Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it was September 1972. People from all over the world were gathered in Munich, Germany, for the Olympic Games. After World War II, there was a feeling of optimism and unity. But overnight, those feelings turned to turmoil and turned to terror.

The world awoke to images of a deadly terrorist attack in the Olympic Village. A terrorist group called Black September took 11 Israeli hostages and massacred them. In response, the Israeli Government did not hesitate. The Israeli policy was: you will not murder Israelis anywhere in the world.

So for 20 years, Israel hunted down the killers all over the globe, from Paris to London to Beirut to Stockholm. With its response, one thing became clear to the terrorists: if they hurt Israelis, there would be consequences, and the consequences would not be pleasant. Israel would find them, and Israel did find them.

So flash-forward 40 years. On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, there were once again attacks on American sovereign soil. In Egypt, militants stormed the U.S. Embassy. In Libya, our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were brutally murdered.

There has been no accountability or action from this administration regarding these crimes. All Americans have received are grainy surveillance photos and some empty promises.

Where is the justice for these families of these four victims? The identities of some of the attackers are known. Why have we failed to go get them?

When America has been tested by terrorists in the past, we have gone after them, just like Israel has done.

In 1996, 19 American soldiers were murdered in Saudi Arabia. The United States responded.

In 2001, when 3,000 people from all over the world were murdered here in the United States, we responded. President Bush said:

The search is under way for those who are behind these evil

acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence

and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and

bring them to justice.

Is that our U.S. policy today? Well, we don't know. We don't know what the current U.S. policy is about Americans killed overseas. All we get is a lot of words with no results from the administration.

Our enemies continue to test us because they no longer fear us, Mr. Speaker. The world no longer knows where America stands on terrorist attacks--not our allies, not our enemies, and not American citizens.

So what is our policy when a U.S. Embassy is attacked? More broadly speaking, what is our foreign policy in north Africa? North Africa is a breeding ground for terrorism, and al Qaeda affiliates are being trained and expanding across the entire African continent.

Earlier this year, on January 16, al Qaeda-linked terrorists affiliated with Mokhtar Belmokhtar took 800 people hostage at a gas facility in Algeria. One of those hostages killed was Victor Lovelady, a neighbor of mine in Atascocita, Texas. Victor's brother, Mike Lovelady, testified in front of our Terrorism Subcommittee last week. His family deserves answers from this administration about what happened in Algeria when Americans were killed.

Who are these terrorists in Benghazi? Who are these terrorists in Algeria? Have these ringleaders gotten away with these murders? Is the massive intelligence service of the United States

of America not capable of finding these people throughout the world?

Maybe the intelligence service ought to spend a little less time snooping around in the private lives of Americans and go after terrorists overseas, but that's a different issue.

The Loveladys deserve justice. They lost a father, a brother, and a husband.

These attacks in North Africa prove that Osama bin Laden may be dead but that terrorism is still alive and well. If terrorists do not know the consequences of their actions, they will not fear any consequences. That is the world in which we live.

It's time, maybe, that we articulate a policy and mean it. If you attack Americans, America will come after you. Come hell or high water, we're going to track you down somewhere in the world. The Libyan and Algerian killers must meet the same fate as the members of the Black September group.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you talk to the President, tell the President to track these people down. Let them know they cannot run, they cannot hide, they cannot disappear into the darkness of their evil ways-- because justice is what we must have. Justice is what we do in this country.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the fine career and outstanding community involvement of a great Houstonian, a devoted public servant and my friend, Melvin Dow. Melvin is retiring after 62 years of service to our community. It is an honor for me to recognize Melvin, not only for his numerous professional accomplishments and many contributions to our community, but also for his service to our country.

After graduating from Rice University, Melvin earned his law degree from Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude and served as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Melvin began his career and service with the United States Army, where he was commissioned as a First Lieutenant, in the Army General Counsel's Office in the Pentagon. Following his service in the Army, Melvin moved back to Houston to begin his legal career in Harris County.

Melvin's extensive knowledge of the justice system and his incredible work ethic quickly gained him respect from his colleagues in the law profession. Over his career, Melvin was routinely recognized for his expertise and contributions to the legal community. He was included in the Best Lawyers in America for 28 consecutive years and was listed as a ``Super Lawyer'' by Texas Monthly Magazine for multiple years. In addition, Melvin serves as a member of the Harvard Law School's Board of Overseers' Visiting Committee.

In addition to his notable recognition for his work within the legal community, Melvin has also earned acknowledgements for his work within the Jewish-American community. Melvin is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Melitz, and Melvin serves on the Advisory Boards of the University of Texas Hillel Foundation, the Rice University Jewish Studies Program, and Congregation Beth Yeshurun of Houston. Melvin previously served as National President of AIPAC, trustee of the Jewish Publication Society, President of Congregation Beth Yeshurun, Vice President of the Jewish Federation of Houston and on the Board of Trustees of St. John's School. The list of this model citizen's accomplishments is impressive and well-deserved. Melvin's service to his city, state and nation as well as his faith will have an enduring positive impact.

A dedicated family man, Melvin has been married to his wife, Frieda, for 55 years. Together, they are the proud parents of five sons and grandparents to nine granddaughters and three grandsons.

I have had the opportunity to travel with Melvin and Frieda to Israel and observe first-hand their dedication to Israel's Absolute Right to Exist and to be a free democratic Republic.

On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I commend this remarkable Texan for his exemplary service and dedication to Harris County and to the State of Texas. Thank you, Melvin, for a lifetime of remarkable achievements within the legal community and for your steadfast commitment in helping to better your community.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, in this sizzling ``Summer of Scandals,'' the evidence of no accountability continues to mount.

Someone in the Federal Government commits wrongdoing. The White House denies involvement or knowledge. Blames low-level operatives or somebody else. No accountability.

Exhibit 1: Fast and Furious. The government smuggled guns into Mexico. Two Americans and hundreds of Mexicans were killed by those guns. White House blamed Bush. An employee resigned. No accountability.

Exhibit 2: Benghazi. Requests for increased security were denied both before and during the attack. Four Americans were killed. Investigation bungled. A YouTube video was blamed. An employee was placed on leave but still collects a paycheck. No accountability.

Exhibit 3: IRS admitted targeting conservative organizations. Employees in Ohio were blamed. White House denied knowledge. No accountability.

Exhibit 4: The DOJ was caught wiretapping reporters to silence a leak. White House denied involvement. No accountability.

As the ``Summer of Scandals'' continues, the most transparent administration in history keeps hiding information from citizens about the abuse of its government power.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) from H.R. 1962.

Mr. Speaker, at a House Judiciary hearing, Eric ``With'' Holder, the Attorney General, admitted to me that more people were going to die because of Operation Fast and Furious. That's the Justice Department and ATF gunrunning scheme that sent hundreds of U.S. automatic weapons to criminal drug cartels in Mexico.

Recently, Mexican Police Chief Lucio Rosales Astorga of Hostotipaquillo, Mexico, was ambushed and gunned down by assassins as he was driving his son to school. His wife and two bodyguards were also shot. The automatic weapon used to shoot him was a Fast and Furious gun smuggled to Mexico by the U.S. Government. Reportedly, over 200 Mexican nationals have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons.

American guns are at the side of these puddles of blood. Chief Astorga's son will be fatherless because of this government's recklessness. Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric ``With'' Holder keeps stonewalling justice and withholding information on this gunrunning scheme.

Mr. Speaker, somebody needs to go to jail. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, there were 56 of them. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor in the signing of the document that proclaimed that all people are endowed

by their Creator with certain, absolute rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and governments are instituted to preserve those rights.

It was Philadelphia.

It was July 4, 1776.

It was the Declaration of Independence.

Then, after 8 years of war, this ``rabble,'' as the British called the colonists, defeated King George III.

We went our own way.

``Independence''--I like the sound of that word. It means that we the people have rule over government, and government will be our servant rather than our being government's serf.

Liberty, freedom, independence. These three noble words are a reality in this, the greatest of all nations. As a Son of the American Revolution, I thank the patriots who gave us independence.

So, Mr. Speaker, next week on this special day, fly the flag, listen to the band play ``Stars and Stripes Forever,'' and thank the good Lord for shedding His grace on the United States of America.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the President this week declared he's going

to unilaterally stop climate change. That's right, he's going to part the oceans and change the temperature to his liking. How's he going to do this? Well, he's declaring war on fossil fuels--again.

This week it's coal. Mr. Speaker, coal counts for 37 percent of our Nation's electricity. How does the President plan to make up for that 37 percent? Well, the ruler doesn't really say. I guess that 37 percent will just have to do without heat come winter. In his radical climate change manifesto, to a room packed full of his environmental lobby, the President issued a edict to the EPA to regulate coal out of existence.

Both Congress and the American people have overwhelmingly rejected this policy in the past. Never mind the will of the people, never mind Congress has said ``no'' to these ideas. The President is pandering to the environmental groups, and he wants it his way. So he's just going to issue another one of those--what I believe is unconstitutional-- executive orders.

Mr. Speaker, there are consequences for such rash actions by the President. The White House war on coal will raise the cost of energy for American families, cripple the economy, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs of people who work in the energy industry. The war on coal is really a war on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the President is not aware that the coal plant over here on South Capitol Street heats part of the Capitol. Is this his way to silence Congress? Who knows. But this is just another day from the administration whose energy policy is ``nothing from below.'' Nothing from below the ground, nothing from below the sea. No oil, no coal, no gas, and no jobs. That's the result of this policy. That's why I've introduced the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act. My bill will put an end to this back-door attempt by this administration to go around Congress and circumvent the will of the people. This bill would prohibit any EPA funds from being used to implement the regulation of greenhouse gases. This has passed in the House, but it has yet to become law.

Now let's talk about natural gas. Down the street from the White House is another marble bureaucratic palace they call the Department of Energy. Sitting on their oak desks are dusty folders holding applications to export liquefied natural gas. In 2010, the oil and gas industry contributed almost $500 billion to our economy. And over the last 7 years, the amount of recoverable natural gas in our country has skyrocketed. For the first time in our Nation's history, we have more natural gas than we can use here in the United States, even if we tried. America can sell that gas on the global market for billions of dollars, creating thousands of jobs in the process; but we're not doing it, for one simple bureaucratic red-tape reason--the Department of Energy.

In typical Washington-style fashion, we've seen delay, delay, delay by the Department of Energy to approve these permits. Over the last 70 years, this bureaucratic hurdle was hardly noticed as the U.S. was an importer of natural gas, but not so anymore. Technology has changed all of this. There are some 18 export applications sitting over there on those desks in those dusty folders for the DOE to approve. The Department's response: no response. In the last 3 years, the DOE has granted only two applications. Meanwhile, countries that want to buy American natural gas are going to our worldwide competitors, like China and Russia. Isn't that lovely.

Understand this, Mr. Speaker, there is already an agency, FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, that is in the pipeline to approve applications such as this. So we have duplication with the DOE and FERC. So what we have to do is remove the DOE from the process, remove this duplication.

Mr. Speaker, we have enough oil, natural gas, and coal in America to make the Middle East turmoil, Middle East politics, and Middle East energy irrelevant if we would just use our own God-given natural resources. Washington bureaucrats sit at their large oak desks sipping on those lattes every day, and they are regulating American energy out of business. It's time to take the padlock off the marble palaces of the EPA and the DOE and remove the bureaucrats from the energy business. Let's use the resources the good Lord has given us to take care of America.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, another day, another IRS scandal is revealed.

The Inspector General has identified improper use of taxpayer money by the people who collect taxes--the tax collectors. While the IRS was targeting conservative groups for audits, over 100 IRS employees improperly used government credit cards. ``I'm shocked.''

Tax collectors have been sticking it to the taxpayers with spending only the IRS can get away with, including--listen to this--thousands of dollars on diet pills, romance novels, baby bottles, baby clothes, smartphones, a popcorn machine, bandanas, stuffed animals, sunglasses, ``swag'' like kazoos, and Thomas the Tank Engine wristbands and bathtub toys. There's a lot more. You can't make this up, Mr. Speaker. Were they ever disciplined by the IRS? Of course not. This is the IRS. They are the law. They are the government.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to audit the tax man and the tax collectors. The squandered money should be returned in full to the Treasury--with interest penalty, just like the tax collectors charge citizens when they audit us.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war raging in Syria. No question about it, President Assad is a bad guy. He hates Israel and he hates his own people. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. I have been to Syrian refugee camps in Turkey and seen firsthand the devastation of this war. In one camp I went to, there were 150,000 Syrians in Turkey fleeing from the devastation of war.

However, there are numerous rebel groups trying to remove Assad from power. Who exactly are these rebels? We really don't know. But we do know the most powerful among them is al Nusra, an affiliate of al Qaeda. These extremists on both sides are killing each other in the name of religion, and the people of Syria are caught in the middle.

Lining up on President Assad's side are the nations of Russia and Iran; also, the terrorist group Hezbollah, of course, sponsored by Iran. Lining up on the so-called rebels' side are Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and numerous rebel groups from patriots to criminals to al Qaeda and outside mercenaries.

For 2 years, the United States has just ignored the situation; but now, suddenly, the administration has decided it's time to get involved. The administration's answer: send the rebels American guns. Send the rebels American guns? Blindly traffic American guns into Syria and, I guess, hope for the best.

Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? We've tried this before. We've seen this song and dance in Libya and even in Mexico, our neighbor. This administration is gun-happy to give guns away. In Libya, the administration armed the rebel group to oust Muammar Qadhafi, another bad guy. Well, where are those guns now? Were they used in Benghazi? Who knows. The administration is still silent on Benghazi. Those guns are scattered all over the Middle East and in north Africa.

Were they used in Algeria? Remember, Mr. Speaker, in Algeria there were Americans working at an energy plant there, along with other citizens from other countries. Two Americans were killed in that attack. Were they also used in Mali? Who knows. Only time will tell. And who has died because these weapons end up in the wrong hands every time we give American guns away to rebel groups?

By providing weapons to radical sectors fighting against Assad, we're really taking sides in somebody else's war. We're also arming some radicals who seek to destroy us, like al Qaeda, who is fighting on the side of rebels. More weapons will only escalate this conflict. More people are going to die because the United States picks sides.

But Syria and Libya are not the first time this administration blindly trafficked weapons to terrorists. Let's go back to our own hemisphere. Let's talk about our neighbor, Mexico. Do you remember Operation Fast and Furious? We still haven't gotten answers on that scandal.

In an effort to help fight the drug cartels, the administration sent thousands of weapons to Mexico without even telling the Mexican Government. And who got those weapons? The drug cartels.

Of course these guns ended up in the hands of the terrorists--the narcoterrorists--and resulted in the death of at least two or three Americans and hundreds of Mexican nationals. Another botched gunrunning operation sponsored by the U.S. Government.

Too bad we don't learn from history and stop this nonsense of furnishing guns to groups in somebody else's country. Did we implement universal background checks on the violent criminals we armed in Syria, Libya and Mexico? Yeah, right. Is this the new foreign policy of the United States--international weapons trafficking?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, this administration is on a tireless crusade to ban guns in the United States. Mr. Speaker, why is the White House so determined on disarming Americans while arming known potential terrorists, bandits, drug lords and mercenaries? Ironic, don't you think? But that's a different issue for a different day.

And I ask this question: What is the national security interest of the United States to be involved in Syria, in somebody else's civil war? There is none. This is not our war.

Mr. Speaker, this is a regional religious war that we should not be involved in. It's a war between the Sunnis and the Shias. These two religious groups have been fighting each other since the year 630, and now we're involved in this regional, religious war. What's next? Is the administration going to propose and implement a no-fly zone? Well, if this occurs, I believe the President must ask for congressional approval under the War Powers Act.

Almost 100,000 Syrians are dead.

No question, the U.S. should help with humanitarian aid.

The U.S. should work for a political solution, not a military solution.

But the Administration's policy seems to be traffic guns to third world countries and subversives and hope for the best.

However, recent history has shown this is a bad idea.

This is a dangerous foreign policy.

What area of the world is next for our gun running government?

Wait and see.

And that's just the way it is.

War Powers Act

(In Part)

50 USC Sec. 1541--Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of

the framers of the Constitution of the United States and

insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and

the President will apply to the introduction of United States

Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where

imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by

the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in

hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and

proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is

specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power

to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into

execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers

vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United

States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief;

limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-

Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into

hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in

hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are

exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United

States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

Mr. Speaker, today the President declared war on America's energy. The administration issued an imperial-style edict ordering the EPA, in essence, to shut down domestic energy: oil, natural gas, and coal.

Never mind the consequences. By shutting down coal, for instance, he's shutting down 37 percent of America's energy. But he doesn't care that Congress has rejected this policy in the past. He just wants it his way.

Well, he won't get it without a fight. I have introduced the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act. This bill will put an end to the back-door, monarch-style administration that ignores Congress and circumvents the will of the people.

The bill would prohibit any EPA funds from being used to implement the regulation of greenhouse gases. The White House's new war on energy will only raise the costs for our families, cripple the economy, and put Americans out of work.

This war is out of touch with the real world. It's a war against America that Americans can't afford to lose.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Small Business Week, a week dedicated to honoring the important contributions of America's entrepreneurs and small business owners. Small businesses are what this country was built on; they are what hold our nation together; and they will help get America's economy back on track.

One exemplary small business that stands strong is Sullivan's Advanced Paint and Body Shop in Kingwood, Texas. Operating since 1985, Sullivan's has become a local institution in the Greater Houston area, and it's not difficult to see why. Sullivan's began when Danny Sullivan, who moved to Kingwood in 1977, decided to use his knowledge and skills for auto repair and open up a local body shop. Danny partnered with his brother to make their

dream of owning their own auto shop a reality. Through the brothers' hard work and determination, Sullivan's was born. Since then, the family-run business has provided superior service and personal care to anyone who walks through their doors. The Sullivan family has made their shop a place where locals can come and feel comfortable; the lobby of the body shop is always stocked with snacks and hot coffee and has become a location where neighbors come to chat and have their engine repaired at the same time.

The people who work for Sullivan's Advanced Paint and Body Shop are not just friendly--they are excellent at what they do--fixing cars. The Sullivan brothers knew that a successful small business can't be run on friendly personalities alone. Danny Sullivan himself was the number one ranked technician in the country in 1981, 1982, and 1983, and he made it a priority to hire individuals with a talent for repairing automobiles. In other words, there is no doubt that they know what they are doing.

Sullivan's is an excellent example of what makes our nation great and is well deserving of recognition during National Small Business Week. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and shops like Sullivan's are what keep us going.

At Sullivan's, the motto is: ``Excellence doesn't just happen, it's a decision we make every day.'' Their actions and attitudes certainly reflect their motto In America, successful businesses come from business owners like the Sullivan brothers.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, recently we've learned that the NSA, what I call the ``National Surveillance Agency,'' seized millions of phone records of Americans to try to find a few bad guys. Overreaching and unconstitutional, in my opinion, it violates the right of privacy.

FBI Director Mueller has now confirmed what many of us already believe, that the FBI has used drones domestically to peep on Americans. Who are they spying on? Do they have probable cause? Do they have a warrant from a judge? We don't know.

Madam Speaker, by 2030, there will be 30,000 drones cruising, filming, looking, spying, snooping, and hovering over America's sky. Congress needs to regulate drone use to protect the right of privacy and ensure the Fourth Amendment is actually protected.

Congresswoman Lofgren and I have filed the Preserving American Privacy Act (PAPA) to make government snoops and private entities follow the Constitution in the use of drones. We must regulate lawful and unlawful drone use because drone laws are needed to keep the peeping tomcrats out of our business.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Food and candy opponents of U.S. sugar policy would like to expose American sugar farmers to distorted world market for sugar. But the United States sugar growers are already exposed. Mexico has unlimited access to the United States market.

One thing that hasn't been said: 20 percent of the Mexican sugar industry is owned by the Mexican Government. Mexico owns and operates its sugar industry, which is five times larger than the Texas sugar- producing industry. As this chart shows, since 2008, Mexico has gotten unlimited access to the United States sugar market, and, in fact, the prices of sugar are the same prices as they were in the 1980s.

My friends on both sides that propose this amendment say that we need a more free market. The United States cannot unilaterally disarm. That jeopardizes 142,000 jobs and leaves us dependent on the Brazilian and Mexican food industry that is run by the Mexican Government.

This amendment does not promote free trade or free market; it promotes a government-run industry from Mexico and Brazil.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 266 I inadvertantly voted ``yea'' and I intended to vote ``nay.''

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

Mr. Speaker, there is a war going on in Syria. Some call it a civil war. It may have started out as a civil war, but it has escalated. The Government of Syria, is ruled by the dictator Assad. He's a bad guy; no question about it. Several rebel groups, and we're still not sure who all these people are, are trying to remove him from power. World powers seem to be taking sides in this battle.

You have the Syrian Government supported by Iran and Russia. There's also this little terrorist group called Hezbollah supporting the regime. But on the other side, you've got the rebels, numerous groups, including al Qaeda, a terrorist group. You've got Saudi Arabia; Qatar; you've got the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt supporting the rebels. Turkey is concerned, and even Great Britain has weighed in on this, a former colonial power in the region. And so more and more groups and nations are lining up in this war in Syria that's been going on for 2 years; 100,000 people have been killed by both sides. Refugees are leaving the country and going to other countries.

I recently was in Turkey on the border of Turkey and Syria, and I saw a refugee camp that had 150,000 Syrians that had escaped the war in Syria. No question the U.S. should help with humanitary aid.

And finally now the United States, after 2 years, we've decided we're going to take sides. The President has said we're going to give arms to the Syrian rebels and that they're going to be vetted so we make sure that we're not giving those to other terrorist groups. I don't know if we're going to do a universal background check on the rebels, or what; but small arms for the rebels?

Here's what the President said:

We're not taking sides in this religious war between Shia

and Sunni. Really, what we are trying to do is take sides

against extremists of all sorts.

Well, it seems to me what we are really doing is taking both sides and we're arming extremists at least on one side. And I ask the question: What is the national security interest of the United States to be involved in somebody else's war? There isn't one. We don't have a national security interest to be involved in this war. The United States seems to have a habit of getting involved in other people's business; and once again, we have made the problem in Syria our problem by being involved and supporting the rebel groups.

What is the goal of the United States's involvement? This war is not going to be easily won by the rebels. Are we going to then add more military power to the rebels? What's the end game? What is the goal here, to put another rebel group in power in another country?

You know, we've kind of forgotten what we did in Libya. There's Muammar Qadhafi, the bad guy of Libya. No question about it, a horrible person. So what does the United States do? We support the rebels who overthrow the Libyan President, the Libyan dictator. We sent small arms. And you know, Mr. Speaker, those small arms are still in North Africa, and they've spread all over North Africa. We don't know what has happened to those weapons that the United States gave to those rebels. Only time will tell.

So this is not our war; yet we seem to be very interested in supporting this, as the President correctly said, a religious war. You've got the Shia's and you've got the Sunnis. They've been at each other since the year 630, and they haven't resolved their conflicts and yet here a century and a half later, another conflict is involved. It's a religious war between two groups in the Middle East. It is escalating. The United States' national interest is not at stake. What the United States should do and work toward is a political solution to this problem, not a military solution to this problem, and do what we can to resolve it politically and help really both sides resolve it.

This is not our war, Mr. Speaker. We have no national security interest. There's no American goal. We don't know the goal. We don't know the end result, and we don't even know who we are arming as those rebels. They could be made up of criminals, patriots, al Qaeda. We ought not be involved in this war that has no national security interest for the United States.

And that's just the way it is.