Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the great Henry Hyde once said, ``Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of life and a culture of death. God put us in the world to do noble things, to love and to cherish our fellow human beings, not to destroy them. Today we must choose sides.''

It is so very important that those of us here remember that we as Americans, and even more so as members of this body, have a special stewardship that perhaps no other people on Earth have.

While every human being is called of God to make the best difference they can in this life for their fellow human beings, in America that calling weighs heavier upon us as citizens than it does any other people on Earth. Because this Nation was founded on the timeless premise that all men are created equal; with the image of God stamped on each soul; with the rights to LifE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--in that order.

Yet today marks 40 years of legalized abortion-on-demand in America. Of over 50 million

innocent unborn babies slaughtered before they see the light of day.

I both hope and believe that the conscience of America has begun to stir. I mourn the genocide marked by today's tragic anniversary, Mr. Speaker. But more than that, I look prayerfully forward to the day when the same America that rushed into Europe to arrest the Nazi holocaust will muster that same courage here at home, and future generations of children will walk in the sunlight of freedom. May it be so, Mr. Speaker.

``The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

``The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, I was gratified today to hear our beloved citizen of Arizona, Chaplain Donna Kafer, offer our prayer.

Chaplain Kafer is the author of two books, ``Women of Courage'' and ``Women of Faith,'' and she's currently working on a third book called ``Women of Grace.'' And that will complete the series, ``Gardens of Grace.''

Mr. Speaker, I think it's especially appropriate because, indeed, Donna Kafer is a woman of grace that I've had the privilege to know for a very long time and am so grateful to be able to call her ``friend.''

She has made her aim in life to serve her God, her country, her family, and the truth. She serves as the appointed chaplain for the Arizona State Legislature, where she has provided spiritual encouragement for leaders, staff, and State employees for about 14 years now, Mr. Speaker.

Chaplain Kafer has a master's degree in ministry through Phoenix University of Theology, and has received chaplaincy training through the Southwest School of Chaplaincy.

Chaplain Kafer is an Arizona native. She lives in Peoria, Arizona, with her husband of 23 years, Ross, a firefighter-paramedic, and their daughter, Andrea, a 20-year-old college student. They've been members of Christ's Church of the Valley in northwest Peoria for nearly 18 years, under the noble leadership of Pastor Don Wilson. And it is my honor for her to be our guest today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by Mr. Gosar from Arizona, and it confronts a stunning example of environmentalism run amuck. If the Navajo Generating Station is forced to close due to the EPA's nonsensical actions, it would be devastating to the economies of the surrounding region, including those of the Hopi and Navajo Tribes.

As the sole remaining buyer of coal from the Hopi Tribe, shutting down the Navajo Generating Station would cut nearly 90 percent of the tribe's income, and it would effectively shut down the Hopi Tribe as a functioning government in addition to putting hundreds of Arizonans, including hundreds of members of the Navajo Tribe, out of work and affecting hundreds of thousands of Arizonans' current ability to receive water and electricity.

In exchange for all of the difficulties created, the only ``benefit'' yielded would be a slight change in visibility, so slight as to not even be detectable without specialized equipment that is significantly more sensitive than the human eye. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the supposed environmental benefit is functionally nonexistent. This is far beyond the pale of environmental stewardship.

Mr. Chairman, I commend Mr. Gosar for offering this amendment, and I sincerely encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 4 years ago, Barack Obama was swept into office by the strength of his rhetoric; but the profound difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and the reality Americans have actually lived under in his Presidency is something every American has a profound responsibility to understand.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric on jobs and the economy 4 years ago was:

We have to have a President who understands that the

essence of the American Dream is a good job.

But the reality under Mr. Obama's Presidency is the highest sustained unemployment since the Great Depression. The percentage of people participating in America's labor market under this Presidency has fallen to 63.5 percent. That is the lowest rate since Jimmy Carter was President 31 years ago. Manufacturing unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels since 1941. The number of unemployed Americans eclipsed 15 million for the first time in history. The number of people forced to work part-time for economic reasons eclipsed 8 million for the first time in history.

Under Mr. Obama's Presidency, the average time it takes Americans to find a job reached the highest total in the history of the statistics being measured. And for the first time in history, Mr. Speaker, over 4 million Americans have stopped looking for work altogether.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric on government spending and debt 4 years ago was:

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

That's irresponsible. That's unpatriotic.

But the reality under Mr. Obama's Presidency is that he had in the first year he was in office the first $1 trillion deficit in history. He's done that 4 years in a row now. Mr. Obama always loves to blame his predecessor. However, the deficit for all of 2007 was $161 billion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Obama increased the debt by that much in just 1 month. In 2007, America's debt to GDP ratio was 62 percent. According to IMF, it will hit 100 percent this year.

Mr. Obama spent nearly $1 trillion on a failed stimulus bill shortly after being reelected and then shoved a government takeover of our health care industry down the throats of the American people, which is now projected to cost well over $2 trillion. He spent $3 billion on a Cash for Clunkers program that went bankrupt the first week. He spent $29 million to bail out Bear Stearns, $300 to bail out Citigroup, $85 to bail out AIG, $10 billion to bail out union pension plans, and $50 billion to bail out General Motors.

Mr. Speaker, under the budgets Barack Obama has already submitted to the Congress, he will add more to America's debt than all of the outstanding debt of all of the other 43 Presidents in American history combined. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we all understand where America is headed under this President.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric on health care 4 years ago was:

We'll work with your employer to lower your premiums by

$24,500 per family, per year.

But the reality under Mr. Obama's Presidency was that the cost of American family health insurance per year has gone from $12,680 per year to over $20,000 per year in 2012. And that's before the enormous increases Americans will inevitably see under ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, the European socialist health care system is a nightmare, a bureaucracy, rationing, and substandard health care. Yet it is Mr. Obama's model for America.

Mr. Obama's rhetoric on energy 4 years ago was:

Creating a new energy economy isn't just a challenge to me,

it's an opportunity to seize--an opportunity that will create

new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs.

That sounded good, but the reality under Mr. Obama's Presidency is that his much-touted green jobs economy never materialized. The administration forced through a $535 million loan for Solyndra, a solar company backed by a major Obama supporter and praised by Mr. Obama himself. The company filed for bankruptcy 15 months later, after the administration intervened on the company's behalf, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

But far from learning his lesson, a few months later the administration was again doling out billions more in loan guarantees to more solar companies, many of which later held massive layoffs and went bankrupt.

All told, of the $9 billion the President has spent so far on green jobs, 910 new, long-term jobs have been created. That's $9.8 million per job charged to the American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. So much for his millions of green jobs.

Meanwhile, the President has opposed actual progress in the energy sector, including his continued efforts to block new domestic drilling, the administration's seizure and closing of millions of acres of uranium-rich land in my own district and the Keystone Pipeline project that would have immediately created 20,000 jobs, in addition to attracting billions of dollars in new investments to a struggling Obama economy.

Perhaps none of this should be surprising coming from a President whose own Energy Secretary said:

Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels of Europe.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Obama's rhetoric on poverty 4 years ago was:

Poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes

of a campaign. It is the cause that led me to a life of

public service for almost 25 years.

But the reality under Mr. Obama's Presidency is that the income gap between rich and poor reached its highest level in over 40 years. In 2008, just before the President took office, there were about 39.8 million Americans living in poverty. Today, that number is nearly 50 million. Under Mr. Obama's policies, the American poverty rate hit the highest level in the 52-year history of the statistic being measured.

According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the number of able- bodied adults on food stamps doubled since Mr. Obama suspended the work requirement. More than 46 million Americans are now receiving food stamps. That's an increase of 44 percent since January of 2009. And it is higher than at any other time in American history.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Obama seems to believe that a dependent population will also be an obedient population. And so dependency and deception have become the core essence of his Presidency.

President Obama's rhetoric on foreign policy and national security 4 years ago was many different things, but the reality, under Mr. Obama, was that he has broken promises to trusted allies and told the Kremlin that he will have more ``flexibility'' to do what they want him to do after he's reelected, after the election.

Iran publicly proclaims their anxiousness to share the nuclear technology that they are so rapidly working to develop. If Iran successfully gains nuclear weapons, they will give them to terrorists the world over, Mr. Speaker, and you and I and our children, and perhaps our children's children, will live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism. Yet President Obama is actively working against efforts to secure even America's porous southern border, which is currently an incredibly inviting target for terrorists looking to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States.

Mr. Obama pledged ``unshakeable commitment'' to Israel's security. Yet he turned down a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel to appear instead on David Letterman, and he refuses to even acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently said Israel's existence is ``an insult to all humanity,'' and Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei has called Israel a ``cancerous tumor'' that must be wiped out. Yet Mr. Obama has expressed more open rebuke toward Israel for building houses in their own capital city than he has toward Iran for building nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire human family.

Mr. Speaker, I literally don't have time to thoroughly cover all of this administration's broken promises.

He promised to hold televised debate forums over ObamaCare. That never happened. He promised lobbyists ``won't find a job in my White House,'' but that happened at least a dozen times within the first month of his administration. He appointed more czars in his administration in America than all of the czars that ever existed in the history of Imperial Russia.

He promised to eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. He never even tried.

He promised he wouldn't ``sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for 5 days.'' A little over a month into his term, that section of the White House Web site was completely removed.

Mr. Obama said the Federal Government was ``not living up to its own responsibilities,'' while his own campaign has actually sued to make it more difficult for our men and women in uniform to even vote.

Mr. Obama gave lip service to enforcing immigration laws, and then sued my State of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws his administration refused to enforce.

While forcing through government loans to failed green energy companies led by his friends like Solyndra, he has stood in the way of domestic energy production, seizing hundreds of thousands of acres of resource-rich land and blocking domestic drilling for oil, including in areas that were already open to drilling.

The day he took office, a gallon of gas was $1.89. It is almost $4 a gallon today.

Mr. Speaker, if America produced its own energy and did not buy so much oil from the Middle Eastern countries, terrorists wouldn't have enough money to buy a box of sparklers to hurt this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to lay out the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of this administration.

You know, I've often heard it said in recent days that America faces a crossroads in the approaching election, but I'm afraid that's no longer the case, Mr. Speaker. No, I'm afraid America took the wrong fork in the road back when we elected Barack Obama 4 years ago, and we are now heading rapidly and precisely the wrong direction.

He has nominated judges who contemptuously ignore the Constitution. He has proudly served as the most pro-abortion President in history. He has forced government-run healthcare down the throats of unwilling Americans. He oversaw the first downgrade of America's AAA credit rating. He has increased unemployment, increased the number of Americans on food stamps. He has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at failed programs. He has weakened our military. He has blatantly attacked religious freedoms in America. He has allowed Iran to advance their nuclear weapons program; and while abroad, he has continually apologized for America, betrayed our friends, and emboldened our enemies. I'm afraid we see the results of some of that even in these recent days.

I would suggest to you that his promise to fundamentally transform America was no bluff, Mr. Speaker. If this is what Mr. Obama has done in his first 4 years, how much more radical will his agenda be if he secures a second term and no longer has to worry about reelection?

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our children and our children's children, and for all of America's most noble dreams and ideals, it is absolutely vital that we elect a President who will stand up and arrest this national freefall into which Mr. Obama and his radical leftist ideology have hurled America.

May God give us all the wisdom and the courage to remember who we are as Americans and that there is still hope and time to be all that we were called by God to be as a Nation.

We must not fail, Mr. Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 565, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker. I submit the Politico article titled ``In defense of Michele Bachmann, Muslim Brotherhood probes'', dated July 29, 2012, and authored by former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The recent assault on the National Security Five is only

the most recent example of the fear our elites have about

discussing and understanding radical Islamists.

When an orchestrated assault is launched on the right to

ask questions in an effort to stop members of Congress from

even inquiring about a topic--you know the fix is in. The

intensity of the attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) as

well as Republican Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie

Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland

of Georgia is a reminder of how desperate our elites are to

avoid this discussion. Yet consider this rush to silence

questions in light of our history of unpleasant surprises

during the Cold War.

Given all the painful things we learn about people every

day and the surprises that shock even the experts (the head

of the FBI anti-spy effort was a Russian spy, for example),

you have to wonder why people would aggressively assert we

shouldn't ask about national security concerns.

Remember the shock in 2001 when we learned that FBI agent

Robert Hanssen had been spying for 22 years--first for the

Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation. This disaster

came just seven years after the 1994 arrest of Aldrich Ames,

a CIA counterintelligence officer who was a Soviet spy for

eight years.

Why should we assume we're in better shape today, when

political correctness is passionately opposed to tough

counterintelligence screening? It's as though our

leaders have forgotten every lesson of the 1930s about

fascism, Nazism and communism and every lesson from 1945 to

1991 about communism. We have replaced tough mindedness about

national security with a refusal to think seriously and

substituted political correctness and a ``solid'' assurance

that people must be OK because they are ``nice'' and ``hard

working'' for the systematic, intense investigations of the

past.

I'm not suggesting that our primary threat is espionage.

Our greatest problem is getting the wrong analysis, advice

and policy proposals. It is the bias of the advisers and the

disastrous policies they propose that are our gravest danger

at this stage of the long struggle with radical Islamists.

Our elites refuse to even consider that the advice they are

getting is biased, tainted, distorted--or just plain wrong.

The underlying driving force behind this desperate desire

to stop unpleasant questions is the elite's fear that an

honest discussion of radical Islamism will spin out of

control. They fear if Americans fully understood how serious

radical Islamists are, they would demand a more

confrontational strategy.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned last week,

``The West is asleep on this issue.'' Islamist extremists,

Blair asserted in an interview with The Telegraph, seek

``supremacy, not coexistence.'' A young John F. Kennedy wrote

``Why England Slept'' to try to understand how the leadership

of a nation could ignore, repress and reject warnings about

Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. A future JFK may write ``Why

Washington Slept'' to explain our current period. The case of

the National Security Five would be a good chapter on the

desperation of the elites to avoid reality and their

determination to smother any wake-up call, which might make

them come to grips with Blair's warning.

This desperate avoidance of reality is not new. After Maj.

Nidal Hasan shouted, ''Allahu Akbar'' (``God is great'') in

Fort Hood, Texas, and killed 12 soldiers and one Army

civilian while wounding 29 others, there was pressure to

avoid confronting his acts as inspired by his support for

radical Islamism. An American of Palestinian descent, Hasan

had been in touch with a radical American cleric in Yemen,

Anwar al-Awlaki. He declared Hasan a hero. Al-Awlaki was

himself declared a ``specially designated global terrorist''

and, with presidential approval, was killed by a predator

missile. Yet, despite the evidence, Wikipedia reports, ``One

year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the

perpetrator were not yet established.''

It did offer suggestions about motivation, however. For

example, ``A review of Hasan's computer and his multiple

email accounts has revealed visits to websites espousing

radical Islamist ideas.'' Talking about Islam, he said,

``Nonbelievers would be sent to Hell, decapitated, set on

fire and have burning oil poured down their throats.''

A rational person would have some hints about what

motivated a terrorist killing spree. If even Wikipedia could

reach some conclusion about motivation, you would think the

national security system could do the same. Not so. The

Defense Department official report instead focused on Hasan's

actions as though they were ``workplace violence'' rather

than terrorism. President Barack Obama, in his speech at Fort

Hood, described the attack as ``incomprehensible.''

Despite every effort by our enemies to communicate why they

hate us and why they want to replace our world with theirs,

our leaders find their motives ``incomprehensible.'' Clearly,

Obama hasn't understood Blair's warning.

An even more bizarre example of ignoring reality was New

York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's initial response to news that

a car bomb had been found in Times Square. Bloomberg is mayor

of the city attacked on Sept. 11--so did he shrewdly identify

the probable perpetrator? Of course not. Bloomberg opined it

was a ``homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged, person or

someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health

care bill or something. It could be anything.''

Just as Bloomberg was desperately avoiding blaming radical

Islamists, the New York Police Department noted the

similarities to a 2007 jihadist car bombing in London. A

Taliban video from Pakistan claimed responsibility for the

car bomb. The person being looked for was a U.S.-naturalized

citizen from Pakistan.

Given that evidence, Bloomberg's will to hide from the

truth illustrates the challenge that the National Security

Five face in raising appropriate and even frightening

questions.

The case of the Pakistani-American car bomber has yet

another lesson for those willing to learn it. At his

sentencing, Faisal Shahzad asserted, ``If I'm given 1,000

lives, I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah.'' He

had apparently planned to build another car bomb in the

next two weeks. The Pakistan Taliban had given him $15,000

and five days of explosive training just months after he

became a U.S. citizen.

As Fox News reported: ``The judge cut him off at one point

to ask him if he had sworn allegiance to the United States

when he became a citizen last year. `I did swear' Shahzad

answered, `but I did not mean it.' ''

Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum clearly understood the

threat. She stated in sentencing: ``The defendant has

repeatedly expressed his total lack of remorse and his

desire, if given the opportunity, to repeat the crime.''

Shahzad was not some desperate representative of poverty or

repression. His father had been vice chief of the Pakistani

Air Force. This was the bomber Bloomberg was confused about.

The reaction to the National Security Five and their

request for investigations by the inspectors general must be

seen in this context of willful avoidance and denial. In

fact, there is a good deal in the Obama administration's

national security and foreign policy to ask about. One theme

of the inspectors general letters is the administration's

courting of individuals viewed as leaders by the U.S.-based

Muslim Brotherhood. A recent terrorist finance trial produced

80 boxes of evidence related to the activities of the Muslim

Brotherhood network in North America over the past 40 years.

Unlike the Cold War, the primary focus of concern in

government today is not espionage but influence. In the Cold

War, there was value to learning secrets. The right spy at

the right place could give one side or the other a big

advantage.

This long war with radical Islamists is a very different

struggle. There are many nuances and long-term developments.

Much of the struggle involves ideas and language alien to

most American leaders and unknown even to most of the State

or Defense Department professionals.

So the right or wrong adviser can be enormously powerful.

Getting the right advice can be everything. Therefore, whose

advice we rely on becomes central to national security.

Asking who the advisers are, what their prejudices are and

what advice they give is a legitimate--indeed, essential--

part of any serious national security system.

It was this question that the National Security Five

focused on. They were right to do so and it weakens national

security for them to be attacked for simply asking basic

questions. One clear example of the Obama administration's

indefensible bias is its decision to co-sponsor the Global

Counterterrorism Forum, which explicitly excluded Israel.

Launched on Sept. 22, 2011, by Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, this

forum brought together 29 countries and the European Union.

Yet it excluded the country that has been the most frequently

attacked and has the most experience defeating terrorism.

On June 7, 2012, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark

Kirk (R-I11.) condemned the U.S. government for giving in to

demands to exclude Israel.

To make matters worse, Maria Otero, the undersecretary for

civilian security, democracy and human rights, gave a speech

``in which she notably failed to mention Israel and Israelis

as victims of terrorism.''

Isn't it legitimate to ask: Who advised Clinton to launch a

counterterrorism initiative that excluded Israel? Isn't it

also legitimate to ask: Who advised Otero to give a major

speech on terrorism and ignore the attacks on Israel and

Israelis?

The anti-Israeli bias in the Obama administration shows up

in strange ways. Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard

reported in August 2011 that the ``White House has apparently

gone through its website, cleansing any reference to

Jerusalem being in Israel.'' It seems the Obama

administration even went back to public documents from

earlier administrations to pretend this White House's

rejection of Jerusalem as part of Israel had been prior

administrations' policies. This is the Orwellian nature of

the Obama system.

Its hostility to the city of David being considered

Israel's capital was displayed as recently as Thursday in the

following colloquy between reporters and Jay Carney, White

House press secretary:

Reporter: ``What city does this administration consider to

be the capital of Israel? Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?''

Carney: ``Um . . . I haven't had that question in a while.

Our position has not changed. Can we, uh . . .''

Reporter: ``What is the capital [of Israel]?''

Carney: ``You know our position.''

Reporter: ``I don't.''

Lester Kinsolving, World Net Daily: ``No, no. She doesn't

know, that's why she asked.'' Carney: ``She does know.''

Reporter: ``I don't.''

Kinsolving: ``She does not know. She just said that she

does not know. I don't know.'' Carney: ``We have long, let's

not call on . . .''

Kinsolving: ``Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?''

Carney: ``You know the answer to that.''

Kinsolving: ``I don't know the answer. We don't know the

answer. Could you just give us an answer? What do you

recognize? What does the administration recognize?''

Carney: ``Our position has not changed.''

Kinsolving: ``What position?''

Carney then moved on to another question.

Isn't it legitimate to ask: Who advised the Obama

administration to erase Jerusalem from Israel? Isn't it fair

to ask: Who went back and forged public documents and who

told them to do it?

Another example of these legitimate questions, consider the

strange case of Louay

Safi. Safi ran the Islamic Society of North America (an

unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas

financing case) and who was himself an unindicted co-

conspirator in the Sami Al-Arian terrorism case (involving

Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist org). As Andy McCarthy, a

former federal prosecutor in terrorism cases, explained, ``So

what happens? Pentagon hires him as expert to teach Islam to

our troops before they deploy from Fort Hood! And now, of

course, he is the leader of the [Muslim] Brotherhoods'

government-in-waiting for Syria. You just can't make this

stuff up!''

Isn't it appropriate to ask: Who were the Muslim chaplains

approved by this extremist? How did he get chosen to be in

such a key position? What system of checking for extremism

broke down so badly, or is so biased, that it allowed members

and allies of radical Islamist organizations to play key

roles in the U.S. government?

Part of the reaction to the National Security Five raising

questions about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood has

come from a deliberate effort to deny the importance and the

radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide network.

The level of self-deception necessary to misunderstand the

Muslim Brotherhood verges on a psychosis. The organization's

motto is ``Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader.

The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of

Allah is our highest hope.'' Our elites discount all these

words--and refuse to take them seriously.

Yet doesn't the lesson of Munich in 1972, New York City on

Sept. 11, Hasan at Fort Hood, the Times Square car bomber,

the bombings in Iraq this week--the list is endless--show

that these words matter?

Consider clause seven of one branch of the Muslim

Brotherhood--Hamas. Perhaps no one in our elites wants to

read the Hamas Charter's clause seven because it is too

horrifying. Consider: ``The Day of Judgment will not come

until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind

the stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ``O

Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill

him.'' Apologists for Hamas insist this clause has no

meaning. But the Hamas leaders claim they cannot remove it

from their charter.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in a 1991 document called the

``Explanatory Memorandum,'' explained to its own supporters

that its goal was ``a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and

destroying Western Civilization from within and `sabotaging'

its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers

so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made

victorious over all other religions.''

This memo cited 29 different allied groups, including the

Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students

Association and the Islamic Association of Palestine. Leaders

in some of these allied groups founded the Council on

American-Islamic Relations. Just Friday, the Dubai chief of

police warned about a Muslim Brotherhood effort to take over

the emirates and seize their oil and natural gas wealth.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a serious worldwide organization

dedicated to a future most Americans would find appalling.

Seeking to understand its reach and its impact on the U.S.

government is a legitimate, indeed essential, part of our

national security process.

The National Security Five were doing their duty in asking

difficult questions designed to make America safer. Their

critics represent the kind of willful blindness that

increasingly puts America at risk.

If we do not want a book to describe ``Why Washington

Slept,'' we will have to encourage elected officials to

follow the advice of a later Kennedy book and exhibit

``Profiles in Courage.''

Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland are

showing a lot more courage than the defenders of timidity,

complicity and passivity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous gentleman here. His comments were very compelling to me.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments tonight, let me just sincerely say that I hold in my heart this privilege of being a Member of the American family and this United States Congress to be a priceless gift of God. And I would ask that my comments tonight would be heard in that context, and I would even dare to hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the Members of this body might grant me a modicum of understanding befitting the conviction and the gravity that give impulse to the statements that I make tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the very first responsibility of human government is to protect its people. Many times during the nearly 4 years of the Obama administration, I have stood on this floor and have called upon this administration to address the grave threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.

When I first began calling for Iran to be referred to the Security Council, they possessed only 157 centrifuges, Mr. Speaker. But tonight, Iran possesses more than 9,000. And tonight I stand here with such a sense of urgency that I find it difficult to articulate, Mr. Speaker. I believe we may be facing the very last window this world will ever have before it becomes too late to prevent jihad from becoming armed with nuclear weapons and shattering the peace and security of human freedom as we have known it.

Because this administration has delayed and sent ambiguous messages to Iran and the world, as of approximately 3 months ago, Iran reached the point where it now possesses all the components necessary to become a nuclear-armed nation.

Mr. Speaker, Iran has the knowledge, the technical expertise, the equipment, everything necessary to build a nuclear warhead. They need no new technology, no new personnel, no new parts or resources of any kind from anyone. All they need now is time and lack of intervention.

Mr. Speaker, if Iran is allowed to gain nuclear weapons, it will unequivocally transform the landscape of human freedom as we have known it throughout the world. The world's primary financier of terrorism will be armed with nuclear warheads. A desperate arms race will rage across the entire Middle East. Israel will be in range of nuclear missiles in the hands of a jihadist enemy who despises them, is dedicated to their complete annihilation and capable of obliterating their entire nation in 15 minutes.

America and our allies will then face an enemy with the ultimate asymmetric capability of a nuclear-generated high-altitude electromagnetic pulse potentially capable of devastating our electric grid and the civilizational architecture it sustains.

Jihadists the world over will have access to nuclear weapons, and the world's children, Mr. Speaker, will have forever etched in their memory that moment in history when this government allowed the hellish shadow of nuclear jihad to fall across their future.

For almost 4 years, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the same weakness, naivete, vacillation, ambiguity, and delusional policy toward radical jihadists in Iran that once allowed them to hold 56 American hostages for 444 days during the Carter administration. That failed approach, that failed understanding now saturates nearly every policy corner of the Obama administration as Iran seeks to gain a nuclear grip on America's throat.

As always, any credible threat should be evaluated by whether an enemy possesses both the intention and the capacity to inflict harm. The despotic regime now governing Iran has been explicitly clear in its intention toward the United States. Official military parades in Iran have, for years, routinely featured a litany of slogans calling for death to Israel, death to America.

President Ahmadinejad was speaking to the whole world when he said:

And you, for your part, if you would like to have good

relations with the Iranian nation in the future, recognize

the Iranian nation's greatness and bow down before the

greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't

accept to do this, the Iranian nation will later force you to

surrender and bow down.

Does that sound like someone who thinks he knows something that we don't?

Ahmadinejad also said:

Israel is about to die and will soon be erased from the

geographical season.

Then he added:

The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United

States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the

emperor of power and wealth has started.

Iranian Basij Commander Naqdi said:

As long as America exists, we will not rest. We must create

the environment for the destruction of America.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently denied the existence of the Holocaust, Mr. Speaker, calling it a myth or a fabrication. And in the same breath, he threatens to make it happen again by repeatedly calling for the destruction of the Jewish State, for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.'' He has said, point blank:

The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the

entire world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the

fire of the Islamic nation's fury.

And just today, Mr. Speaker, just today, Ahmadinejad called for the annihilation of Israel again.

Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon estimates that hundreds of U.S. soldiers have died, as many as three and four of our casualties, as a result of Iran supplying terrorists in Iraq with weapons such as highly sophisticated explosive form penetrators designed to destroy American armor and vehicles. What possesses us to believe that they would not do the same with nuclear weapons?

Former Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said:

My worst nightmare is terrorists with nuclear weapons. Not

only do I know that they are trying to get them, but I know

they will use them.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Iran:

the major terrorist-sponsoring state of our time. Tehran

could give those nuclear weapons to terrorists, or give them

a nuclear umbrella that would bring terrorism beyond our

wildest dreams.

Mr. Speaker, can we allow a man like Ahmadinejad, leading the world's most dangerous regime, to be able to disseminate nuclear weapons to terrorists and to have his finger on the button that could launch nuclear missiles targeting our families and our children?

And how do we negotiate with a nuclear Iran, as Senator Obama suggested, when their jihadist ideology considers Armageddon a good thing?

Mr. Speaker, even without nuclear weapons, the Iranian regime has remained relentless and undeterred in its efforts to harm America, Israel, and Western interests. In October of last year, our intelligence interdicted an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador and to detonate bombs at both the Saudi Arabian and the Israeli Embassies right here in Washington, D.C. Tapes in American possession show that the Iranians were unconcerned with ``collateral damage.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, translated, that means dead Americans. It also means that Iran has no fear whatsoever of the Obama administration.

And now, in recent days, we have learned that Iran was behind another barbaric attack, a terrorist attack on innocent civilians, when its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, bombed a Bulgarian bus, killing five innocent Israeli citizens and killing a pregnant woman and including dozens more. Imagine how emboldened Iran will become if they are allowed to come into possession of nuclear weapons.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment the scenario of Hezbollah, one of Iran's terrorist proxies, gaining possession of just two nuclear warheads and bringing them across the border into the United States concealed, say, in bales of marijuana--this shows you that they can get them in--when transporting them into the heart of two different crowded unnamed cities and then calling and telling the White House exactly when and where the first one will be detonated, and then following through 60 seconds later.

Then imagine them, Mr. Speaker, calling the White House back and making demands, which, if they're not met, would mean that the second warhead would also be detonated in a different unnamed American city. The entire United States would be held hostage by terrorist monsters, Mr. Speaker.

Or imagine if those same terrorists acquired two small cargo ships carrying mobile launchers with SCUD missiles from Iran's existing arsenal and used them to launch those two warheads in a coordinated and devastating high-altitude electromagnetic pulse attack over the homeland of the United States.

Well, the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Iran is pursuing the means whereby they could assist groups like Hezbollah to do exactly these kinds of horrifying things. The only components they lack to proceed are the nuclear warheads.

Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a single rational defense for the argument that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons capability.

So let me say this, and pray that the Members of this body and pray that the President and this Nation understand. If Iran gains nuclear weapons, they will give them to terrorists the world over. And still, as the centrifuges in Iran are spinning, the Obama administration is fiddling, and many of the Members of this body stand by and contemplate.

Have we lost our minds?

Mr. Speaker, President Obama has allowed Iran to rope-a-dope this administration in so-called peace talks that have burned the clock for nearly 4 years of his Presidency. The President has made stern warnings and then backed down every time. We've endured five rounds of peace talks, five different proposals, six different United Nations resolutions, and more than a dozen sets of economic sanctions.

The House just voted yesterday on another Iran sanctions bill that was so weakened and watered down by Mr. Obama and his supporters in the Senate that it is now barely worth the paper it's written upon. The administration's focus has been on sanctions, and weak sanctions at that, Mr. Speaker. And even then, Mr. Obama has granted waivers to further weaken the sanctions already in place.

Now, I wonder if this administration has considered the fact that we have had economic sanctions against North Korea for over 60 years, and in recent decades we have sanctioned them nearly into starvation. And yet during that time, they have tested nuclear warheads twice. And it's a genie that we cannot put back in the bottle, Mr. Speaker.

President Ahmadinejad has said of economic sanctions:

If they want to continue with that path of sanctions, we

will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran's nuclear policies would not change, no matter the pressure. He said:

With God's help, and without paying attention to

propaganda, Iran's nuclear course

should continually remain firmly and seriously. Pressures,

sanctions, and assassinations will bear no fruit. No

obstacles can stop Iran's nuclear work.

Mr. Obama's own Director of National Intelligence was asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program. The answer was simple, Mr. Speaker, ``No, none whatsoever.''

I've said many times, starting long ago, that we should have pursued truly effective sanctions, dissident support, regime change, and political pressures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. But without the conviction in the minds of the Iranian leadership that military intervention will occur if they continue to develop nuclear weapons, none of these other approaches will change their minds. Our greatest hope to prevent military action against Iran was to make sure their leaders understood that the free world would respond militarily before we allowed them to threaten it with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, Iran's radical leaders concluded that Barack Obama simply lacked the understanding or the resolve to use military action to prevent their nuclear weapons development. And why would they conclude anything else, Mr. Speaker? Even now, the stated goal of the Obama sanctions policy is simply to get Iran back to the negotiating table where they can waste even more time and gain even more valuable advances. And if we do get them back to the negotiating table, Mr. Speaker, what compromise can we seek--maybe that Iran keeps only a small number of nuclear weapons? No, Mr. Speaker. If Iran is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons, there is no diplomatic solution.

In the popular revolt in Iran in 2009, the President could have assisted the dissidents and the peace-loving, decent people of Iran, of which there are so many, to overthrow their oppressors in the Iranian regime--or at least he could have spoken up on their behalf when they were out dying in the streets to try to bring about regime change, which, if they had been successful, could have changed all of this equation. But the President left them twisting in the wind.

To call Mr. Obama a bystander in all of this is to be charitable. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, he has been nowhere to be found. Many congressional Republicans have written and pleaded with this President numerous times on this vital issue to absolutely no avail.

The truth is that this President has waited too long. He has waited so long that the equation now before us has no good answer. His policies have only helped Iran accelerate their nuclear program. Iran is now tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and restraining the IAEA from even inspecting weaponization facilities.

Maybe now it is becoming clear why Israel is so very concerned, because for them, a nuclear Iran is not just an academic question--it calls into question their very survival--and the Obama administration has now placed Israel into an almost impossible circumstance. Israel has watched this President resist an Israeli strike on nuclear facilities in Iran more than he has resisted a nuclear Iran. Israel has listened to Mr. Obama openly criticize Israel more for building homes in their capital city than he has openly criticized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for building nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire free world. In fact, they have watched this administration systematically scrub references that Jerusalem is even the capital of Israel.

Consequently, I believe Israel has known for some time that they can no longer trust the Obama administration to act in their best interest.

They know that Mr. Obama has waited so long that if Israel acts now to defend their own nation--and all of us incidentally--that they will suffer a far more damaging response from the radical regimes that surround them than they otherwise would have. Israel knows that, if they wait much longer to attack, the Iranian nuclear facilities may well be beyond their conventional military capability. Israel desperately needs America and her greater ability to attack heavily fortified targets. They need us, Mr. Speaker, but they will act without us if they must.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said simply and clearly, ``One thing I'll never compromise on, and that is Israel's security . . . When it comes to Israel's survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.''

So what is this administration's present strategy? ``We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.'' The most disgraceful part of it is President Obama's threat to withhold resupply from Israel to pressure them into his brand of inaction.

So let me just see if I have this straight, Mr. Speaker. The President says, according to his own State Department, that the world's greatest supporter of terrorism, a self-avowed enemy of America, with an advancing nuclear weapons program, has committed to destroy us and Israel and that the President's goal is to prevent Israel--our best and most committed friend and national ally on this Earth--from defending themselves. Did I get that right?

Mr. Speaker, that's why Israel will never trust this President with their national survival.

You see, Israel knows the very inconvenient truth that, when it comes to a nuclear Iran, if we are to prevent, we must preempt. They know that the choice with Iran is no longer a choice between the way the world is now and the way the world might be after a military strike to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons. Rather, the choice now is between what the world will be like after a preventative military strike on Iran or what the world will be like after Iran gains nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. Speaker, we should not deceive ourselves. When the head of Israeli intelligence tells the prime minister that Iran is entering into that ``zone of immunity'' where Israel will no longer have the conventional capacity to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, Israel will act.

They will act knowing that many in the world will condemn them. They will act knowing that they will be blamed for any radiation releases from Iran's nuclear facilities that might result. They will act knowing that thousands of Iranian, Hamas, and Hezbollah rockets and missiles will fall upon the cities of their tiny nation in retaliation. They will act knowing that it is now extremely difficult for them to succeed.

But, Mr. Speaker, Israel will act because they are students of history, and they will not be made to walk silently into the gas chambers again.

They will act because they know that whatever the consequences for their actions will be that they will pale in significance compared to what the consequences would be for them and for the whole world if the jihadist Government of Iran were to gain nuclear weapons.

And, if and when they do act, the Obama administration will owe an apology to the whole world for ignoring this grave reality for so long, but Israel will especially deserve an apology--an apology from this administration for leaving them with no choice but to act on behalf of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, now, with all of the things I've said tonight, there seems to be a profound new irony upon us. This administration finally seems to recognize that they have, indeed, waited too long. This administration is finally realizing that Israel can no longer stand around and wait. It is also beginning to understand if Israel is forced to strike Iran's nuclear facilities alone or if Iran tests a nuclear weapon before the November 6 election, that the American people and the world will damn the Obama administration for their breathtaking vacillation. Under such scenarios, the administration very likely sees the chances for Mr. Obama to be reelected as virtually zero.

So it has occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Obama administration may have at last found sufficient rationale to move decisively against Iran's nuclear weapons program. The President knows that, in times of military action, the American people often rally around their President. Consequently, in spite of the fact that it has blatantly ignored the national security implications of Iran's nuclear program, it will now not surprise me at all if this administration launches an attack on

Iran's nuclear facilities before the November elections to protect itself politically, even if it is done in concert with Israel to make it appear less politically motivated.

While I believe the American people will see such an action for what it is, if a Presidential campaign will finally motivate this administration to get serious about our national security and Iran's nuclear program, then so be it, Mr. Speaker. It would still be far better for the administration to do that than to stand idly by and force the tiny state of Israel, our closest friend and ally on this Earth, to undertake such a monumental task alone, with all the odds against them and facing such crushing consequences whether they succeed or fail.

But it didn't have to be this way. There was a time when Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions could have been arrested with far less cost.

The President has waited too long.

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan gave an address in 1983 when the world faced a similar threat in the growing strength and nuclear ambition of the Soviet Union. Mr. Reagan said:

I urge you to beware the temptation to ignore the facts of

history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to

simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and

thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and

wrong, good and evil.

Mr. Speaker, there were those in 1938 who deemed the ambitions of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich a giant misunderstanding. The free nations of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched without great cost, but they delayed, and the result was atomic bombs falling on cities, 50 million people dead worldwide, and the swastika shadow nearly plunging the planet into Cimmerian night.

Mr. Speaker, let the world's free people resolve once and for all, for the sake of our children and for future generations, that we of this generation will not stand by and watch a similar dark chapter of history be repeated on our watch.

God help this administration to wake up, and God help us all as Americans to be awake in this destiny year for our beloved country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3803) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3803, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gruesome late-term abortions of unborn children who can feel pain is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today. H.R. 3803, the bipartisan District of Columbia Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, has more than 220 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It protects unborn children who have reached 20 weeks' development, their being subjected to inhumane torturous late-term abortions on the basis that the unborn child feels pain by at least this stage of development, if not much earlier. Just 2 days ago, a Federal court upheld Arizona's version of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, throughout America's history, the hearts of the American people have always been moved with compassion when they discover a theretofore hidden class of victims once the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what was being done to them finally became clear in their minds. Mr. Speaker, America is on the cusp of another such realization.

Medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically, and incontrovertibly it demonstrates that unborn children clearly do experience pain. The single greatest hurdle to legislation like H.R. 3803 has always been that deponents deny unborn babies feel pain at all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal. This level of deliberate ignorance might have found excuse in earlier eras of human history, but the evidence today is extensive and irrefutable. Unborn children have the capacity to experience pain by at least 20 weeks and very likely substantially earlier.

We have entered into the committee hearing record a 29-page summary of the dozens of studies worldwide confirming that unborn children feel pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization. This information is available at www.DoctorsonFetalPain.org. And I would sincerely recommend that all committee members, their staff, and the members of the press review this site to get the most current evidence on unborn pain rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier time when scientists still believed in spontaneous generation and that the Earth was flat.

Mr. Speaker, late-term abortions are gruesome and painful. Babies are dismembered, or they're chemically burned alive by a hypertonic salt solution. Some late-term abortionists stab the small pain-capable baby through the chest to inject drugs that will kill the child prior to being removed.

Most Americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions annually, or more than 325 late-term abortions every day in America.

Here in the District of Columbia, the designated seat of freedom in America, abortion is completely legal for any reason up until the moment of birth. Under the Constitution, the Congress and the President are the ones clearly responsible for this unthinkable abortion-until- birth policy.

This landmark vote we are about to take would be the first time in history that the United States House of Representatives has ever voted on this question of whether to endorse legal abortion for any reason up until birth, and, ladies and gentlemen, we will be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, under the Humane Slaughter Act, farm animals in America have protection from completely unnecessary cruelty, yet unborn children in America have no such protection from the same kind of agonizing pain. In fact, there is no legal standard to provide that late-term unborn babies--clearly known to be capable of feeling pain-- are afforded even the most basic human decency of receiving anesthesia before they are torturously killed.

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find the will or the courage to protect human babies from being tortured, then what claim on human compassion remains to us?

What we are doing to babies is real, Mr. Speaker. It is barbaric in the purest sense of the word. It is the greatest human rights violation occurring on U.S. soil, and it has already victimized potentially millions of pain-capable babies since the Supreme Court gave us all abortion on demand that tragic day in 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I would plead with my colleagues to vote for this bill to at least begin to end this heartbreak of painful late-term abortion in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), chair of the Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), a member of the Science Committee and an obstetric anesthesiologist.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), vice

chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Education Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a time in this country and even across the world when protecting little babies from torture was a noble thing.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard my colleagues today call this effort to protect little babies from tortuous pain extremist ideology. And I would just suggest to you, sir, if they are right, then, I, for one, will envy no one that they might call mainstream, because, Mr. Speaker, this bill simply says that we intend, in the seat of freedom in America, where Congress has the ultimate and clear responsibility constitutionally to legislate, that we're going to protect unborn children that have reached the age where they can feel pain.

Mr. Speaker, today, in Washington, D.C., a child can be aborted in labor, and that is not who America is.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if we, in this body, cannot find the courage and the will to protect these little babies from this kind of torture, then I'm not sure that we will ever find the will or the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there is the will and the courage to do that in this body. I would predict that this body will pass overwhelmingly, by a majority vote, even though we won't maybe meet the suspension rules, but we will pass by an overwhelming number of votes this bill today. I believe it'll be 240, 250 votes, and it will at least demonstrate to the world that there's still a conscience in this place, that we still stand for the commitment to protect little babies that have no other people to protect them.

This is our job here, to protect the rights of the innocent, and by the grace of God we're going to do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from Arizona in commending the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) for a decade of biomedical research success.

TGen was founded in Arizona in 2002 to leverage new scientific discoveries from the mapping of the human genome, and its establishment promptly accelerated the state into the era of genomics and personalized medicine.

Mr. Speaker, significant to TGen's establishment was the confluence of support from all sectors of the state to attract this new institute to base its operations in Arizona, as well as recruit the renowned geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Trent to lead it, and position the state as a worldwide leader in bioscience and medical discovery. Academic, business, philanthropic, and government leaders all joined forces in a statewide campaign to strategically assemble the necessary support.

What most excited Arizona leaders was the vision put forth by Dr. Jeff Trent, to accelerate and translate scientific discovery into more immediate and effective benefits for patients, all made possible with the new information from the human genome and rapidly developing technology.

Mr. Speaker, it was on this day ten years ago, June 26, 2002, with high expectations and hopes, that Governor Hull and state leaders announced the successful launch of TGen and the genomics era in Arizona. A decade of exciting growth and new research discoveries has since transpired.

Investment into TGen and the biosciences spurred growth across the state, catalyzing the launch of the Critical Path Institute and Bio5 in southern Arizona, Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute, a northern Phoenix bio campus, TGen North and the expansion of W.L. Gore in northern Arizona. The bioindustry has flourished over the past ten years, even during economic downturns, becoming a significant high- performing sector of the Arizona economy.

For patients, TGen is offering hope where there had been none, with novel treatments offered only in Arizona. By partnering with clinical entities like the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale Healthcare, TGen is focusing on utilizing genomic analyses to improve and customize patient treatments. Patients with pancreatic cancer and rare diseases like basal cell carcinoma are finding answers to their treatment struggles, improving quality of patient lives and allowing more years to spend with loved ones. Whether it's sequencing anthrax or the plague, investigating H1N1 or Valley Fever; finding new clues to triple- negative breast cancer or Alzheimer's disease; or, leading new collaborative research partnerships addressing pediatric and canine cancers, TGen's research has made substantial inroads over the past ten years.

More than a decade ago, the mapping of the human genome represented a challenge to the world to make use of this new knowledge for the benefit of humankind. Arizona answered this challenge and now TGen is a leading model for fusing modern medicine with the power of translational research to fuel the next wave of treatments for all manner of human diseases.

Mr. Speaker, as the tenth-year anniversary of TGen's launch is celebrated today, I applaud Dr. Trent and the scientists at TGen for their unwavering commitment to make a difference for patients and lead innovative research for Arizona into the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Young and Chairman Hastings and the House leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today, as well as the bipartisan group of cosponsors for their support.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, seeks to prevent Las Vegas-style casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area on lands purchased by the Tohono O'odham Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the Tohono O'odham Nation has tried to manipulate the

Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act of 1986 to acquire lands for gambling which are more than 100 miles from the Tohono O'odham's existing reservation. This ``reservation shopping'' for casino gambling purposes is contrary to the express and public commitments that the Tohono O'odham made between 2000 and 2002 to the other 16 Indian tribes in Arizona, the State, and the voters of Arizona when it openly and definitively supported passage of Proposition 202, a State referendum to limit casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Indeed, while the Tohono O'odham was in negotiations with the other tribes to craft a gaming compact agreement, they were simultaneously in the process of covertly purchasing attractive land in the Phoenix metropolitan area for casino gambling purchases. Thus, the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 2938 are simply trying to keep the Tohono O'odham Nation to its publicly stated commitment not to engage in casino gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Mr. Speaker, during the subcommittee hearing on this bill, witnesses made it clear that there is a problem and a serious threat to existing gaming structure in Arizona if the Tohono O'odham Nation is able to develop a Las Vegas-style casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The passage of H.R. 2938 will prevent an ominous precedent that could lead to an expansion of off-reservation casinos and dangerous changes to the complexion of tribal gaming in the other States across the country in which Indian tribes can use front companies to buy up land and declare it part of their sovereign reservation for gaming purposes.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, even if the casino weren't in violation of Federal law--which it is--but if it weren't, claims that the operation would create jobs and benefit the economy of the surrounding area are woefully misinformed at best and shamefully dishonest at worst. The most frequently cited job creation numbers that have been thrown about during this debate come almost without exception from a study commissioned by the Tohono O'odham tribe themselves. The study was conducted by the Spectrum Gaming Group. Tellingly, multiple organizations asked the tribe to release the data and the methodology supporting this so-called ``study,'' which was released roughly 3 years ago. To this day, the tribe continuously to steadfastly refuse. In other words, the tribes released a slew of numbers extolling the supposed amazing economic benefits of their casino, then refused to tell anybody how they came up with the numbers.

Far from economically benefiting the West Valley, one recent well documented study found that casino operations would ultimately provide $172,500 of revenue annually for the city of Glendale--keep in mind the surrounding areas would not benefit from the normal sales taxes, bed taxes, and property taxes because the casino, being on tribal land, would be exempt from all three. Meanwhile, Glendale estimates an added cost of $3.6 million per year just for the additional cost of public safety services necessary to such a large operation. Of course, it should always be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that casino revenues are primarily comprised of gambling losses that would otherwise have found their way into the economy in more productive sectors.

Mr. Speaker, my bill would not seek to take any lands away from Tohono O'odham. Consistent with the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, my bill merely prevents the Tohono O'odham from building a gambling casino on certain lands, as it previously agreed it would never do.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me and the members of Arizona's delegation in supporting this bill.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 329 I confused the amendment with another. Had I been correct, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013. I also want to thank my colleagues--Mr. Gosar, Mr. Steve King, and Mr. Amash--for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that no funds made available by H.R. 5854 could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the Davis-Bacon Act requirements for government contracts.

Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act is an anachronistic law that was enacted during the Great Depression to prevent wayfaring contractors from lowballing local construction bids. The sponsors of this act originally intended for it to discriminate against nonunionized black workers in favor of white workers belonging to white-only unions. This vestigial remnant of the Jim Crow era has no place in our military construction contracts and should be abandoned.

Furthermore, the Davis-Bacon Act results in billions of wasted taxpayer dollars every year. The act requires Federal construction contractors to pay their workers higher government-mandated wages, which would be as much as 1\1/2\ times greater than their basic pay rate. This results in artificially high costs of construction, Mr. Chairman, which are ultimately shouldered by American taxpayers. Contractors wishing to offer a lower bid would still be required by law to pay their employees the higher government-mandated wage and file a weekly report of the wages paid to each worker. This has a particularly negative effect on small businesses as they are often unable to compete due to the Davis-Bacon wage and benefits requirements, which reduces competition and further inflates contract rates.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon was enacted before the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act; and, according to GAO, these acts have rendered Davis-Bacon obsolete and unnecessary. There are a number of laws passed by this body that protect construction workers without the discriminatory intent and effect of Davis-Bacon.

During this time of fiscal austerity and responsibility, Congress must do all it can to lower Federal contract costs and decrease the burden on American taxpayers. This amendment is an attempt to stop the hemorrhage of wasteful spending and rein in our debt.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure no funds are made available by H.R. 5854 that could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the wasteful Davis-Bacon Act, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3541) to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3541, as amended, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act we are debating at this moment simply says that an unborn child cannot be discriminated against by subjecting him to an abortion based on the sex of the child. Because between 40 and 50 percent of African American babies--nearly one in two--are killed by abortion, which is five times, Mr. Speaker, the rate of white children, I believe with all of my heart that this bill should also prohibit race-targeted abortion as it did when the bill was first introduced.

It is my hope that by protecting unborn children from being aborted based on their sex that one day very soon we will also recognize the humanity and justice of protecting unborn children regardless of their race or color as well, and simply because we recognize them as fellow human beings.

Mr. Speaker, worldwide sex-selection abortion has now left the human family on Earth with approximately 200 million missing baby girls. Various United Nations organizations have battled sex-selection abortion for years. These agencies routinely refer to sex-selection abortion as ``an extreme form of violence against women.''

In the New Atlantis magazine, political economist Nicholas Eberstadt, of the American Enterprise Institute, said:

In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective

abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war

against baby girls.

In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selection abortion worldwide; yet here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way.

Mr. Speaker, a number of academic papers have now published evidence that the practice of sex-selection abortion is demonstrably increasing here in the United States, especially, but not exclusively, in the Asian immigrant community.

A study by researchers at the University of Connecticut, which was published in Prenatal Diagnosis, found that the male-to-female live birth sex ratio in the United States for Chinese, Asian Indians, and Koreans clearly exceeded biological variation for third births and beyond. Mr. Speaker, deliberate prenatal sex selection is the only plausible explanation.

Dr. Sunita Puri and three other researchers at the University of California interviewed 65 immigrant Indian women in the United States who had sought or were seeking sex-selection abortion. They found that 40 percent of the women interviewed had deliberately aborted unborn baby girls previously and that nearly 90 percent of the women who were currently carrying unborn baby girls were also currently seeking to abort them.

This was an incredibly powerful study, Mr. Speaker. It discussed in detail the multiple forms of pressure and outright coercion to which these women are often subjected. Sixty-two percent of the women described verbal abuse from their husbands or female in-laws, and fully one-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect, all related specifically to their failing to produce a male child. As a result, these women reported aborting multiple unborn baby girls in a row because of the pressure that was put on them to have a male child.

Mr. Speaker, sex-selection abortion is extreme violence against both unborn baby girls and their mothers. It has been a primary enforcement mechanism for China's forced abortion and ``one child'' policy for many years. It has dramatically increased sex trafficking and violence against women due to the imbalanced sex ratios left in its wake across the world, and we now know that it is a tragic circumstance into which many women are also being coerced. This evil practice has now allowed thousands of little girls in America and millions of little girls across the world to be brutally dismembered, most of them in their second or third trimester and when they are capable of feeling extreme pain, simply because they were little girls instead of little boys, Mr. Speaker.

Sex selection is violence against women, and it is the truest kind of war against women, and it has now brought humanity to a place where the three deadliest words on this Earth are ``it's a girl.'' What in God's name have we come to, Mr. Speaker? I've often asked myself what finally enlightened and changed the hearts of those across history who have either perpetrated or supported or ignored the atrocities and human genocides of their day.

While I probably will never fully understand, I believe I caught a glimpse of the answer from my 3-year-old little girl, Gracie. As I was holding her and we were watching her favorite laughing baby videos on YouTube, I inadvertently clicked on a video that showed a young man from China who was playing poignant and beautiful music on the piano with his feet because both of his arms had been amputated when he was a child.

In trying to seize on a teaching moment, Mr. Speaker, I said, ``Look at that, Gracie. He's playing the piano with his feet. Isn't that amazing?''

But with a stricken little look on her face, Gracie said, ``But, Daddy, he doesn't have any arms.''

I said, ``I know, Baby, and that's very sad, isn't it?''

And she said, ``Oh, Daddy, it is very sad. We've got to help him. We've just got to. We've got to get some arms and give it to him.''

I said, ``But, Baby, there aren't any extra arms. They're all hooked onto other people.''

And she thought for a moment and looked at me with wet little eyes and pulled up her sleeve and held up her little arm and said, ``But, Daddy, can I give him one of my arms if it will fit on him?''

Across human history, the greatest and most loving voices among us have always emphasized the critical responsibility each of us has to recognize and cherish the light of divine, eternal humanity shining in the soul of every last one of our fellow human beings. I believe there is an answer to some of these seemingly unanswerable questions, Mr. Speaker, that face the human families and how we see each other. On that YouTube video, I saw an amazing young man who played heart- stirring music with his feet, but my little girl saw a child of God who had no arms and wanted to give him one of hers.

And how very thankful I am that my little Gracie was not one of the hundreds of millions of little girls whose lives and hearts were torn from this world before they ever saw the light of sunrise simply because they were little girls instead of little boys.

I know that this Congress deals with many controversial issues where it is sometimes difficult for Republicans and Democrats to find common ground, but I refuse to believe that we cannot find enough humanity in this body to conclude together that it is wrong to knowingly kill unborn children because they are baby girls instead of baby boys.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the vice chairman of the Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle), a member of the Oversight & Government Reform Committee.

Of course, the gentleman knows there's no criminal thing in this bill for the women. That's an unfortunate fallacy.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the remainder of the time?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he is the chairman of the Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have time to correct all of the misinformation that my friends on the other side of the aisle have said here today. They've talked about everything but what this bill does.

If I thought that America really supported aborting little girls because they were little girls as a people, then I guess I would conclude that the light of human compassion had gone out in our society and it was time to board this place up and go home and be done with it. But, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I know that 86 percent of the American people favor protecting little girls from sex-selection abortion, and that gives me great hope. I wish I had time to mention all of the groups that are in favor of this bill, but I know that this is going to be the first step, and we're going to be on the right side of history and the right side of justice, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Offered By: Mr. Franks of Arizona

Amendment No. 8: Page 66, after line 10, add the following

new section:

Sec. 519. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing

wage requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,

United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon

Act).