representatives. He was reported to have said, in essence, not other than those powerful speeches of John Quincy Adams on the evils of slavery.

Lincoln knew it was wrong. It tore at his soul that slavery existed in America. After he lost after one term, he went back, tried to make a little money, did, practiced law, represented the railroad some, but the compromise of 1850 allowed new States to come in that would have slavery.

Lincoln had thought perhaps he was done with slavery, but he couldn't stand it. He got back involved in politics, lost, lost again, got elected President, and then helped bring about an end to slavery in the United States.

John Quincy Adams did not bring an end to slavery as he had hoped, but he profoundly affected that young, skinny, less-than-handsome- looking guy named Abraham Lincoln.

Andrew Breitbart is gone. That's the report. I'll be interested to see what the autopsy says.

But I can't help but think his devotion to truth, to preserving liberty will have inspired so many who will pick up that banner and potentially, as was the case with John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln, do far more than Adams himself could have done, and in this day, in the years to come, do more than Andrew could have done by himself.

Though Andrew did great service to himself, his family, and his Nation, it's my prayer that his greatest contribution to this, the greatest Nation with the greatest freedoms in the history of the world, will not be those specific but amazing accomplishments he achieved, but that his greatest accomplishment will be the inspiration he was and is to so many who saw his devotion, saw his commitment, saw his goals, and will, just as did John Quincy Adams, accomplish more through those he inspired than those he could ever have accomplished individually.

At a time like this, there is sometimes a temptation to blame God and ask, why did God take such an individual so soon? Our directed comments to our Creator should instead be,

Thank You, dear God, for the gift of Andrew Breitbart. We wish we could have kept him longer, but thank You for this marvelous gift.

God be with his family, comfort his family. Andrew will be sorely missed by seekers of truth. His departure will be welcomed by those he was exposing, but they shouldn't be too comfortable. He was a patriot. He was a lover of liberty. He was a lover of family. He was a lover of God, a lover of this Nation. He was also a friend and encourager to me.

With that, I would yield to my friend, Steve King, from Iowa.

In conclusion, we pay tribute to a big man, as Jesus said to the poor man of Nazareth, who has now been carried to the bosom of Abraham by the angels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always learn something when I hear from my friend, Professor Bishop.

It has been staggering to hear the testimony over the last several years as to what has gone on at our border. We used to be a law-and- order country where the law meant something, but we've seen that eroded.

I heard our Democratic friends, before Mr. Bishop spoke, speaking of selling our birthright, and I enjoyed hearing them talk about how we ought to use our energy in this country. Well, welcome to the Republican position. That was great to hear. That's just fabulous to hear from our Democratic friends because, as we know, and one of the things that Mr. Bishop pointed out, there have been regulations and government bureaucracies used to not only prevent us from enforcing our immigration laws, but also to prevent us from utilizing our own resources over and over and over. For heaven's sake, if somebody has got 800 safety violations like BP had, prohibit them from drilling, but don't prevent everybody from drilling.

The things that the government should be allowing entities to do, like providing the energy that we have--we've got more energy than any country in the world. Relative to the size of other countries, we're not the biggest, but we have more natural resources than any other country in the world has been blessed with. It's amazing. In this administration, and even before this administration, we had our Democratic friends prohibiting, through bureaucracies, through laws passed, using our own energy, which has been just an outrage.

It's the poor single moms, those struggling to make it through the month with what's left on the limits of their credit card so they can still buy gas to get to their job so they can get a paycheck and pay down their credit cards enough to buy gas for the next month, that are hurting the most. Ironically, the people that donate to Democrats 4 to 1 over Republicans, as they did to Obama over McCain 4 to 1, are the Wall Street executives, the big bank executives. All they have to do is endure some name-calling from the President and they get richer than they could have ever hoped.

Yet we get back to freedoms that made this country the greatest country in history. I believe that. Prominent among our freedoms you can find in the First Amendment. It doesn't say States can't, because there were some States that required religious tests, but ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

There is no mention of separation of church and State. There is no mention of a wall of separation. That was in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. This is the same Thomas Jefferson that came to church every day he was in Washington, D.C., while President. He came to church right down the hall in the House of Representatives and at times had the Marine Band come play the hymns. He didn't see that as a problem for the Constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion, but he certainly never would have dreamed of prohibiting any Christian from practicing their religion, as this administration has now done and attempted to do, or the freedom of the press.

We know the press is free to slant the news however they wish. For example, when gas prices were going up in 2008, the Main Street press, Main Street media had 4 to 1 more stories about the price of gas going up then than they do now, and the prices now are higher than they were then. Gee, could it be that the Main Street media has a vested interest in keeping the President that they put in office in office, keeping him there? But they've got that freedom of the press. They can keep slanting their stories as they wish.

Or the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment, that's it.

There is a great big grievance that a majority of Americans have, and it's with the President's health care bill. This is front and back. It is very thin paper so you can get all of the President's ObamaCare in here. This says 2,407 pages. There you are, the President's health care bill. It's interesting.

Here is a story that Edward White filed February 16, maybe from our friends at ACLJ, but it points out last month DOJ again argued that the penalty is a tax--talking about the penalty in the health care bill--is a tax when it filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case the Court will consider this March.

We know February 16, in response to a question from the great Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, he asked Director Zients whether the individual mandate penalty for failing to buy health care is a tax. Zients answered that it is not a tax. Today we had Secretary Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services that is overseeing the implementation of ObamaCare. Secretary Sebelius also indicated it's not a tax. Yet the DOJ has argued basically that the minimum

coverage positions are well within Congress' commerce power.

The DOJ contends that Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause and the necessary proper clause to enact economic regulation. The DOJ contends the minimum coverage provision is an integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation, and the provision itself regulates the economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

It certainly has had an effect on interstate commerce. It's doggone near killing it.

The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by Congress' taxing power contingent of the DOJ. The DOJ argues that the provision operates as a tax law. Validity of an assessment under Congress' taxing power does not depend on whether it's denominated a tax.

Anyway, interesting time. That is from the National Law Review, that assessment. Today the question was to Secretary Sebelius, and she disagrees with DOJ as well.

There are just a number of issues here with this bill. And the recent demand by the administration that the Catholic Church, Catholic hospitals provide free contraceptives was not about contraceptives. If anybody needs contraceptives, they can get them. It's not an issue.

It shouldn't be. People that want them can get them. It's not an issue, although some are trying to make it out to be. It's about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

It's incredible that a White House would decide that they get to tell the Catholic Church which parts of their religious beliefs that this White House will allow them to practice. Even coming back after the White House had all of these people come in and meet and decide and discuss, they should have come back and said, Sorry, you were right. We never intended to indicate we had the power to tell you you could not practice your religious beliefs.

It's not what the White House came back and said. The White House came back and said, in effect, Well, we still obviously have the power to tell you what parts of your religion you cannot practice. But listen, Catholic Church, we're going to do you a favor. Even though we have the power to prohibit you from practicing your religious beliefs, we're going to require the insurance companies to provide this feature even though it goes against your religious beliefs. We'll require the insurance companies to provide that.

Now, how stupid do you have to be to not understand that when a requirement of an insurance company policy is dictated by the government, there is going to have to be a recouping of that expense from the people that buy those insurance policies? So that was no remedy.

The Church, the Catholic hospitals are still going to have to provide those policies that provided that. They just weren't going to be required to tell the insurance companies to do that because the government did it for them. What a ridiculous end-run to do the same thing.

But the White House did not even address a real core issue.

I'm a Baptist. I don't have the same beliefs about contraceptives; but this is so dangerous, this is such a violation of our First Amendment. For this White House to think for a moment they have the authority to tell any religious group, and here's the kicker, any religious person that they cannot practice an important tenet of their religious beliefs is unconscionable.

Now, the administration says, Oh, Catholic Church, Catholic hospital, we'll work with you. What about Catholic individuals who believe with all their heart the things that are taught by Catholic schools, by the Catholic Church, and expounded by the Pope himself?

How powerful a Pope does the White House or the President, any President, have to be to dictate that what the Pope says is not going to be observed in America by any individuals who are here in the United States?

We hadn't heard a lot of discussion about the freedom of the individuals, but this was not talking about the freedom of the Church or a hospital. It was talking about the freedom of individuals; and even if the White House tries to accommodate some hospital, some church, what about the beliefs of an individual? A Catholic in America who's told, Sorry, this President is going to trump your Pope, and you're going to have to pay for what you believe is against your religious beliefs, it's unconscionable.

Do you think the Founders would have put up with that? As Dennis Miller said, they were willing to go to war and die and risk everything over a tax on their breakfast drink. Do you think they wouldn't be willing to fight for their right to practice their religious beliefs?

Good grief. They came--so many of the early settlers came here to get away from the prejudice and discrimination against Christian beliefs: Protestants, Catholics. They came to America hoping to have freedom of worship.

It's been interesting to hear in Israel that the Muslims who are most free to practice their Islamic beliefs as they feel led them to actually be in Israel, because depending on which administration is in charge in Iran, Syria, Egypt, wherever, you better not get too far afield from what the administration of that country believes.

Here in America, people are free to practice Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, so long as it does not threaten this Nation as a whole.

You know, we were told by the President there was no chance any Federal money would ever go for abortion. And some of our friends actually bought into that representation. Turns out, it wasn't true. Some of us tried to explain back then. You can't bind with an executive order what the law says specifically. It sets out requirements for health care providers, clinics, insurance policies. There are those that will provide abortions and ultimately there will be tax dollars, since dollars are fungible, that will be used for abortions under ObamaCare.

We keep coming back to this. If ObamaCare is constitutional and the mandates in ObamaCare are constitutional, there is nothing the Federal Government cannot dictate.

As I've said from here many times, this ObamaCare, 2,407 pages, was about the GRE. It's what it's all about. This bill is about the GRE, the government running everything. Because if the government has the right to control everyone's health care in America, they do have the right then to tell your children what they can or can't eat, to tell your children that their parents or parent is not fit because they don't know how to feed a child because it disagrees with what the government says.

They have the right to tell you what you can put in a vending machine. They have a right to tell you whether or not you're exercising enough. They have a right to tell you you use too much butter when you should have used something else in cooking.

They have a right to do that if they have a right to control your health care.

If this is constitutional, the government has a right to tell every Supreme Court Justice how they can live, and if any Supreme Court Justice thinks they'll be immune from this government telling them how they can live, what they can eat, what they can do, what they cannot do, then they are amusing themselves frivolously because that day will be coming.

Sure, this administration knows they stacked the deck with Justice Kagan. Of course, anybody that would send an email all excited about having the votes to pass ObamaCare, how wonderful that is, it's just amazing.

We keep wondering how many emails have not been provided. The noble thing would be to recuse oneself.

We should have known this when liberal groups that want the government to control everybody's lives were so adamant in throwing stones at Justice Thomas. It's clear we've seen this method before. What that means is they were nervous about somebody else who was a shoo-in to vote for the President's bill to have that issue raised about her. That's the way they always do.

So as soon as I saw these ridiculous allegations about Justice Thomas because his wife had an opinion, boy, I didn't see any liberals screaming about somebody with the ACLU whose husband had taken strong positions on different issues that she wasn't qualified

or should recuse herself because her husband had an opinion; but some of these same liberals, so-called, took the position that, gee, if Clarence Thomas' wife has a position, he must be disqualified.

The hypocrisy goes on and on.

Hopefully, Justice Kagan will tell us all of the emails, allow us to see all of the emails that were sent, all of the consultations in which she was a part. Then we'll see the truth.

This bill required the spending of $105 billion at a time we didn't have $105 billion. We're having to borrow over $42 billion, $43 billion, $44 billion of that from other places, including from China. China doesn't mind seeing this happen. I think they realize it will bring down this Nation financially.

The President said it would cost less than $1 trillion to implement. Well, the first CBO score came back over $1 trillion. The Director of CBO called over to the White House. He comes back and says, You know, it's more like $800 billion. Then once it gets in place, he says, You know what, we had a mathematical error or two. It's actually over $1 trillion.

That's why CBO deserves to have a margin of error of 25 percent, plus or minus.

We keep coming back to this one thing, that this bill is not nearly as much about health care as it is about the government's running everything--running individual lives. Sam Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, those who gave their lives for our freedoms, would never have stood for this. The government's running everything? But it's true. If the Federal Government can do this, there is nothing that is closed to the government's direction and law. If the government has the right to direct everyone's health care, then this opens the bedroom to Federal Government jurisdiction like nothing ever has, not immediately but eventually.

Is that what people want? Do you want the Federal Government being able to say, This practice is okay. This one in the bedroom is not okay because, see, we're in charge of your health care, and we've seen that it ends up costing more if you do this, that or the other, so we're going to prohibit that?

If they can direct against someone's religious beliefs and that certain bedroom practices will be allowed, they can direct which ones can't be. If they can direct what the Catholic Church or Catholic individual has to provide or pay for, they can sure tell them what they can't engage in as well. This opens a door to the government's running everything like never before.

This month marks 2 years that it has been passed against the will of the American people, against the will of most State legislatures, against the Constitution. Is it a tax? Is it not a tax? It appears this administration will say whatever it has to say to try to get this held as constitutional. I can say unequivocally, if the Supreme Court were to hold this bill and its mandates and its intrusions into every area of personal being as constitutional, it will give me no satisfaction to someday say to a Justice of the Supreme Court whose religious beliefs have been violated, I told you so. None.

It will break many of our hearts that there was such blindness, but I have that hope that spring is eternal in the human breast, that there is still enough reliance on the Constitution, itself, and on our Supreme Court that they will recognize the door that is open, that they will recognize the inconsistencies of this administration in trying to come up with some argument to justify these violations of our freedoms.

Some say that States require you to have auto insurance. That's only if you're going to drive on their roads. If you're going to participate in that privilege, then, yes; but nobody is required to have auto insurance if they're not going to drive a car on their highways. In fact, the only insurance that has been required by any State mandatorily is insurance to cover others who might be harmed by an individual's driving and harming them. I don't know of a State that requires insurance on individuals hurting themselves while they're driving, only liability.

Now, we do have the problem in Massachusetts where Massachusetts basically had a mandate. Other than that mandate in Massachusetts, no State has ever been able or even thought of or tried to require the purchase of a product.

Oh, this is going to be for the working poor.

Look, we already have Medicare and Medicaid. Until this administration, with the help of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid in the Senate, gutted $500 billion out of Medicare, until that happened, there was not going to be any damage to Medicare. We were going to take care of our seniors and take care of our poor. But if you look in this bill as I have--and I've been through the whole thing--you will find out, if you are just above the poverty line--if you're working, if you're doing everything you can to get by, to make it with your family, but can't afford as good an insurance policy as is mandated by the Federal Government--that this administration wants you to have an additional tax on your income as if that's going to help.

This hurts the working poor. It devastates Medicare by pitting people against our seniors, taking $500 billion away from Medicare. It's time for America to rise up again and make clear: This is unconstitutional. And I think even the Supreme Court would hear that, when Americans rise up and say, You're not governing every aspect of my personal life like this opens the door to doing.

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 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 29, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, tucked away in northeast Texas is the historic city of Marshall, Texas. As the seat of Harrison County, Marshall is also home to East Texas Baptist University, a respected institution of higher learning. In its one hundred year history, student enrollment at ETBU has grown from a few hundred students to a vibrant, bustling campus filled with more than twelve hundred young men and women seeking a college degree. This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of the trustees' application for a charter from the State of Texas in 1912 to begin what was then known as the College of Marshall, and it is a great privilege to recognize this momentous centennial event.

In 1944 the College of Marshall, under the direction of the Baptist General Convention, changed its name to East Texas Baptist College. Then in 1957, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools granted accreditation to the institution which helped establish its enduring academic credibility. The University Charter was revised in 1984, changing the institutional name to what we now know as East Texas Baptist University.

ETBU boasts a number of notable alumni including two former members of this esteemed body: John Dowdy, Texas, Member of the United States House of Representatives (1967 1973) and Sam B. Hall, Member of the United States House of Representatives (1976 85) and United States District Judge (1985 94).

ETBU stands by its commitment to the ``development of intellectual inquiry, social consciousness, wellness, and skills for a contemporary society, global awareness, and Christian character.'' Its focus is on ``quality academic programs in the humanities, natural and social sciences, fine arts, and selected professional areas.'' Staff and faculty of ETBU ``affirm that the liberal arts form the surest foundation for education and that the Christian faith provides the surest foundation for life.''

As a Baptist university, ETBU is committed to the integration of learning and Christian faith in the pursuit of truth. The beautiful campus of ETBU is located at the highest elevation in Harrison County, and represents a beacon of higher learning to students who venture to the piney woods of east Texas in pursuit of a quality, upper level, truly Christian based liberal arts education.

It is an enormous honor to represent the students and faculty of ETBU, so it brings me great pride today that to recognize East Texas Baptist University on its century of instilling academic excellence while integrating faith with learning. Following the years of loyal service by Dr. Samuel W. ``Dub'' Oliver as President, ETBU is well poised for continued success in the future.

Heartfelt congratulations are extended to the faculty, staff, students and alumni of East Texas Baptist University, as their legacy of distinction is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America. Their excellence in faithfully sustaining the ethical, spiritual and intellectual foundations of a God centered education makes it my great honor to be their servant in the United States House of Representatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are the best of times and in some ways the worst of times. Our freedoms are under assault, and some people in places of leadership do not appreciate the threat to our freedoms and therefore are naively assisting those who would take them away.

We know that in recent days in Afghanistan we had some soldiers who were given the responsibility to burn Korans which were being used by prisoners to write messages of an incendiary nature to other prisoners. Well, it's my understanding of shari'a law that to write in such a Koran could be considered a desecration; yet there's been no protest, no outrage over prisoners using the Koran to pass inflammatory messages to other prisoners.

We've also seen the death of Americans as a result. Two officers, along with others, have been killed and injured. Our Commander in Chief has seen fit to apologize to those who house the killers of our two American officers.

When I think about the feelings of the family members of the two American officers who were serving, to have a commander not do as Lincoln and so many Commanders in Chief have done in the past wherein they sent those troubling letters to grieving families to thank them for their service and to truly grieve with the families, no, in this case, the Commander in Chief sent messages instead to the home of the killer.

Now, we're led to believe by some internationally that, gee, it just overwhelmed the killer of the two officers. But then we hear that he may have taken a silencer with him to work. Well, where I come from, courts that I've been in to prosecute, my court as a judge, my region as a chief justice, that would be considered evidence of premeditation, of first degree murder; and yet we apologize to those who think like the murderer.

I haven't heard a demand for an apology from Afghanistan and from the leaders of Afghanistan, who would not be in office but for the lives and sacrifice of American soldiers. They wouldn't be there but for American soldiers, yet no apology from Afghanistan. So I think we have to look a little deeper at what is really going on here.

We know that in the United States it's been deemed to be just fine to stick a cross that symbolizes the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ in a beaker of urine. Now, some of us believe that anybody that would do such a thing without repenting before they leave this life will have a special price to pay by the Judge of all judges, by that same Creator which gave us our inalienable rights. But not only was that done; it was funded by the United States Government NEA funds.

We've been told repeatedly that there is nothing unconstitutional about burning an American flag, that flag for which so many millions of Americans have given the last full measure of devotion. We're told that it doesn't violate our Constitution to burn American Bibles, that that's just fine under our Constitution. Yet we even have great Americans who have risked their life for this country, who see the death and loss of lives, say you know what, maybe we ought to have a law that says you can't burn a Koran or you can't shoot at a Koran.

Some may recall that on May 22, 2008, there was a U.S. soldier that shot at a Koran. That sparked unrest, and there were two civilians and a Lithuanian that were killed as a result of that. Some people may remember last year when a pastor in Florida burned a Koran; it sparked rioting and 11 were killed, including seven U.N. workers.

What's really going on here? Well, I think it's important to look back to the Organization of Islamic--what used to be Islamic Conference--now it's been changed to Islamic Cooperation--and we can find some things. I've got a chart here to show.

This is from the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit. It outlines the 10-year Program of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century. This is the Islamic Summit Conference results. It's important to note that the term ``Islamophobia'' was invented for just such occasions to try to demonize Americans--or so-called ``Westerners''--who might try to say there's such a thing as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, who would seek to subjugate our First Amendment rights to the Islamic Conference, their rules and shari'a law.

The plan, the 10-year plan from December 2005, the plan is, here at number two:

Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia through the

establishment of an observatory at the OIC General

Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an

annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the

relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations,

NGOs, in order to counter Islamophobia.

Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international

resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States

to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.

That's right. This is in compliance with the 10-year plan from 2005 to subjugate Americans' First Amendment rights under our Constitution to shari'a law.

It's not a terribly complicated effort, but it is brutal. It has cost so many lives, all in an effort to not only show disdain for actions of Westerners regarding the Koran, but also to push to get the U.N. and all states such as the United States to adopt laws to punish what shari'a would consider any inappropriate use or abuse of a Koran.

I happen to think as a Christian it's terribly inappropriate to abuse a Koran. I would encourage people not to do so. I would likewise say that it is a terrible thing to abuse a Bible and to abuse a flag. It shouldn't be done. As a servicemember, prosecutor, judge, chief justice, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that means all rights under our Constitution.

Just so people don't forget, I think it is appropriate to remember what is in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances.

We're supposed to have the right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has said that means you can burn a flag, you can burn a Bible, you can burn a Koran. But there is a movement in all 57 states--that's right, 57 states of the OIC--to get the U.N. and all countries to subjugate their freedoms to shari'a law. Sure it's okay to burn a Bible, burn a flag, but not a Koran. It's wrong to do so, but it's not illegal.

We're told as of today that the Taliban says the airport blast in Afghanistan was revenge for Koran burnings. This article today points out that 40 people have been killed in protests and related attacks since the incident became known this past Tuesday, including four U.S. soldiers. NATO, France, Britain, and the U.S. have pulled their advisers from Afghan ministries out of concern that the anti-foreigner anger might erupt again. After all we've done, it's not over. These people feel they still must subjugate our First Amendment rights to shari'a law.

The First Amendment should be pretty clear. It should be noted that until the 1950s when Lyndon Johnson basically got tired of churches yapping at him over what they deemed as moral issues, he shut them up by adding an additional provision added to the tax laws that basically forbade any church or such organization from getting involved in politics. My children were surprised, based on what they had been taught in public school, that for most of this country's history, churches were the bedrock, churches were involved in every great movement that occurred, both in the Revolution, in the civil rights movement that resulted in the abolition of slavery, in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. Lest we forget, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained Christian minister. He knew and espoused the true way, truth and light.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was established in 1990. When we hear about the cause for human rights under shari'a law, it is important to understand what that means. This is from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam from August of 1990. Article 24 says:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration

are subject to the Islamic shari'a.

Article 25:

Islamic shari'a is the only source of reference for the

explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this

Declaration.

That's what we're talking about. When the term ``human rights'' is utilized, it's important for people to understand that under this declaration of human rights that is still being forwarded today and thrust at us, it's important to note that those are considered human rights only under the definition of shari'a.

When we're told about the OIC believing and pushing human rights, that means no one has the right to desecrate a Koran in any way, although they can burn Bibles and American flags all day long. It means no one has the freedom of speech to draw a cartoon about Mohammed because if they do, they have the human right to be executed.

If someone is a Muslim and they pronounce that Jesus Christ has become their Lord, then they have the human right to be executed. If someone is a woman testifying under the laws of shari'a, she has the right to have her testimony only count as half that of a man. Under these terms, if a woman inherits from a male, she has the human right to receive just one-half of the inheritance that a man would. Under shari'a, as to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and, last, beat them. If a husband is displeased with his wife, the woman has the human right to be beaten.

This goes on and on. I'm surprised that the women's rights movement has not been more assertive in pointing out the inequalities that occur in countries that espouse shari'a and the threat that it imposes to women's rights all over the world and in America.

Under shari'a, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam places the burden of avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In fact, under shari'a, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce four male Muslim witnesses, admitting to having had illicit sex, if she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery and she should be punished. Some believe she should be stoned to death and at a minimum

flogged if she is raped and can't produce four men of Muslim good standing on her behalf.

She has the human right to be flogged or in some eyes to be stoned to death.

There are those who are saying we should get out of Afghanistan now. Actually, we could have done that a long time ago if a different course had been pursued. It is not inappropriate to note that in so many circumstances the enemy of our enemy should be considered our friend.

Along with Dana Rohrabacher and Steve King, we met twice with Northern Alliance leaders, and although these brave leaders and their soldiers, their horse soldiers, did what some intelligence and special ops individuals have indicated, performed acts of heroism and gallantry such as they'd never seen before on their behalf and on behalf of America.

The Taliban was initially defeated, people forget, when we had initially less than 200, at no point more than 1,500, American special ops and intelligence just embedded with the Northern Alliance, assisting them as the enemy of the Taliban.

Our friends, the Northern Alliance, they're Muslim. They're our Muslim friends. But they did not want the intolerance of the Taliban and were willing to pay any price, just as the Founders were, to prevent having the Taliban take them over and, as they had done before, burn films, burn books, burn art, dictate to the women, prevent their freedoms. The Northern Alliance helped us by basically being the people who defeated the Taliban. We provided them the arms to do it, we provided them the aerial support, and they did it.

We disarmed them, told them they had nothing to worry about. We added over 100,000 troops and became occupiers. We tried to nation build. We gave them a constitution that provides for shari'a law.

Where is the apology to Afghan Christians for us getting them a constitution that does not permit public churches? The last Christian church in Afghanistan has closed. At last account, I'd seen there was one acknowledged Jewish person living in Afghanistan.

Now there's intolerance. We have a $12.5 billion government in Afghanistan. That's their budget, and they provide about $1.5 billion of their own. You know what happens to that government when we pull out? That's why the Taliban is telling people, even on Afghan television, We're going to be in charge as soon as the U.S. pulls out.

There are ways to deal with this issue. If you just look at the map, you get a good idea what we're talking about.

During a recent trip to Afghanistan and meeting with Baluch people-- let's first look at the map itself.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India. Now, before 1948, this area in here was Baluchistan. In 1948, the arbitrary lines that were drawn put Baluchistan in with Pakistan. This used to be a Baluch area. As a recent Pakistan Daily News editorial pointed out, most of Pakistan's natural resources come from this area. As people have advised us in Afghanistan when I was over there recently, the Taliban are being supported by supplies, arms. They're getting their support from southern Pakistan into southern Afghanistan. They're coming through the Baluch area.

The Baluch don't want that. They're Muslim. They're our friends. They want to be our friends. They would be wonderful friends. They have been terrorized by the Pakistani Government for decades, and we've stood by and didn't seem to care, the world has.

Well, perhaps it is time to recognize an independent Baluchistan, where we'd have a friend who would not keep supplying the enemy of America, those people that helped train and prepare for 9/11 to kill as many thousands of Americans as they could.

We don't want to leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban and all of the American life and treasure be for nothing. But there is an easy answer. We leave, but we empower the enemy of our enemy, the Northern Alliance and the Baluch people. Let them take care of their own area. Let them prevent the Taliban from taking over. Let them prevent Pakistan from becoming such a focused enemy as they have unabated. Let them worry.

India wants to be our friend.

If we look at the area of Pakistan, well, this shows the different major ethnic groups. Pink here is the Baluch people; green is the Pashtun. And, of course, only a tiny percentage of the Pashtun people make up the Taliban, but virtually all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtun. They do come over here into Pakistan. Then we have brown as the Punjabi and the yellow as the Sindi.

Northern Alliance is up here. You've got a number of different groups up there, including Uzbeks. But these are people who do not want the Taliban to ever take over. They're the enemy of our enemy, and that's where we can do some real good. It's time to stop the support of those who would take away our First Amendment rights.

There's an article, this is from CNN, May 20, 2009:

Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned,

confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common

Afghan languages amid concerns that they would be used to try

to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said

Tuesday.

The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United

States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base

in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any

religion from proselytizing while deployed there.

Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and

civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation.

Why would it endanger civilians if they have the rights that Americans say we're fighting for? Why? We're burning Bibles, the American military did, back in 2009?

I was given this Bible by my aunt, told that it was provided during World War II to my uncle, says, ``May the Lord be with you.'' It's a New Testament, and inside the front cover it says:

As Commander in Chief, I take pleasure in commending the

reading of the Bible to all who serve in the Armed Forces of

the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many

faiths and diverse origins have found in the sacred book

words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. It is a fountain

of strength, and now, as always, an aid in attaining the

highest aspirations of the human soul.

Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

That wasn't signed by President Obama. It was signed by Franklin Roosevelt, and it was given to our soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me just say, if the President takes more action to demean the American rights and to eliminate our own rights, then it's time for the President to apologize, not to Afghanistan but to the American people.

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 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of things going on in the Middle East, a

lot of things needing to be addressed at this point. I have grave concerns about the manner in which this administration is handling the things in the Middle East, maybe continuing with the policy on international affairs of this administration, which is, apparently, from what we see them doing, if you've been an ally to the United States, if you have been our friend, if you have fought with us, if you have had friends and family that fought with us and lost their lives, then this administration's message is we're going to throw you under the bus and we're going to negotiate and help your enemy and our enemy.

So it almost looks like the best thing to do for people in the United States that want help from the Federal Government: move to an island, declare war against the United States, and then this administration will send you all kinds of money and help, buy you an office in Qatar, all kinds of things we're willing to do if you're an enemy.

One of the latest things to be occurring, this week we're hearing reports from Egypt, after this administration, through an ally with whom agreements had been signed, negotiations continue to be ongoing with Mubarak in Egypt. The man certainly wasn't a Teddy bear by any stretch of the imagination, but he had had some success in keeping some semblance of peace with Israel.

And yet this administration was quick to tell Mubarak, as our ally, he had to get out. Kind of the way that President Carter failed to support another guy that was not a nice man, but the Shah in Iran. And the Carter administration also welcomed the return from exile of a man commonly called the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Carter administration welcomed him as a man of peace. As a result of that, Americans have lost lives and will continue to lose lives. There was nothing intentional in that fiasco by the Carter administration.

They meant well. They intended good for the country and the Middle East. They just simply didn't know what they were doing.

Right now we're seeing reports this week that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt--who certainly made clear from their actions they're not our friends. They are certainly not a friend of Israel. They've been making noise for some time that they did not intend to recognize Israel, they did not want to keep the peace treaty with Israel. In fact, there is an article from February 14, 2011, by Dean Reynolds from CBS Interactive that points out that Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood--this was supposedly before the Arab Spring even--never supported the Camp David Accords, and a leading secular politician, Ayman Nur, says they should be renegotiated.

The people that this administration has been so out front and welcoming, sending people over there--those that have been able to get out and come back that aren't being held by this obviously anti- American government that has taken shape--are indicating, at least those in the administration, gee, we've got to send a bunch of money to Egypt, we're going to try to buy them off and buy their allegiance. I've been saying for many years now every term since I've been here something that should be clear to all Americans: When it comes to all this money that we throw at people around the world that hate our guts, that want to see the United States brought down, places where they laughed when 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11, we're sending them money. The thing I've been saying ever since I got to Congress is: You don't have to pay people to hate you. They will do it for free.

I've had a U.N. voting accountability bill that I've filed in each Congress. It got over 100 votes at one point, and hopefully that will continue to grow. The bill is very simple and it follows the adage that I have been saying for all these years: You don't have to pay people to hate you. They'll do it for free.

The bill is very simple. Any nation that votes against the United States' position in the U.N. more than 50 percent of the time would get no money, no assistance of any kind from the United States. These countries are autonomous, they're independent, and they're free to make whatever decisions they wish, but if they are going to be anti-American and be against all of the human rights positions that we hold dear, whether it is for religion or gender--as we see women's rights being abused so badly around the world in countries we're pouring in money, as we see in areas in the world where we have poured in hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet they are doing all they can to eliminate churches--some have been successful--to persecute Christians and Jews, yet we continue to pour in money.

Since we've seen the position of this administration being anti- religious here in recent days, it's starting to come together and make more sense that this administration is simply being consistent. We admire consistency; but when they want to send money to countries that persecute Christians and persecute those who want to worship freely, I guess that is consistent with what has been done in the President's ObamaCare bill and the latest pronouncement that Catholics just needed to set aside their religious beliefs because they were inconsistent with what the President wanted done.

We've got an article here from February 18, 2011. This headline from Reuters says: Peace Treaty with Israel is Up to the Egyptian People.

This was a year ago:

Spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood responds to U.S. National Intelligence director, who said he assumed Brotherhood was not in favor of maintaining peace treaty with Israel.

Well, that's a nice thing for this administration to plant in the head of the Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt, that, gee, we kind of just assumed you wouldn't want to support the treaty with Israel.

Well, that allowed the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to say, you know what, gee, we thought you were going to be upset with us if we didn't support the treaty with Israel, but thanks for letting us know that your assumption would be that when you helped us take over that we wouldn't support Israel being there.

Great move. That was the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. He said this regarding the Muslim Brotherhood:

I would assess that they are not in favor of the treaty.

What kind of diplomatic fiasco is that?

We go to September 12, 2011. This September 12, 2011 article one day past the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, and the headline reads, Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty Needs to be Reviewed.

The subtitle: Muslim Brotherhood tells regional Asharq al-Awsat daily peace treaty is of great importance; says Israel generally does not honor the agreement.

Then they quote Mahmoud Hussein, the group's secretary general, as saying:

And like the other agreements, it needs to be reviewed, and

this is in the hands of the parliament.

There are others in which some in a position of power in Egypt have called for the complete elimination of any agreement with Israel. There are those who have said, let's put it up to a national vote, and since the Muslim Brotherhood is all about Israel no longer existing and since the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a slim majority in the government there in Egypt, then it would seem that it's likely their position would prevail.

In all of those years, the one crowning glory that the Carter administration can point to, the Camp David Accords, this administration has even thrown the Carter administration under the bus, just like they have some of our allies like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, like those who were loyal to Americans in Iraq, like the Kurds in many ways in northern Iraq, like Israel, for example, in the manner in which we've treated them publicly.

It was May 2 years ago that this administration did what some thought was unthinkable, that this administration or any administration would never do, they voted with all of Israel's enemies in demanding Israel disclose their weaponry, particularly nuclear weapons, any that they have. We had never done that before.

For those that bother to look in the Old Testament or the Jewish Bible--the Old Testament to some of us--you can read the account of Hezekiah welcoming leaders from Babylon. Isaiah

was sent to Hezekiah and asked--he knew the answer, but he asked Hezekiah, what have you done? In essence, Hezekiah, King of Israel said: These wonderful leaders--of course this is a Texas paraphrase-- these wonderful leaders came over from Babylon and I showed them all our treasure and I showed them all our defenses, our armaments.

In essence, Isaiah basically said, You fool. Because you've done this, you'll lose the country.

Now, it has been hard for some administrations that took the position in thinking, Gee, if you're just completely open, as Hezekiah was, about our defenses and what all we have, if you bring people on and let them review your nuclear submarines, if you let them see the abilities we have, if you bring them into our military bases and show them how we operate, and if you show them our tactics, that they'll just all of a sudden fall in love with us, and that it will make us stronger.

The lesson throughout history, including the one Hezekiah and his sons had to learn the hard way, is that you don't show your enemies all your defenses. You don't climb into political relationships with those who want to destroy you, with those who want to destroy your best friends. It's not a good message.

In an article from Fox News, it reads:

Al Qaeda on the rise in Syria has a ``marriage of

convenience'' with Iran, U.S. intelligence director says.

I would think that was pretty obvious. I'm glad someone with our intelligence department has been able to figure that out. Hopefully, they'll be able to figure that out with regard to Lebanon. Hopefully, our intelligence department will be able to figure that out with regard to Iraq; that the leader in Iraq has shown hostility to this government and to the people in this government.

It's to the point that when five of us were over there, a bipartisan group, we had a couple of questions that Maliki did not particularly appreciate, one about, hey, there were people who were assuring us back in 2001, 2002, 2003 that if we came and got rid of this terrible dictator who hated the United States named Saddam Hussein, that because Iraq was so oil rich, that once we were able to turn the country back over to the Iraqi people after wresting it away from a totalitarian dictator who killed and abused and tortured Iraqi citizens, Iraq would be so grateful once the oil got to flowing that they would help ameliorate some of the vast amounts of treasure that Americans spent to allow them to elect their own leaders, to allow them to elect a leader like Maliki.

He was deeply offended, it appeared, as he was when I brought up Camp Ashraf and the maltreatment--in fact, the killing--of residents of Camp Ashraf, who were Iranian refugees. The concern was the United States had promised the residents of Camp Ashraf, the Iranian refugees in Iraq, that we would make sure they were protected. When Maliki's government took over from us, he, himself, promised Camp Ashraf residents that he and his government would make sure they were safe. Maliki promised the United States that he would keep them safe.

Yet, apparently, the pressure from Iran and the fear that Iran has instilled in the leadership in Iraq, particularly in Maliki, is so profound that since he knew President Obama had made clear we were pulling out completely and that we weren't going to be around to protect them, to help them, and that we were getting out completely and that we were not going to be around to make sure that our investment of American lives and treasure was not wasted--we were pulling out, leaving everything to him, going to leave everything to chance despite the investment--Maliki showed no gratitude. In fact, he showed hostility.

In fact, when our group of five bipartisan Members of Congress was flying out on one of the luxurious C 130s--I am prone to sarcasm. The C 130s are no better than they were when I was in the Army 30 years ago. You're sitting on web seating just like the paratroopers used back then--and still use--and the back end opens down. They're the same C 130s. We were flying out, and we got word by radio that Maliki's government had told us that our group of five Members of Congress was no longer welcome in his country. The man seems to have thrown in with Iran.

I know we have some brilliant intelligence officers. I've interacted with some of our intelligence community. I'm quite impressed with the intelligence of many of our intelligence officers, and I am hopeful that the intelligence at the lower levels of our intelligence agencies will eventually affect those in top positions in our intelligence agencies so they will begin to realize what others have known for a very long time.

In Afghanistan, I understand President Karzai is not terribly pleased with the position that some of us have taken, but some of us are not terribly pleased with the positions of the Karzai Government in throwing in--well, at least in accommodating--the Taliban, in accommodating those who are supplying the Taliban, and in the Taliban itself, as it continues to plot and kill Americans.

But, in fairness to President Karzai, when you look at his situation, President Obama has made clear that the United States is completely getting out of Afghanistan, and that we're going to leave them just as we did Iraq, just as the Democratic Congress demanded in 1974 from Vietnam. We were going to leave our allies, those who had fought with us and assisted us, who had lost family, friends, treasure to support our position because they were enemies of our enemy. This administration was going to leave them high and dry, and this administration has already shown in Iraq that that's what happens.

So, from President Karzai's position, he has got to be sitting there, going, They're about to leave. The Taliban has gotten stronger and stronger with Pakistan's supplying and assisting them. The United States Government will not be here to protect me. Gee, maybe I'd better start being nicer to the Taliban and the radical elements in the Pakistan Government because that's who's going to determine whether I stay in power or not.

I found out in a meeting with some Afghan officials from the Northern Alliance--and then I've done subsequent research since--that the Government of Afghanistan has about a $12.5 billion budget. They, themselves, collect enough revenue--taxes and whatnot--in Afghanistan that they're able to supply about $1.5 billion of their $12.5 billion budget. The rest comes from other countries, and most of that is from the United States.

It was interesting traveling around Afghanistan before New Year's and after New Year's and going to forward operating bases, talking to some of our troops. We've got some terrific folks on the ground over there, but there is a problem. Those of us who majored in history know and those of us who have bothered to read any history have learned that that is a tough area in which to be an occupier as a foreign country. Foreign countries occupying or trying to occupy in Afghanistan don't do very well. It's not a place we ought to be occupying.

So I hear some, like some in this administration, it sounds like they're throwing up their hands saying, Well, let's just get out and let happen whatever is going to happen, because they know occupying forces don't do well. They're right about that. But by simply withdrawing without using some intelligence and some lessons learned from history means that we may have to fight the Taliban again. And it may, again, be after a massive loss of American lives. And perhaps the next time it will be when they're armed with nuclear weapons where they can kill hundreds of thousands instead of thousands.

Of course, if you read the communications that were intercepted about 9/11, they were hopeful there for a while that there would be maybe 50,000 people in the Twin Towers that were going to be killed, they hoped were killed when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. They didn't care about innocent American lives or all those foreign visiting folks that were in the Twin Towers. They could care less. They wanted to make a point, and make a point by killing tens of thousands.

Well, with the inappropriate strategy of this government, of this administration, the Obama administration, we

could end up having this Nation pay a far greater price than has even been paid to date.

Unfortunately, there are consequences for bad decisions. It is important that we select proper leadership in this country. Anybody that reads through the book of Hosea will find a verse--and I had never had it jump out as it did until a few weeks ago. And there are different translations, but I like the translation in which the communication from God to Hosea was:

He was angry with the people of Israel because He said they

had chosen leaders who were not God's choice.

There needs to be a lot more praying in this country as we select our leaders, as we select our national leaders for President, for his administration, for those who are elected to Congress, for those who are elected to the Senate, for those who are elected in State and local elections, and a lesson for us in Congress that we elect, within Congress, the proper leaders because, as the Founders believed, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

One-third of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were not just Christians; they were ordained ministers. One of them has a translation of the Bible--one of the signers of the Declaration--which still can be found in print today. These people understood the lessons from history, and they did not want to make those mistakes.

Here we have, from February 13, an article by Patrick Goodenough entitled, ``Hamas Leader Promises Iran Never to Recognize Israel.''

Now, we've had some in this country, in this administration, who have indicated privately, you know, we don't really have to worry; Sunnis and Shias hate each other. They're never going to come together. So that can help keep one from getting too much power because there is that conflict. Well, because, in small part--but the small part is growing into a larger part due to some of the actions and inactions of this administration--Shias and Sunnis are coming together.

So here you have a Hamas Gaza leader, Ismail Haniyeh, delivering a speech at a rally in Tehran, Iran, last Saturday, marking the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. He's speaking, and behind him are the portraits of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini. Here he is in the Gaza Strip as a leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, and he's speaking on behalf of Iranian leaders. We are bringing Shia and Sunni together, like people 10 years ago would never have believed possible, by the ineptitude of what's happening in this administration.

But, the article points out:

Amid growing speculation of a split within the top ranks of

Hamas, Iranian leaders at the weekend urged the terrorist

group's Gaza leader to continue its campaign of violent

resistance and pledged continuing financial support.

This from a terrorist group of leaders who are pledging to support the terrorist Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip. And the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei told the Gaza Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, people do not expect anything except endurance from Palestine's resistance.

It's time to wake up to what's going on with this administration and their help for groups that hate America, that hate Israel.

Here's an article from February 12, which says, ``Muslim Brotherhood Lawmakers: U.S. Aid to Cairo Assured.'' Well, isn't that special. He's gotten an assurance from this administration, as he told Al-Hayat, that if the U.S. cut aid to Egypt, it would be a violation of the 1979 peace accords. They've indicated they're not interested in keeping the 1979 peace accords.

Here's an article from February 13, ``Muslim Brotherhood Warns U.S. Aid Cut May Affect Egypt's Peace Treaty With Israel.'' But apparently they're getting assurances--hey, we're going to make sure you keep getting money from us. You hate our guts. You hate Israel. You want Israel gone. So, you know, hey, we're going to keep supporting you.

And, in fact, in another article from February 13 of this year, the headline reads, ``Obama Proposes $800 Million in Aid for `Arab Spring.' '' Well, we've seen what the Arab Spring has done. If you were a Christian while Mubarak was in power, there was some persecution, and it wasn't pretty. But now, all semblance of any efforts to allow Christians to worship freely in Egypt is gone. We saw a headline last year that the last public Christian church in Afghanistan had to be closed. We continue to pour in aid.

Here is a February 8, 2012, headline, ``Pentagon Counters Dim Assessment of Afghan War.'' Then there's another article, ``The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read,'' by Michael Hastings. There's one by Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, ``Truth, Lies, and Afghanistan: How Military Leaders Have Let Us Down.'' Here's one from February 10, 2012, ``Roads to Nowhere: Program to Win Over Afghans Fails.''

In talking to some of our troops in forward positions in Afghanistan, some were a bit down, particularly those who have been training Afghans to farm, because we are sending around $3 billion for nothing but projects in Afghanistan, including these types of farming projects, so the people can make their own way.

Yet we were told they were training the Afghans, they have been training the Afghans; but the billions of dollars the United States Government, the Obama administration has sent to Afghanistan to help them develop farming projects, at least in this one region, has never gotten past the corrupt regional government.

So the projects where they could use these farming skills that are being taught don't exist, and they are not anticipated to exist. We set up a corrupt government in Afghanistan. And I don't know how honest anybody in the Karzai regime was before they got there, but there should be a lesson that can be learned from King David, the only person mentioned in the Bible to have had a heart after God's own, that when there is no accountability, even the best among us can do terrible things.

So when you set up a government in Afghanistan and we, the United States, supported their constitution that said sharia law ruled, that meant there were not going to be any more Christian churches in Afghanistan, and now there're not. Not publicly. And Jews have had to flee from Afghanistan. The last report I read said there was one publicly acknowledged Jew in Afghanistan.

With all of the blood and treasure we shed to eliminate the Taliban, the Taliban has now come back, and now this administration has announced to the world and to the Taliban, Look, we will release all of the people we have in detention that have murdered American troops, we will let them come back. They can keep murdering when we let them go. We'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar if you'll just come talk to us.

That is the kind of proposal that everyone has heard, and that's what has allowed Taliban leaders, as one of them did in Afghanistan earlier this month, to announce to all of Afghanistan in their largest television station that, look, we're about to be in charge as soon as the American Government leaves.

So here's the deal. The American Government is--they basically acknowledge we've whipped them, they've lost. So they're doing everything they can to get us to negotiate. So here's the situation. If you have not been totally supportive of the Taliban here in Afghanistan, they say, then it's time to come to us, ask forgiveness, and ask for our providing safety for you. Because if you don't, when we take over, as soon as the U.S. pulls out, you know, you're in trouble. And the result could be the death penalty.

There is a way around totally abandoning the investment we had for a peaceful Afghanistan without a powerful Taliban. It's common sense. You see it throughout history. What you do is support friends who are enemies of your enemy. The Taliban is our enemy. We know that the Taliban can be defeated because they were when we had less than 1,500 American troops in Afghanistan, Special Ops guys, incredibly trained, and some of our best intelligence officers over there from our intelligence agencies, obviously not top intelligence officials because these guys were really competent. And they

whipped the Taliban, had them completely on the run. And then we kind of took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and started looking at Iraq, and the Taliban has made a resurgence, and they have become powerful again in Afghanistan.

In meeting with leaders from the Northern Alliance--even though Secretary Clinton and former Secretary Albright did what they could to keep us from meeting because, apparently, when this administration throws our allies under a bus, this administration wants them to stay under the bus. Some of us believe if somebody has been our ally, has helped fight our enemy, then they need to remain our friends. These are Muslims. These are our friends, and their enemy is our enemy. And I'm told by some of the military, American military leaders, that the Northern Alliance has plenty of weapons; but they don't have all the weapons that they had when they defeated the Taliban before. We do not have to stay in Afghanistan. But if we do not want to have to come back and fight the Taliban again, the thing to do is rearm and reempower the enemy of our enemies.

Afghanistan has never been strong and never had a strong central government. What made us, in our arrogance, think we could force a strong centralized government that would work in that country? It is a very tribal nation. In the northern area, this administration wants to call our allies, our former allies warlords, war criminals, blood on their hands. They were fighting for us and with us. So in this administration's effort to manipulate the U.S. media, they leak all kinds of stories about how terrible our allies were. They're fighting terrible people. They're fighting people who were training others to come kill thousands and thousands of Americans. These are not nice people, and war is not a pleasant thing.

The Northern Alliance leaders had two asks: one, help us get a constitution amended so that we get to elect our regional leaders. Each province in Afghanistan should be able to elect their local governors. Each province should be able to elect the mayors of the towns within that province. Let them select their own police chief. Let them do as the United States came together to do, not so much in 1983 with Articles of Confederation, but in 1987 with our U.S. Constitution that allowed people to elect local government officials, State government officials, and national officials.

We have a constitution that has been set up in Afghanistan that basically lets the Karzai administration appoint the regional governors, the mayors. They select the police chiefs. That is a system fraught with corruption. No matter how honest anybody is going in, including President Karzai, how in the world could you stay honest and above corruption when you have set up a system that lends itself to corruption?

Well, that's what's happening. So it doesn't seem so much to ask, let the Northern Alliance, as every other area of Afghanistan, elect their local leaders, elect their governors, and then those regional areas become strong again.

And then just as States fuss when the Federal Government of the United States tries to get too powerful, as we've seen with ObamaCare, let's empower those regional provincial governments in Afghanistan to be powerful enough to call down their national leaders when they are corrupt. Let's empower them to fix their own problems, and you don't have to have massive numbers of American troops to do that, but you do have to be smart in the way you deal with a country that has lots of your enemies that want to kill you.

So they asked, let us elect our local, regional leaders. Give us enough equipment where we can defeat the Taliban again, for you and for us.

Now, in meeting and talking to people in Afghanistan, they knew, as did the Baluch leaders in southern Pakistan, that the Taliban is being supplied and equipped with armaments. IEDs that are dismembering and killing our soldiers in Afghanistan are being supplied through the southern area of Pakistan.

This is an area of Pakistan that hadn't been Pakistan until 1948 when international leaders arbitrarily took pencils and just drew boundary lines, and they included most of Balochistan in with Pakistan. The Balochistanis did not want to be there. They have a very mineral-rich area that is supplying Pakistan with most of their minerals. And yet the Pakistan Government is so badly mistreating the Baluch people. They raid, they torture, and they terrorize the Baluch people in southern Pakistan.

And if Pakistan is going to so terribly mistreat our Muslim friends in southern Pakistan, in the Balochistan area of Pakistan, then it's time to push for an independent Balochistan that will be a nation of Muslim friends of the United States, and we will remain their friends because their enemy is our enemy, and we won't have to sacrifice American troops, American lives, and massive amounts of American treasure like we have been doing. You simply empower the enemy of our enemy and let them do the work for us.

That is the solution. That would be in keeping with holding dear the American lives that have been lost in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. That would be true to our beliefs and our desire only to fight those who want to destroy what we are and who we are. That would truly honor those who have given so much in honor of this country.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I have a friend, Mr. Mo Brooks, here. I yield back the balance of my time so Mr. Brooks can be recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are interesting days in which we live. There is supposed to be an old Chinese curse that says: May you live in interesting times; and it's as if that curse has been placed on us. We certainly live in interesting times.

On 9/11/2001, this country suffered the worst attack in its history on its homeland. It was worse than December 7, 1941. It left thousands dead, it left the Nation reeling from the feeling of vulnerability, and it pushed the Federal Government to respond quickly.

Now, there are a number of things that could be effectuated more effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be a subject for another time.

I recall after 9/11, Bill Bennett coming to my hometown of Tyler, Texas, and speaking at Tyler Junior College. And there was a huge crowd that turned out. People, in fact, turned out during those few months after 9/11 in record numbers to their churches and to places of worship in record numbers. Because much like the children of Israel after a disaster, they realized they needed to get back closer to our Creator.

The FBI, our intelligence attributes, all of our Justice Department, State Department and all of the Bush administration immediately was pushed into gear to do something to protect us. And in that regard, Bill Bennett speaking there in Tyler said, Some people get offended if they look somewhat like someone who committed the worst attack in American history and they're searched more thoroughly than perhaps someone else.

And Bill said, I just know that if there was a red-headed Irishman that had attacked the United States, he said, I could anticipate having to go through heightened security checks every time I try to fly, every time I try to go anywhere. And he said, If that were to happen, I would understand because, he said, I love this country. I want people to be safe and feel safe, and since someone who looked like me with red hair and my same heritage had committed that act, even though he was and is a law-abiding citizen, he would understand being subjected to more scrutiny.

There was a time in this country when common sense like that did prevail, when no one would have ever dreamed that in going through security at an airport and somebody like me asking, why did I get pulled aside for the extra inspection and the puffery and all the added scrutiny, and being told, you look like you wouldn't get mad. That told me a lot. I stood there and watched for about 20 minutes. There were a couple of African American businessmen, well dressed, they were pulled aside for the heightened scrutiny. They certainly had no resemblance to anybody that had attacked America on 9/11. A little old lady, one of our seniors, full of vim, vigor and spirit, she was pulled aside. Anyway, interesting times.

I think our Justice Department, some of our folks who are supposed to be looking out for our protection have been lulled into a false sense of security, and they have done what some say

would be to respond to the squeaky wheel. The OIC, the 57 Islamic nations that make up the OIC, are the ones that invented the term ``Islamophobia,'' and it was Islamic nations that have funded some of our Ivy League schools, institutions of higher learning yearning for more dollars to accept massive contributions in return for their doing seminars and conferences on Islamophobia and trying to make Americans think there's something wrong with them if they fear the people who brought about 9/11.

Now, I am grateful for my Muslim friends. I am very grateful for the Muslim allies we had--and have, although this administration is throwing them under the bus--that we have in northern Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, those in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. We've got Muslim friends all over the world. We have Muslim friends in this country who love the freedom here, who don't want to see this country hurt.

But there are those who have contributed to terrorism. There are those who have come here from other countries who hope to see our demise. My brother, who was living out north of the beltway, was shocked on 9/11, that afternoon, to see in a Muslim area north of the beltway children jumping and yelling and rejoicing over the deaths of Americans in the Pentagon and in the 9/11 towers. There was a time when Americans would have had more sensitivity than that. They would be so grateful to be in America they would not rejoice in the loss of innocent lives by Islamic jihadists.

The 9/11 Commission, bipartisan as it was, came to conclusions--with all of which I don't agree--but they made a very good-faith effort. They came to the conclusion about certain things, and it was clear that the actions of the terrorists that killed over 3,000 Americans were those of Islamic extremists, not rank-and-file, but Islamic extremists who believed that jihad meant the destruction of our way of life here in America, of Americans as infidels because they do not believe the same way.

Who would have believed that 10\1/2\ years later the mean people would not be those who have refused to denounce terrorist activities, those groups who have not only refused to denounce terrorist activity but who have actually supported terrorist activity through Hamas and Hezbollah--known terrorist organizations--and against whom there is sufficient evidence, as found by a district court in Texas and by the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sufficient evidence to move forward with the case. That's because the judge in the district court, Judge Solis, and the Fifth Circuit agreed that there was prima facia evidence of Muslim groups here in America who were named but unindicted coconspirators in funding terrorism, ``prima facia'' meaning adequate evidence to basically go forward. In fact, the words ``prima facia'' were used by Judge Solis in his decision.

Well, the FBI, over the years, seems to have relaxed in some regards, wanting to avoid being called Islamophobic, as the 57 Islamic states have shoved that notion further and further across our Nation, have pushed to meet one of their 10-year stated goals, as found in the materials of the Muslim Brotherhood archives found across the river in Virginia in a subbasement.

One of those goals was to subvert--actually subject the U.S. Constitution to sharia law; and the way to do that was to force a pronouncement that in America you could burn a Bible, you could put a cross in urine, you could call Christians all kinds of names, blaspheme Jesus Christ, you can burn an American flag, call the American Government all kinds of names, but under no circumstances should anyone defile a Koran.

As a Christian, I do not think anyone should ever abuse a Koran in any way. But the Constitution says if somebody wants to burn a Bible, that's been interpreted to mean you can burn a Bible. It's a freedom of speech issue. If you want to burn a flag, we're told you can do that.

Well, we had the Director of the FBI come before our Judiciary Committee in the not-too-distant past. And these are some of the documents that have been involved in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in which groups like the Islamic Society of North America, CAIR, others, were named coconspirators. In any event, Director Mueller, March 16 of last year, before our Judiciary Committee, had testified in answer to a number of questions that, gosh, they viewed the Muslim community as absolutely the same as any other community, even those Muslim communities that rejoiced over 9/11--he didn't say this, but it was clear--that rejoiced over the deaths of Americans on 9/11. They saw them just like every other community. He also testified about the positive outreach that the FBI had been making to Muslim communities.

Well, I don't have a problem with that, but why would the FBI see the need to make positive outreach into any community of a specific nature?

So, after Director Mueller had indicated, yes, we have this wonderful outreach program with the Muslim communities and those communities are exactly like every other community, I said:

You had mentioned earlier--and it is in your written

statement--that the FBI has developed extensive outreach to

Muslim communities. And in answer to an earlier question, I

understood you to say that Muslim communities were like all

other communities. So I'm curious, as a result of the

extensive outreach program the FBI has had to the Muslim

community, how has your outreach program gone with the

Baptists and the Catholics?

Mr. Mueller said:

I am not certain of necessarily the thrust of that

question. I would say that our outreach to all segments of a

particular city or county or society is good.

I said:

Well, do you have a particular program of outreach to

Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics, or is it just

an extensive outreach program to----

He interrupted and said:

We have outreach to every one of those communities.

I asked how he did that. And he started to filibuster. I said:

I have looked extensively, and I haven't seen anywhere in

any one from the FBI's letters information that there has

been an extensive outreach program to any other community

trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship, and it

makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem

like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

And just so there's no mistaking, let me just read directly from the judge's opinion in the Holy Land Foundation case in response to the effort by ISNA, CAIR, NAIT, the Holy Land Foundation, and others.

The judge said:

The government has produced ample evidence to establish the

associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the Holy Land

Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with

Hamas. While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced

by the government largely predates the HLF designation date,

the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the

association of these entities with the Holy Land Foundation,

the Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas.

There was plenty of evidence to support that, according to the judge. That was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.

It is important to note that, out of concern for the FBI's outreach program, and the State Department, and the White House, for reaching out and bringing in people who courts have said have supported terrorism, and these people are being brought in--in the military we said brought inside the wire--in this case, brought inside the State Department, brought inside The White House on a regular basis, brought inside the Justice Department, my friend, Frank Wolf, had this language added to the continuing resolution that was passed, that President Obama signed into law. This is language in the law, and my friend, Mr. Wolf, included it to reference the FBI's policy.

It says, and this is the language in the law:

Conferees support the FBI's policy prohibiting any formal

non-investigative cooperation with unindicted coconspirators

in terrorism cases. The conferees expect the FBI to insist on

full compliance with this policy by FBI field offices, and to

report to the Committees on Appropriations regarding any

violation of the policy.

Well, guess what? We didn't get this from the FBI. We had to get it from the Islamic Society of North America's own Web site. They reported that on Wednesday, February 8, that's this year, the American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, the Arab American

Institute, the Interfaith Alliance, the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, which has been pronounced by the Fifth Circuit as having plenty of evidence to support that they fund terrorism and have, and then it mentions other groups, including the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign.

But they, it says:

They had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the

Public Affairs Office of the FBI. Director Robert Mueller

joined the meeting to discuss these matters with

representatives from the organizations.

The conversation with Director Mueller centered on material used by the agency that depicts falsehoods and negative connotations of the Muslim American community. The use of the material was first uncovered by Wired magazine.

And that was uncovered by an organization that seems to be right in there with those who were unindicted but named coconspirators in funding terrorism.

Well, from ISNA they say:

Director Mueller informed the participants that the FBI

took the review of the training material very seriously, and

he pursued the matter with urgency to ensure that this does

not occur again in the future.

ISNA President Imam Magid, who's a frequent visitor to the White House, who the White House consults on speeches, or has, and welcomed to the inner sanctum of the State Department, other Departments here in Washington, Magid stated:

The discovery of FBI training materials that discriminated

against Muslims did damage to the trust that was built

between dedicated FBI officials and the American Muslim

community. We welcome and appreciate Director Mueller's

commitment to take positive steps toward eradicating such

materials and rebuilding trust in an open dialogue.

The director also informed participants that to date,

nearly all related FBI training materials, including more

than 160,000 pages of documents, were reviewed by subject

matter experts multiple times. Consequently, more than 700

documents, 300 presentations of material, have been deemed

unusable by the Bureau and pulled from the training

curriculum. Material was pulled from the curriculum if even

one component was deemed to include factual errors or be in

poor taste or be stereotypical, or lack precision.

I guess stereotypical would mean if they point out that terrorists have had one thing in common, that that would be stereotypical.

Well, ISNA also reports:

It was clear to all meeting participants that the issue of

trust between community members and the FBI needs to be taken

seriously by all our nation's decisionmakers. It was evident

the Bureau must strengthen its efforts to build trust.

How about trust from the other side? How about condemnation of terrorist acts?

How about coming out and making clear all ties have been severed with Hamas and Hezbollah and those who would seek to make terror on innocent people?

Anyway, ISNA's rejoicing because they've gotten the FBI to actually go through and cull material that includes words like jihad, words like Islamist.

And, in fact, and I really do wish, Mr. Speaker, that our Director of the FBI would be as concerned about this law as he is about laws that don't exist, but his concern is about offending people who have been supporting terrorism that has been killing innocent people around the world.

Instead, this is what we have as a result of the efforts by this administration and the Director of the FBI. The 9/11 Commission report mentioned 322 times Islam because the people who were the hijackers, the people that planned the attacks, that hoped that they would kill tens of thousands of Americans instead of 3,000, those who helped train them in Afghanistan, those who helped plan and participate from other radical Islamist groups, they were Islamists. They believed in Islam. And thank God that they only represent a tiny percentage of Muslims around the world. But let's be realistic. As one intelligence officer said, we are blinding ourselves to being able to see who our enemy is.

Well, our FBI can be very, very proud. No longer in training materials, as the director told the named coconspirator of terrorism, ISNA, no longer are they going to mention Islam, Muslim, jihad, enemy. They don't mention the Muslim Brotherhood. They don't mention Hamas. They don't mention Hezbollah. They don't mention al Qaeda. They don't mention caliphate. They don't mention sharia law.

Those have been wiped clean from our training materials so that new FBI trainees, people coming in, will have no idea exactly what they're facing because they're being told, you must look only at a group as supporting heightened violence. But you cannot examine their books, things that mean very much to them, things that motivate these killers, these terrorists. You can't look at the things and their interpretations, what makes them tick.

How do you defeat an enemy if you cannot look at what makes them think the way they do? I would think that groups, our Muslim friends who want to help keep this country free, instead of demanding that we not realize that these are Islamic jihadists that want to kill us, that they would be out there pointing these people out publicly and condemning them. Instead, they're condemning those who simply want to protect America, who want to live in peace, want to live in freedom.

Imagine what these same kind of groups would have said if they had heard the prayer on D-day, live? Can you imagine these groups hearing Franklin Roosevelt's prayer on radio as he prayed for 6-to-10 minutes publicly, a prayer that you can find online?

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have

set up on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our

Republic, our religion, and our civilization to set free a

suffering humanity.

He goes on and prays for a very long time on D-day as our troops were trying to retake Europe.

He also says in his prayer:

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in

our sons; faith in each other; faith in our crusade. Let not

the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the

impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but

fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable

purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy

forces of our enemy.

Back then, Roosevelt didn't know you couldn't call your enemy that wanted to take over your Nation, that wanted to kill innocent people, that wanted to take away your liberty, Roosevelt didn't know you couldn't call them unholy forces of our enemy. So he used those terms because he cared about America. He cared about protecting America.

We want to live in peace. We want to live in peace with our Muslim friends, our Hindu friends, our agnostics, our atheists. But for heaven's sake, do not keep blinding our intelligence community, our justice community.

There was a time when in America you could call things just as they were, and in the Revolution one of the most quoted statements was attributed to Voltaire:

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

your right to say it.

Now, when someone disagrees with what you say, they want to destroy your life, destroy your livelihood.

It's time for America to wake up before we get hit again. We have people in this country who are supporting terrorism. There's prima facie evidence to establish it; the courts have found it. This administration refused to pursue it when the evidence was clearly there, refused to pursue these people; and instead of pursuing the unindicted coconspirators after the convictions and the Holy Land Foundation--oh, sure, this administration says, Well, the Bush administration wasn't going to. The Bush administration was going to pursue the unindicted coconspirators if they got convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which they did, near the end of 2008.

It's this administration that refused to go forward and prosecute anyone further.

So instead of prosecuting people supporting terrorism, this administration calls them into the White House, calls them into the Justice Department and says why can't we be friends.

It's time to wake up. We owe this country a defense with our eyes open, with our arms and heart open to help those who really are helpless, but to stand firm even to the death as our servicemembers are pledged to do, as I did my 4 years on active duty. Let's stand firm together until those who are intent on destroying us and supporting

terrorism are made to account and back off and say we're no longer your enemy. Then all communities can worship and love as one.

We've got to protect America.

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