Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if he has time for one, because I am struggling a little bit. Byron York has a good article out, published last night at 11:46, where he points out that there are some real potential problems. He says ``five things that could go horribly wrong with Obama's action in Iraq.'' One of them, he mentions the lack of a status of forces agreement. We all know that President Bush had been working on a status of forces agreement. He thought he would leave it to the President to accomplish that great task and have instant international credibility for signing a document immediately like that coming into office, but for whatever reason--we hear a lot of different stories--but it blew up, but the President says that we couldn't leave troops there without a status of forces agreement because you can't have troops in a country where you don't have, for example, an immunity agreement, so that American soldiers, American contractors that are there to help protect Iraq from harm--sometimes, bombs go off in the wrong place. Sometimes, somebody gets killed that wasn't meant to because it becomes a war zone. As the President pointed out before, we couldn't leave troops there because we have no immunity agreement. Well, I haven't heard that there is any immunity agreement with Iraq, and yet he announced last night that he has already got several hundred American sneakers on the ground over there and is going to add 475 more troops--apparently wearing sneakers because there are not boots on the ground. So I am needing some help here. Why is it safe to send in American troops now without the promise, the agreement of immunity from Iraq when it was not safe to do so when he took office? I am struggling here.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. I do appreciate that tribute to a truly great man. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), my friend, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my dear friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland). Honoring S. Truett Cathy

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is so much at risk right now in this country, and the President gave us a fine address last night, very interesting. I know some people say, you know, in times of trouble, when the United States is threatened, we need to all get together behind our leader. As someone once said to me about Republicans, he said, I just wish the Republicans would all run the same play together. And I responded, I agree. I wholeheartedly want for the Republicans to all run the same play together at the same time. But I said, the trouble is, if my leader calls a play running to the wrong end zone, I am not blocking for him. And that is also, I think, applicable with the President of the United States. I was blasted after statements on FOX News saying that if the President wanted to go to war with ISIS, I would support that. So I was anticipating something last night that would unite us and not divide us. To relate, one of the problems with the President is, he starts off early in his speech saying, as Commander in Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Well, I have come to know friends, close friends with a number of the family members of Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, and they debate, they don't believe that the highest priority of this President is the security of the American people. The actions of this President, in saying that he cares so deeply about the security of the American people, don't seem to resonate when you stand by weeping parents who have watched their son's head be cut off by these enemies, and you say it is your highest priority to protect the American people, but they are wondering, that same day that you spend 5 or 6 hours playing golf, do you spend that much time figuring out a way to protect other Foleys? That is a tough sell. The President said, now, let's make two things clear. ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents. Well, that has certainly got to be a shock to the radical Islamists who brutally kill, behead, maim innocent people in the name of what they say is their religion. In fact, the American people don't seem to be sold on what the President said. This story from CNN filed at 8:15 a.m. this morning by Ashley Killough quotes what the President said about ISIL's not Islamic. No religion condones killing of innocents. Then they have a number of tweets. According to the CNN article, Twitter just lit up with responses to the President saying that. Lots of retweets. Let's see, from Ron Christie: ``ISIS isn't Islamic? What kindergartner briefs the President on terrorism?'' Another: ``Obama: ISIL is not Islamic? He just countermanded anything he plans to say tonight. Right there is the fatal flaw.'' Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic? Hello? THIS ISIL, `Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'?'' Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic and Lois Lerner and the IRS is not corrupt. Obama is such a freaking''-- Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't say that word. Joe Wilson said that and it was found not to be appropriate. Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic? Is he kidding? I suppose those black flags are just for giggles then.'' Another from the CNN article: ``ISIL is not Islamic--POTUS opens a section aimed at motivating Muslims around the world to disown ISIL, aid U.S. fight.'' Another from Mohammed Ansar: ``ISIL is not Islamic, says prime time @BarackObama (and virtually every Muslim and reasonably educated person on the face of our planet).'' Michael Oleaga: Some folks on Twitter didn't understand Obama's ``ISIL is not Islamic'' statement. Study foreign affairs, folks, or religion--all religion. It is interesting because President Obama's statement is apparently similar to the historic reaction that Thomas Jefferson had before he was President when he was negotiating with the radical Islamist Barbary pirates in northern Africa, who had been capturing American ships-- killing, enslaving, holding people for ransom. Jefferson was rather shocked when he reportedly indicated, ``I don't understand why you keep attacking us. We don't have a navy. We are not a threat to you.'' It was explained to him, ``We believe if we are killed while attacking infidels like you, then we will go instantly to paradise.'' Jefferson is perplexed, and he ends up getting his own copy of the Koran because he couldn't believe that any religion would ever promote going to paradise for being killed while killing innocent people. He read for himself, and history can tell you exactly what his conclusion was. As President, he ultimately decided that the only way to deal with these radical Islamists was not to keep paying 10 to 20 percent of the American budget for ransom to get people back. The solution was to send this new group called the United States Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight the radical Islamists with everything they had until they yelled ``uncle'' or were wiped out, and they ceased to come after Americans. The President says: I have insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government. That strikes me as strange because if the Commander in Chief's highest priority, as he said at the start of the speech, is the security of the American people, then it begs the question: Why is he so worried about what the Iraq Government does if he knows he has to do something to protect the American people? Now, I remember Senator Obama repeatedly went after the Bush administration. It seemed that he thought little or nothing of the coalition that President George H. W. Bush put together with 43 countries to go in and liberate Kuwait and that he thought even less of the 49 countries that put people and money on the line to support the effort in Iraq--49 countries. President Obama thought that was not a real coalition, yet they put people, and they put money. Now, magically, since he is President, he thinks a coalition of nine countries that he won't name or commit what they are going to put into the coalition is somehow better than the 49 countries' coalition that President Bush put together before going into the Middle East. President Obama said: In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq. He goes on to say: We will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq. He has made very clear he is not going to put boots on the ground, as he said, in Iraq, so the only conclusion logically that you can make from the President's saying, on the one hand, we are not going to put boots on the ground in Iraq and that he has already sent several hundred soldiers and is sending 475 more, is that those thousand or so U.S. soldiers will be wearing sneakers. He said that America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. It is hard to believe that nine people who are a bit timid about being named and committed to what they will do are really that broad of a coalition. He said ``mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges.'' Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from General Kelly, testifying before the House and the Senate--he is the commander of SOUTHCOM, the Southern Command--he knows what threats are to our south. As he testified, the penetration of our southern border by the criminal networks and radical Islamists, in his words, is an existential threat to the United States. You have got the man who is supposed to know the most about the southern border and protecting us, telling Congress that the penetration going on of our southern border is a threat to the very existence of the United States of America. So I would urge the President, Mr. Speaker, when he says he will ``mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges,'' to change that word in his teleprompter to read ``border'' challenges, so that we can protect ourselves from the criminal networks and the potential for radical Islamists who want to destroy us from coming across our southern border. I truly hope that the late Tom Clancy was not as clairvoyant in one of his last novels as he was in the early nineties, when he wrote about someone who was irritated with the United States flying a jet into the Capitol to wipe out a joint session of Congress. I love George W. Bush, but when he said ``who would have ever thought somebody would use a plane for a bomb and crash it into a building,'' I was thinking, well, Tom Clancy several years ago, as that was in one of his novels. In one of his recent novels, one of his last, he wrote about a coalition beginning to form between radical Islamists and drug cartels in Mexico and ultimately a deal where they brought in--I can't remember--10 or 12 radical Islamists with surface-to-air missiles. They paid tremendously to the drug cartels to smuggle those into the United States, so they could get themselves in vans and, at the appropriate time in areas all across the country, step out and shoot down American passenger planes. We know that although the radical Islamists are really insane-- crazy--when it comes to the killing of innocent people, they are not stupid. When we give them an opening to come after us, they will take it. The President lost further credibility last night at a time when he really needed to be getting the world behind him. Credibility was lost when he said: It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression and in support of the Ukrainian people's right to determine their own destiny. Mr. Speaker, people around the world--as I have traveled in west Africa, north Africa, the Middle East, moderate Muslim countries in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Europe--all understand that this President has done virtually nothing to help Ukraine. They haven't rallied the peoples of the world, and when the people around the world hear that, they have to think: What? Does he think we are crazy ourselves? You go back and see what this administration did in response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the response was a Twitter campaign. They actually did try to put restrictions on, as I recall, 10 or 11 bank accounts that the Russians laughed about. This President needs to do more to rally the world around us--with us--against radical Islam, against imperialism, like we have seen from Putin, and we can all stand together. After the President seemed to indicate that he wanted to take out ISIS--or he said ``ISIL''--I really felt that when the President had finished last night, that I would be saying that that is something I have got to support, that I am with him. ISIS has said they are a threat to us. We need to take them seriously. They are cutting off American heads. We have got to take that seriously. Yet when I hear the President, he wants to give support to the moderate, vetted Free Syrian Army; and we read the article from Patrick Poole, where he quotes one of those vetted, moderate Free Syrian Army brigade commanders, saying that his forces were working with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's official Syrian affiliate--both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations: We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army's gatherings in . . . Qalamoun. Then a quote from another Free Syrian Army commander--vetted, moderate--that this President is going to help: We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice. Let's face it: the Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun, and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values. I really expected to be standing today and saying we need to get behind the President's activity, just as I said in the last couple of weeks, immediately after the President's speech, that I agree, and let's go to war with ISIS; but with the President's wanting to continue what he has been doing for over a year--giving weapons to the Free Syrian Army which somehow, magically, keep having them taken away by the Islamic State--or ISIS/ISIL--the President finally suspended giving them more arms in December. This President kept sending arms to the vetted, moderate Free Syrians, and they ended up in the hands of ISIS every time, so it was suspended in December. Then in April, for some reason--they think they can now trust the Free Syrians--he started sending more weapons to the Free Syrians, and magically, they keep ending up in ISIS/ISIL control. This President does a speech last night, and now, we are supposed to get with him and send more weapons to the people whose leaders are saying publicly, ``We support ISIS. We support al-Nusra. We support the enemies of the United States.'' I yield to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, that's right. Trent came, too.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleagues across the aisle talking about the economy and pushing for a raise in minimum wage because that is what a party does after their party has totally devastated the economy. It is what you do after your party's President, with help from the majority in the Senate led by Harry Reid, are able to just wreak havoc with an economy that should be doing really well. This economy is ready to take off. ObamaCare, as we have said for over 4 years, is going to harm the economy. It is going to knock people out of work. It is going to put people from full time to part time. Republicans have been explaining this ever since not one of us voted for that bill. We also explained there were $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. A lot of seniors that vote Democrat voted for this President, voted for a Democratic majority in the Senate. They have now been shocked this year as they are not getting the health care they once did. Why? Because of ObamaCare--seniors are getting mistreated. When we want to talk about the economy, the most staggering numbers I can imagine have come out in the last year, and the President has even acknowledged it was true. He complains we are not doing enough for the middle class. Well, we agree with that. We certainly agree with that. We need to help those that are not making enough money. Then quit knocking them out of their jobs, Mr. President, Harry Reid. We have got over 360 bills down at the Senate. Passage of just 10 of them would help this economy, but they won't bring them up. So the devastating, most incredible numbers are these: since Barack Obama has been President of the United States, for the first time in our Nation's history--it has never ever happened before in any President's tenure, whether it was 4 years or 8 years or shortened by tragedy, no President before Barack Obama has ever presided over an economy in the United States in which 95 percent of all the income in the United States went to the top 1 percent, never ever. Only under the leadership of President Barack Obama, of all the Presidents, only this President has brought us to the place where 95 percent of all of the income in America goes to the top 1 percent. People wonder why there is so much money that flooded into the Obama campaign in 2008. Not as much flooded into his campaign in 2012 because there was some people losing money. The economy wasn't doing as well as expected. Is there anything more devastating than a President acknowledging the fact that 95 percent of all income has gone to the top 1 percent? Then he gives speeches and talks to people like he can't understand how the Republicans could allow this big growth between the poor and the rich. Well, we need the President to tell us how he has done it, but the trouble is we know how he has done it. He talks about fat cats and then makes sure that they are the ones that get rewarded. He talks about going after Big Oil and proposes a bill that would do nothing to hurt Big Oil, but would absolutely have devastated independent oil producers who actually drill and produce around 95 percent or so of the United States' oil and gas wells. Because of this President's ObamaCare, because of his overregulation, because of his top-down demands from the EPA wanting to usurp all authority for people that couldn't find their rears with both hands, they are the ones that are telling industry how to run their industries. This President has created a mess. He demonizes companies for trying to survive by moving to a country that has a corporate income tax rate that is a fraction of the rate we have. We now have the largest--the highest corporate tax in the world, and this President thinks the answer is more taxes. He has never been educated by people who know how an economy really works, people like Arthur Laffer that helped Ronald Reagan get the economy going after President Carter nearly killed it. He has never sat down at the feet of people really who understand economies and what makes them work, what makes them fail. So he doesn't understand that when government uses its heavy, heavy hand, they hurt economies. When the President pronounces laws out of his mouth that have never passed Congress and makes that the newly-enforced law, then it creates havoc in the economy because capital goes where it feels safest. When you have a President, like a dictator, that just pronounces new laws because he doesn't like what Congress has passed and prior Presidents have signed, then companies are not going to be able to survive very well in that environment, so they move on and go somewhere where they can survive better. The answer to getting people better jobs and higher wages is not to mandate further regulation. The answer is to lower the corporate tax, draw more companies back here, so that people can have better jobs, people can have more jobs. I know at some point--because there is so much intelligence in the African American community, I know at some point a majority are going to figure out that the Democrats have done massive damage to the African American communities and that the answer is not making them more dependent on the Federal Government, but in pushing them to reach their potential, to reach for the sky, not with Federal handouts, but with good-paying jobs. I was in Marshall, Texas, just in the last few weeks. There was a young African American who has been out of school for a while. He was so excited because he had been able to go through the 5-week truck driving school there, was getting his commercial driver's license, and for the first time in his life, he was going to get a good job paying $40,000 to $42,000. It excited me seeing him so excited. He is just a huggable guy that was so thrilled. So now that he had a job promise that was coming up in a couple of weeks when he finished and he knew how much he was going to make and that, in 3 years, he had the chance of making $100,000, that he has now gotten engaged--because he wanted to wait until he had a job and he could take care of his wife and they could take care of each other. He didn't want to be on the Federal dole. He wanted to provide for himself. This man had all kinds of capability, and now, he is going to be able to meet it, not because of this President or the overregulation, but because he took a 5-week training program and was going to get a good job. That is where you help people, not in the handouts, but in the hand helping to rise up to the potential that God has given them. Some have claimed Republicans have a war on women, that women only make 70 percent of what the men have. There are so many false statistics that are quoted. We know it is very unfortunate. We are very sorry that the White House penalizes women and rewards men because the men make a lot more in the same top positions than the women do. So apparently, that does happen some places, and we hope the President will address it in his own White House lawn, in his own house and yard. The fact is if across the country everybody was paying women only 70 percent of what they paid men for the same job--people are smarter than the President realizes--they would be hiring nothing but women because they work for so much cheaper. That is one of the problems that the African American community has. When huge businesses combined with the Democratic Party to bring in and lure as many illegal aliens into this country as they can and start giving massive numbers of amnesty, then they are not going to have as many job opportunities, and they are not going to make as much money. People are beginning to see that in the African American community. That is why their unemployment rate is so much higher than that in other ethnic communities and the overall unemployment rate--such damage to such wonderful people. Just like that young man in Marshall, Texas, another--he was a much older guy, big guy, African American, just thrilled for the man because he is graduating, he has got a job coming up, he has been out of work so long. You don't help people by saying, ``We are going to pay you for a year not to work.'' You help create an environment where there are jobs where you can reach your potential. Mr. Speaker, the question that my friends ought to be asking is, ``Why is one job no longer enough for so many Americans?'' If we get to the bottom of it, you will find out. ObamaCare is a problem, overregulation is a problem, stifling America becoming energy independent by propping up forms of energy that do not create a profit unless they are propped up by taxpayer dollars--let this economy run. Let people reach their potential. One other thing: I know the President is going to be making a speech on Syria. I literally thank God that the President was not able to do a bombing campaign like he wanted to do a year ago, in which he literally would have done so much damage to--not a good man, but the leader in Syria, Assad, that it would have allowed ISIS to be in charge now. People across America have figured out ISIS is a threat to all of us. I will wait to see what the President has to say, but when you know that the President was wrong about Egypt, about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over in Egypt, was wrong when he was pushing to keep the Muslim Brotherhood and a tyrant like Morsi in charge in Egypt, when over a third of the population in Egypt came to the streets and said, ``We don't want radical Islam; and you, America, under Barack Obama, you helped us with a constitution that doesn't even include impeachment, it is shari'a law''--and they have now passed a constitution that requires the Christian churches and Jewish synagogues be rebuilt with government money, and this administration continues to be heavy-handed against them because they didn't want radical Islamists in charge. In Libya, as moderate Muslims in the Middle East have told me in visits over there: None of us really liked Qadhafi, but he was helping you and helping us against terrorism and you helped al Qaeda-backed rebels take him out. But for America's bombing, the radical Islamists would not have control of Libya, Algeria, or Tunisia today. Thank God for the Egyptians rising up and saying, as moderate Muslims, as secularists: We stand with the Jews and the Christians, and we don't want radical Islamists running our country. I hope this country--our country's leadership, at least, under the President--will wake up. Stop hurting the freedom-loving Egyptians that don't want the radical Islamists you supported in Egypt back in charge of Egypt. Don't help ISIS in Syria. Don't help them in Iraq. And if he had just signed the Status of Forces Agreement that President Bush had all but had ready to sign, getting cute with that so it fell apart, then we wouldn't be having all these problems today in Iraq and Syria that we are. He is getting horrible advice, and it is time the President took a hard look at who he really gets advice from, because the moderate Muslims in the world don't want radical Islam taking over and they don't, as they have told me privately, like the people that this President has advising him. The economy is ready to take off, if this President will get out of the way, and people can make money and get back to where one job is enough for a person to make it and do well. And if we cut down on the massive expenses ObamaCare is causing, we can get rid of that and get back to real health care reform. Because even if you save $100, $200 a month, that would get you a vacation that people have not gotten this year. There is so much we can do for America if the government of this country, the people at the top of the government, will just finally realize the American people have more answers than we do, and then they will show us. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I am glad to yield to anybody that has an answer. Madam Speaker, hearing none, the listener, those who have ears to hear, should take note. This is a serious violation. It is not merely an administrative mistake. This has and will cost American lives in violation of United States law. It is time we reined in the lawbreakers.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the two bills that this rule brings before the House today are critical. I have a resolution here adopted by the County Commissioners' Court and Judge of San Augustine County, and they state the obvious: Be it resolved that San Augustine County strongly opposes the proposed new rule to define waters of the United States in that it increases the need for burdensome and costly permitting requirements, infringes on private property rights, and circumvents the legislative process, thus, the will of the people. Be it further resolved that Congress, not Federal agencies, make the laws, and therefore any such change in jurisdictional power of the Federal Government should only occur as a result of the passage of Federal legislation. We have a power grab in this administration. It goes on and on. That is why it is so critical to take up this bill, to rein in the EPA in this effort at an oligarchy, or actually, a monarchy, where we just have rules spoken into law, or breathed into law in bureaucratic back rooms, taking private property rights away. This needs to be dealt with on the floor, and that is what this House Republican majority is trying to do. Now, when it comes to the Taliban Five, it was very clear from the GAO conclusion that ``when DOD failed to notify specified congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of its transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar, DOD used appropriated funds in violation of section 8111 of the law.'' The law goes on, in part, and says that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in the act may be used to transfer any individuals detained at the United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. We also find out here, I have seen, today, that the Taliban brothers over in Afghanistan and Pakistan, one with the Taliban Five that have been released, are saying they support and are brothers with the Islamic State that is cutting off the heads of American citizens. There is no question that the five murdering and complicit murderers that were released back to the Taliban will kill Americans again. They will be complicit in killing Americans again even if their hands don't actually do that. So the question I have, and I will yield to anybody that wants to answer it: What do you call somebody who breaks the law to let lawbreaking complicit murderers go free? What do you call somebody that breaks the law to release murderers?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride today that I enthusiastically recognize the 2014 Douglass Indians Baseball Team on an outstanding season, in which they have attained the title of 2014 Texas State Class A Baseball Champions. To end their thirty-three to one season, the Indians defeated Flatonia Bulldogs in a shutout, with a final score of 10-0. Throughout this outstanding season the Indians had, in thirty-four games, allowed only thirty-four runs and scored themselves a dazzling three hundred seventy-seven. The team's batting average for the season was an impressive .392. All in all, the team set the school record for wins and secured the first and only state baseball championship in the school's history. With the support of coaches, teachers, administrators and their entire community, these young men bear witness that anything is achievable through hard work and determination. These are guiding principles that lead to success not only on the field, but will undoubtedly resonate through every endeavor these valiant championship players undertake in their entire lifetimes. Among the individual team members to be congratulated are Matthew Wallace, Logan Ammons, Cade James, Kolten Rhoudes, Grant Holland, Chase Dyson, Clayton Sestak, Trenton Carrigan, Bryce Westbrook, Bryce McLeod, Taylor Schroeder, John Sinz, Jake Spies, Hunter Lee, Brandon Stanfield, and Robert Campbell. Douglass Indians' Team Manager Bonner Watson, Head Coach Eugene Lafitte, Assistant Coach Nick Freeman, and Principal Jeff Roquemore are to be praised for their support and unwavering leadership. It is indeed an honor to join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2014 Class A Champion Douglass High School Baseball Team. Their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record, which will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to recognize the incredible 2013-2014 Angelina College Lady Roadrunner Softball team members who merit congratulations for their success, both on and off the field. This group of extraordinary women attained for their school the coveted title of NJCAA Division I National Softball Champions, an accomplishment which also represents the first national title for Angelina College. In addition, the Lady Roadrunners became the first team from Texas to win the NJCAA Division I World Series since the tournament's inception in 1977. From start to finish, this team had to overcome adversity at every turn--including mechanical malfunctions, bad weather and sleep deprivation. But on the field, this team exemplified what determination could accomplish. The team lost in game one of the championship tournament, but the Lady Roadrunners rallied behind their defeat and triumphed in game two over Central Florida with a score of eight to five. The team finished out their season with forty-two wins, sixty-two homeruns and a national title. Off the field and in the classroom, this group of women illustrate that determination can translate into success no matter the arena. These young women finished their championship season with a total grade point average for the team of three point three, landing them an appearance on the Academic All-American list. It is my privilege to honor team members Madalyn Sumrall, Trina Deyo, Katelyn Barker, Kaylon Morvant, Kristin Boulware, Gia Johns, Taylor Harper, Shelby Bruner, Sage Martinez, Kassie James, Sidney Allen, Kayleigh Roy, Meranda Rodriguez, Samantha Moore, Melissa Boland, Ashley Ingle, and Tessa Thomas. The team undoubtedly thrived under the skillful leadership of Head Coach Mark Mattson, Assistant Coach Barbara Mattson, Student Trainer Bridget Chandler, Athletic Secretary Debbie Mareno, Sports Information Director Gary Stallard, Athletic Director Guy Davis, and Angelina College President Dr. Larry Phillips. It is with great pride that I join the constituents of the First District of Texas in congratulating the players and athletic staff of the 2014 NJCAA Division I National Champions, the Angelina College Lady Roadrunner Softball Team. Their legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record, which will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. There is a section within the bill, which we just passed, that provides that the Attorney General--who is currently under contempt of Congress--will appoint the 40 new immigration judges established in the bill. A number of us have a problem with that. And I know that concerns you, Chairman Goodlatte. I believe that you, as Judiciary chairman, have agreed to work on a solution to deal with that issue going forward and to attempt to craft a solution that would be acceptable to a majority of the committee. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you both so much for your commitment.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sessions. This was a different experience the last few days. I remember the fiscal cliff problem when we were told: Here is your remedy, take it and like it. And they didn't have enough votes so it ended up getting pulled, and people were sent home. But this time was different. We had people who said: Do you know what? Wait a minute, why don't we stay here and work something out? Kind of a refreshing change. There were numerous Members last night that sat down in a room and worked for quite some time--for hours actually--and came to a conclusion. We had a verbal agreement, and there was a misunderstanding on one provision. Anyway, there were so many great changes, great compromises, people from different, diverse positions took part. But let me just say, the importance of getting something done now before we get even one day further into August is this. I have spent many days and many nights on the border. When you look at the pitiful, beautiful little faces of people that have come 1,000 or more miles because there was a shiny object being dangled here in the United States, saying: Come on, you may get amnesty, come on, come on now; and adults paid gang members, paid drug cartels, to bring these people through--some got pulled off into sexual trafficking we are told, many were raped, if they were young women, along the way, some given birth control pills so, gee, if they are raped they are not getting pregnant--and all because the law has been violated in an unconstitutional action by the President, who said: I don't like the law that was passed by the House and by the Senate and then the prior President signed into law, so I am passing a new law through my lips. And it created this allure. I wish the Senate had stuck around to work with us, as many of us stayed last night to work. We could be so far down the road. I am greatly encouraged by many of the things that are here, by the great compromises. I want to thank Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Patrick McHenry, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary staff, but especially Chairman Sessions. Thanks for your accorded assistance today. We could get to a finished product even with the Senate if it wasn't Harry Reid's way or the highway. Who suffers? Come some night with me and sit out at the border 1, 2, 3 in the morning, dodge tarantulas scorpions, rattlesnakes, and you may get to see a beautiful face that has gone through hell instead of being accorded the decency of a better way to immigrate into America. We can do a better job, and we haven't done our job. I am going to be a ``no'' because the provision was not pulled out that gives the Attorney General the power to appoint the 40 judges that are going to deal with the issues on the border. I have been assured we are going to work on that in the future to fix it better. I just can't give a guy in contempt the ability to appoint the 40 judges to deal with this issue. But I am so grateful for the process that we are now starting to use.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my friend for yielding, and I am very grateful for his strong stance on the issue of Israel and just wanted to add an exclamation point to the gentleman's comments. There has been a lot of discussion about Israel tonight and about what is being done against the interests of Israel, but, Mr. Speaker, I think it bears pointing out that this administration could do much to help our friend Israel. And that when anyone in this administration says to the world and, in particular, the people in the Middle East, including the terrorists in the Middle East, that we see Israel, a country whose leaders are elected, and Hamas, whose leaders are sworn to the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews, then the world gets the wrong impression. They get the impression that we see terrorism and love of life in Israel--terrorism by Hamas, love of life in Israel--as equals. That is a despicable thing to show the world from the United States, from any administration official. It is important that we let the world know that when a nation that is such a dear friend as Israel is attacked repeatedly by rockets intended to kill innocent children, women, others around the country, then they have the right of self-defense to go in and clean up those who would destroy them. That means, when they go in to shut down the tunnels by which terrorists are allowed to enter their country and kill people, that we don't have some do-gooder from the United States rush in and say: Hold on. Hold on. We realize you are destroying the tunnels that are allowing Israelis to be killed. We realize you are shutting down the rocket missile sites from which rockets are being launched to kill Israelis, but we want to give Hamas a breather so these terrorists, bent on killing Israelis, can regather their forces and get a better run at death to Israelis. That is a disastrous foreign policy. You don't put as equals terrorists and a country that loves life, and it loves life so much that, unlike any military operation I am aware of, it notifies the people they are about to bomb before they bomb so people can clear out. That is extraordinary. The burden of proof on Israel that is placed there by some in this administration and by others who love the terrorists and hate those who simply want to live in peace is unbearable. It is time the United States showed itself to be a friend of Israel. The good news is, in this body, in this House, and even at the other end in the Senate, though we disagree profoundly on so many issues, when Israel comes up, we are more unified on our friendship with Israel than we are about any other issue I am aware of. And that is how it should be. When the leader of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, came and spoke a few years ago right here at this podium, both sides of the aisle stood and applauded repeatedly. That is as it should be. As he pointed out right here, if Israel lays down its weapons, there is no Israel. If the Palestinians lay down their weapons, there is no war. The war ends. That is all they are asking for. I used to wonder why in the world did the Israelis try to give away land, try to buy peace, when every time they give away land they are attacked from that piece of land. After spending time in Israel, I began to understand. When you see the coffee shops, the different places where people would gather that would have someone loaded up with a suicide bomb, walk in and blow up as many innocent people as they could, or see an area and they would say that is where the terrorist bomber came walking up on the school ground, then you realize they are willing to even give away their precious land that God gave to them over 3,000 years ago if they can just buy a little peace. But the lesson should come back loudly: there has never been a time in Israel's history when it has given away land trying to buy peace when that land was not ultimately used as a staging area from which to attack it. I think it was pretty clear this administration showed its cards when, as a method of thumping, figuratively speaking, Israel, the FAA suspended flights into Tel Aviv. They were not at risk any more than other flights from American airlines around the world, especially in countries where there are terrorists. But it was a message to Israel that, hey, you better do what we tell you or we are going to hurt you economically. That message was clear and it wasn't missed by the Israelis. And then to have that followed by the Secretary of State putting a terrorist organization and a country that is one of our dearest friends together on equal standing was further insult to the injury, literal injury that this country had caused Israel. It is time that we recognize what my dear friend Mr. Bentivolio has said clearly. It is time we stand with Israel. It is time to make clear to Israel's enemies: You take on Israel, you take us on. You may not get that from this administration. They may still be playing patty-cake with terrorists, but in this Congress, from both sides of the aisle, we stand with Israel. I thank my friend so much for helping make that clear.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield to a friend, a colleague, a guy I came in with in the class of 2004, my friend, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. I am immensely grateful to my friend, Mr. Fortenberry, for bringing this point home. It is a point that has been brought home repeatedly to me in different places in the world. In Afghanistan, where this country helped with a constitution that would be shari'a law-based, my country, my country, where Americans have fought and died for freedom, my country, where the most valuable commodity we have, human life, has been sacrificed on the altar of freedom because we believed where there was a threat like Afghanistan to us as Americans, we could repel the Taliban, and the world would benefit and certainly America would benefit, and Christians around the world would benefit, who were being so persecuted by the Taliban in control in Afghanistan. But we weren't alone. Moderate Muslims in Afghanistan were being persecuted. That is why there were plenty, there were plenty of groups willing to rise and fight with America, for America, against the radical Islamists of the Taliban. The moderate Muslims didn't want radical Islamists running their country. They were perfectly willing to allow Christians or Buddhists or secularists, Jews, to live and worship or not worship as they saw fit in their country. So the people that some in this administration call war criminals, the Northern Alliance, fought for us, and they defeated the Taliban in a matter of months. It was in October of 2001, a month or so after the worst attack on the United States in our history killed over 3,000 people here in our homeland. We finally figured out that planning and preparation occurred in Afghanistan. And there did have to be some diplomatic negotiations to get some of the tribes to be willing to fight together because they didn't like each other sufficiently, at least, to work together and be under each others' control and command. Diplomatically, there may have been some money that changed hands, we are told, to get one tribal leader to subjugate to another. General Dostum, legendary in the region, in the whole continent, for courage, led. We had less than 500, around 300 or so, embedded military, special ops guys, as well as intelligence. And within about 4 or 5 months, the Taliban were totally routed, totally defeated. Then the administration, under the leadership of the State Department, decided the best thing for Afghanistan would be to have a stove-piped, centralized, top-heavy government, even though this was a regional, tribal country, had been for millennia. That was a mistake that was not the Obama administration's; that happened before President Obama took office. But, from those I talked with, they could see problems, and I believe, if there had been a President Bush clone he would have been willing to admit we needed a change. But the new President accepted Afghanistan, with its top-heavy government, where the President can appoint the governors, appoint the mayors, appoint the police chief, appoint the highest level teachers, appoint a slate of a big portion of the legislature. Incredible powers. If you were looking for a formula that would help you create corruption, we helped provide it to the Afghans. If you were looking for an environment that could be created that would encourage corruption, we helped provide it to the Afghans. Well, everybody makes mistakes. But the important thing is, after you have made them, recognize them and correct them. Instead, this administration came in and really doubled down and bet on the top-heavy, corrupt Karzai administration. As a result, synagogues really can't be found in Afghanistan. Christian churches-- you would be hard-pressed to find a church in Afghanistan, not that they are not there somewhere. But the Taliban, one of whose leaders has been on national television in Afghanistan, on behalf of the Taliban, citing shari'a law and, basically, announcing if you have been an opposing the Taliban, if you have not actually supported us, then everyone knows when the Americans leave, which will be this year, then we, the Taliban will be back in charge here in Afghanistan. So under shari'a law, you must come to us, admit your mistakes, ask forgiveness, and ask for our protection, swear allegiance to the Taliban. We will forgive you and we will provide you protection. But if you fail to do so, then you will be fodder for death. So, we have helped create a situation in Afghanistan, under this administration, where now, if you are not going to be a radical Islamist, your life is going to be miserable, which were the conditions in Afghanistan before we went in. We have set up a situation in Afghanistan that will be ripe for further Taliban development, further Taliban training, and planning for a more glorious 9/11 attack that can and would kill more Americans. And although that would most likely occur after this President leaves office, it would only be the mainstream media who would not recognize that it was this administration that made this possible. Yes, the Bush administration would have contributed some by the government so centralized that was set up. But all but the most deaf and blind to the mistakes of the current administration would say the Bush administration would have allowed it to get to this point in Afghanistan, where Christians and Jews have to fear for their lives, where moderate Muslims have to fear for their lives, and where those who fought for and with America will likely be killed. Now, knowing some of these people, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you they are not going to go down without a fight. So most likely, our President, here in the United States, by siding with the bullies, is likely to contribute to a massive, ugly, destructive civil war in Afghanistan. But it is one of the situations that has led our allies around the world to say, wait a minute. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan fought for America. They fought for you. They defeated radical Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan. They were defeated. They were overrun. That last incredible battle where General Dostum--and I have talked with him personally about it in Afghanistan, how he knew that they couldn't send tanks up to this last fortification of the Taliban because they could get blown up and they would block the way up. He knew that he couldn't send massive numbers of infantry until, eventually, they prevailed because they are fighting uphill against artillery, rocket propelled grenades, and gunfire, and they wouldn't have a chance, no matter how many they sent. He felt the only chance was if they put the 1,000 fastest, most courageous, best horseback riders they had on horses and sent them uphill into this Taliban stronghold. And they did, and these 1,000 courageous freedom fighters, Muslims who wanted freedom from these cruel, uncivilized, brutal beasts called the Taliban, they wanted them defeated, and they went after them. Riding as fast as they can, they head up the hill, rocket propelled grenades, artillery, gunfire coming their way, and they lost 30 percent of the 1,000 riders. They didn't slow down, they didn't stop, they didn't watch and see as someone fell. They knew their only chance of victory was to keep heading up that hill to the fortification. Around 700 got there and wiped out the Taliban, destroyed the last fortification, the last stronghold of the Taliban, and there was victory in Afghanistan. Now, all these years later, 12 years later, with an administration that keeps helping the bullies of the world and hurting those who are oppressed in the world, the Taliban is poised to take back over. Our allies are wondering, why did we trust you? Why did we fight with you? You said when we defeated the Taliban for you that we could trust you, we could give you our weapons because we had nothing to fear; the United States would always stand with us and make sure the Taliban would never take back over. Now, 12 years after we trusted you, we put our lives in your hands, we gave these weapons to you, you are turning your back on us in Afghanistan who fought for you and with you, lost family, lost limbs, fighting for you and with you, and now you are going to walk away and leave this country to fall back in the hands of the Taliban. We are not going to let it happen without a fight. But we can't believe you would do this to someone to whom you said, hey, trust us, you can trust us, and we did, and now the current administration is turning its back on us, calling us war criminals. Other allies around the world see this, and they say, wow. You know, we can't say this to Secretary of State Kerry. We couldn't say it to Secretary of State Clinton. We couldn't say this to President Obama, but we can say this to you. We trust you, but we are wondering if we are going to be the next allies to be thrown under the bus. People around the world are saying--it seems to be pretty clear--you can't trust the United States, or you will pay with your life. That is not the America that gained the trust and respect around the world from everyone except the radical Islamists and some of the mainstream media. The America that became the most free, the most affluent nation in world history has also been the most generous nation in world history, and what we have done and given and lost on behalf of other people--not to create an empire, not to build an empire, not to force people to speak English and to follow American ways--but so they could be free to choose the way in which they should go. Countries historically have not done that, and we have, and now, that generous nature has been used by this administration until it has become a vice, a vice that would allow our allies to be killed, to be oppressed and persecuted because we are going to let the bullies take over. Not only did we watch and let bullies take over in other parts of the world, but we saw the Arab Spring that, in the not-so-distant future, would become a Christian and Jewish winter--a bleak, miserable winter for Jews and Christians and secularists. We demanded that the leader of Egypt be ousted--never mind that this administration had agreements with the Egyptian leader--the President. We turned our back on them--and how about after the Soviet Union fell and the United States, particularly the Clinton administration, as I understand it, were the ones that guaranteed Ukraine that if you will give up the nuclear weapons that you hold and allow us to provide them to Russia--we know you don't want to give these weapons to Russia, we know you don't trust the Russians, but you can trust us, the United States. President Clinton, as I understand it, worked this great deal with Ukraine: trust us, you can trust us--yes, let the Russians have the nuclear weapons that you possess, Ukraine; and we, the United States, will have your back, we will protect you. Russia wouldn't dare come against you because we will protect you. We will fight for you. We have got your back. What this administration has done with the Ukrainians' back is to put a knife in it. Well, you know, there were a lot of Russians in Crimea. Well, yes, there were. The Russians forced them in there and forced the Ukrainians out at one time. Gee, what a great way to claim this land is yours, by forcing the people out of there. If you want to talk about earlier possession being the right to currently possess, you are going to be hard-pressed to find any Muslim that was a practicing Muslim 1,000 years before Christ, although you will find the Jews under King David, and you would find King David in the first 7 years of his reign in Hebron, leading Israel from Hebron. This administration wants to say: oh, that is not Israel's land--the people that came along and worshiped Mohammed 1,600 years after King David ruled in this land, they are the ones that should have the land. Really--that is this administration's position--seriously? What about the prophecies in the Old Testament that, in the mountains of Sumeria, there would be fruit, there would be grapes, there would be fine wine? For decades, since Israel came back into the land, it was promised over 3,000 years ago. People are saying, well, you can't grow grapes there in those mountains. We don't know. The prophets really blew that one. You can't grow grapes in that area of Sumeria, except that I have been in that area of Sumeria where the prophet said that Israeli grapes would grow and provide great wine. I don't drink alcohol, but the grapes were amazing, and they are growing where the prophet said they would. So how could land that was in Israel's possession, that was prophesied would be lost by the children of Israel, but God would return them to the area, and there would be fine grapes and fruit grown in that area, how could that be somebody else's prior claim when they were longer there than anybody still, any tribes in existence today? Perhaps that is Israel's land, but not according to this administration. This administration is anxious to help those who are the most brutal in all of Israel. So even though we have gotten used to seeing this administration turn its back on an ally in Egypt in favor of a radical Islamist Muslim brother, Morsi, who was in charge--and who, by the way, sent his wife to have a baby in America, who could be brought up and taught to hate America, just like Alamoudi, who is doing over 20 years in prison for supporting terrorism. His wife came to America and had a baby. They have got an American citizen. Actually, it was rather interesting. I found out today that Osama bin Laden told his wife to come to America to have her baby. He wanted her to have an American citizen that they could raise up and teach to hate America who, because of their citizenship, would be able to come in and out. Fortunately, she ended up in Saudi Arabia, as I understand, before the child was born. These radical Islamists may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They know as long as we have open borders and welcome people who are pregnant that hate us, they can get in and have baby American citizens and take them back to their country and, over their life, teach them to hate America. I have talked about it for a number of years. There have been the naysayers, and at some point, they will wise up and see, wow, this has been happening for many years. Well, the same administration that has condemned Israel at different times for not being willing to step up and do what we told them to do, the same administration that has left the leader of Israel sitting, waiting for the President for long periods of time while he went and ate and yet chastised him, well, you stay here and think about it, like a child, and when you come to the agreement I told you to, basically then I will get back together with you. Like a child--really? We treat our allies like that? Well, Prime Minister Netanyahu should be thankful because the way this administration treated the ally leader in Egypt was to have him destroyed--his position, get him out of office, out of power, subject him to torture by the locals. Look at the ally that this administration had in Libya. Qadhafi was not a good man, but he was scared so badly after we entered Iraq that he opened his doors: okay, guys--America, you tell me what I can keep, what I have to get rid of. I don't want you to invade me, so I would rather be your friend. You tell me what I can have in the way of weapons. He really and truly did give up whatever we told him to, and he became an ally. I have even met Qadhafi's son here at the Capitol before--while President Obama has been President. Apparently, he had meetings here in Washington with the administration, with people on Capitol Hill, and yet this administration not only turned on their ally that they had in Qadhafi--who had supposedly given up his terrorist- supporting ways--and this administration supplied weapons into Libya to al Qaeda, to other rebels who were not al Qaeda, but to al Qaeda, to al-Shari'a, to other radical Islamists to take out Qadhafi. Some have contended, if we had not gone in and bombed Qadhafi's caravan as he was trying to get away, they would not have caught him, and he would have gotten out, so it would appear that the United States contributed mightily to the torturous death of Qadhafi. I am not saying he didn't deserve a rough death after what he had done to so many, Mr. Speaker. I am just pointing out that this administration had made agreements and discussions with him as an ally, and they turned on him, threw him away--and not only that, but they helped bring about his personal death and destruction. When you deal with al Qaeda, when you deal with radical Islam, the Taliban, it is like handling a snake, a poisonous snake. Eventually, it will bite because it is a snake. That is what it does. Now, in areas where this administration helped rebels, being a Christian or a Jew is the quickest route to death. This administration, sadly, has helped contribute to situations in the world where there is now more terror if you are a Christian or a Jew than there has been in centuries. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little bit surprised that as Hamas--who does get some of our money. Money is fungible, and we are sending it to the Palestinians, and every dime of it ought to be cut off as long as they have a relationship with Hamas; but yet, because we are sending money that is being used for textbooks and things like street signs that are named for people who have killed innocent Jews, Israelis, Christians, we are contributing to what they are doing. Then this administration, through the FAA, stuck a knife in Israel once again by having the administration, through the FAA, ban U.S. flights to and from Israel's main airport for a second day. As even CNN reported, ``The FAA's ban on U.S. flights to and from Israel's main airport for a second day marks another blow to that country's economy and a success for Hamas militants, experts said Wednesday.'' As one said, quoted in the CNN story: It is a big hit to the Israeli economy and to our pride, the director of the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel said. But he and other Israeli officials insisted their country's sophisticated antimissile system makes Ben Gurion Airport a safe place, even though a Hamas rocket from Gaza fell 1 mile away from the airfield, prompting the FAA temporary ban on U.S. flights. ``We knew about that rocket,'' said Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev. ``We were tracking it for about 3 minutes, our air force. We could have taken it down, but because we saw that it wasn't going to hit inside the airport, we let it through.'' For some Americans, Gaza conflict strikes close to home. The FAA ban marks something of a victory for Hamas--as well as prudent decision to protect commercial airlines, one expert said. But his quote included, ``What is the objective of terrorists? To incite terror in people.'' That was Tim Clemente, a retired FBI counterterrorism agent talking about Hamas. Clemente said: I think because they probably got lucky with this one rocket that came close enough to Ben Gurion to make it seem like the threat was legitimate. Well, the truth is, maybe Mr. Clemente didn't know the Israelis were tracking it. They could have shot it down, but there have been so many. What? A couple thousand of these rockets have been sent in the last 15 days into Israel, they cannot afford to knock down ones that are not going to harm people or do damage, so they didn't take it down. They could see the trajectory. They knew where it was going to hit. Yet the Obama administration decides to inflict even more damage on Israel by harming them economically. Oh, we are lifting bans. We are working with Iran, even though Iran said they want to wipe out the Little Satan, Israel, and the Great Satan, the United States. They made it clear, and they have never, ever ceased to pursue that dream of wiping out Israel and the United States. Oh, we will give them some money. We will let them have proceeds, but when it comes to Israel, we are going to slap them around like a little kid again even though they have the sophisticated weaponry to knock down rockets and they let one go because it is not going to hurt anybody. This administration seizes on that to declare a ban on U.S. flights to and from Tel Aviv. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, described the missile landing near the airport as one victory in the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. The resistance success in stopping the air traffic and isolating Israel from the world is a great victory for the resistance, Barhoum told Al-Aqsa Television. Great victory for Hamas. Great victory for radical Islam. They have gotten the United States administration under President Obama to ban air traffic into Tel Aviv, so we are sticking a knife in our friend. It is not bad enough that Hamas is launching rockets nonstop into Israel, that they have made clear no matter how badly Israel wants a cease-fire, they are not going to stop the rockets, they are hoping they will kill innocent people because they have made clear before that to them, to these terrorists, they don't think there is an innocent child in all of Israel because ultimately they will be in the military, so they are doing the world a favor, they say, or they think, by killing every Israeli they can. And what does this administration do? It says let's help Hamas by sticking, taking a stab into the heart of Israel's economy. Here is an article from haaretz.com: Will the threat to Israel's only international airport be a game-changer? Whether or not flights in and out of Israel are suspended for any length of time, the suspension of flights by several major air carriers is Hamas' first major achievement of this conflict. Mr. Speaker, it is tragic that the United States is the one who gave Hamas, the radical Islamists, their first big victory. It wasn't Israel that gave them a victory. Israel has defended itself, and that is all they are doing. The article says: With a single rocket, which evaded the Iron Dome missile defense system and exploded between two houses in the Tel Aviv suburb of Yehud, Hamas might just have achieved what it failed to do with nearly 2,000 rockets fired at Israel since the beginning of this round of warfare 15 days ago. Again, Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that Israel tracked the missile, saw it wasn't going to hit anybody, and they let it go. It was not a mistake. It was something they saw would be harmless, and they let it go, the Israelis did. But the article says: The decision of the United States' Federal Aviation Administration to advise the three U.S. carriers flying to Israel, Delta, United, and US Airways, to suspend their flights to Israel for 24 hours, could just be just a temporary blip, another inconvenience caused by the current security situation. If the suspension is extended indefinitely, for as long as the rockets are flying, and if it spreads to the airlines of other countries--a number of European carriers have already followed suit and Korean Air suspended flights already last week--it would create an intolerable situation for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Further in the article it says: The rocket falling on Yehud did not change that situation. One factor that could have changed the FAA assessment was probably the downing of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, with the deaths of all 298 crew and passengers on board. Tens of thousands of Israelis planning to fly abroad, tourists who were to leave, and those who were scheduled to arrive here in the next few days will have had their plans disrupted. The national carrier, El Al, however, will continue to fly, and since there have been many cancelations already, it will carry many of those who were set to fly on foreign airlines. But the psychological effect on Israelis will be significant, and this could have a longer term implication for Israel's economy. The last time there was a wide-scale suspension of flights to Israel by foreign airlines was not in 2001 after 9/11 when there were continued threats against Israel or 2002 with continued threats against Israel or 2003 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8. No. There were no flights suspended from the United States under the President George W. Bush administration, even though the threats at that time were probably more severe than now that they have such an effective Iron Dome. There were days before the effective Iron Dome that Israel was probably more at risk than they are with the Iron Dome, but Bush didn't call a suspension. But this administration has. The last time there was a wide-scale suspension of flights to Israel by foreign airlines was in early 1991, when Iraqi scud missiles were falling on Israel during the first gulf war. Israelis then did not travel abroad as often as they do now, and that conflict did not happen during the summer vacation period. More significantly, the local economy was not integrated into the global markets as it is today, with hundreds of international companies having research centers in the Israeli high-tech hubs and thousands of companies here totally reliant on export markets. It took Israel's economy many years to break down the reluctance of foreign corporations to invest and work in Israel--a few days or a couple of weeks with limited air travel probably won't change that, but it may well create a temporary feeling of siege. This may prove to be a game-changer in a conflict which is now entering its third week. It could provide further impetus for the government in seeking a speedy cease-fire with Hamas, but that seems doubtful. It is much more likely that, faced with the prospect of more rockets cutting off Israel off from the international air routes, the government will be inclined to order a much more devastating blow, a wider ground operation to occupy the rocket-launching sites or even directed at Hamas' underground headquarters, with dreadful implications for the people of Gaza living above. And that will be the fault of this administration by failing to put pressure on Hamas but instead putting pressure on the more reasonable people who have just tried to defend themselves and have made clear if you stop the rockets, we stop attacking. All we are seeking is peace. Hamas holds the peace in its own hands, and with that hand, it keeps trying to murder Israelis. And then you end up having discussions in mainstream media--not that hardly anybody is watching. But on CNN when one commentator asked another, I think it was Wolf Blitzer, in effect, gee, these Hamas, they don't have near the weapons that Israel has, so are you seeing any let-up of Israel since they clearly have more fighting power than Hamas? I am sorry. That is just really a stupid question. If somebody is coming at you with a rock with the intent to murder you and you have a gun, are you supposed to stand aside and say: Yeah, beat me as long as you want to until you kill me. I can't use a gun because it is more powerful than your rock? Of course not. You can use self-defense when someone has murderous intent. Israel does have the ability to go in and clean out the weapons in Gaza. I have pointed out to Prime Minister Netanyahu and other leaders of Israel that going back to the very inception of Israel--the very inception--before there was a king, even before there were judges, there has never been a time in Israel's history when Israel gave away its land trying to buy peace. Not only did they not get peace, that land they gave away was used as a staging area from which to attack it. Southern Lebanon and Gaza Strip are just more modern examples. Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand until I went to Israel for the first time why in the world Israel would be willing to give away more land. But when you are there, you see it among the people. They were tired of suicide bombers, and they were tired of rockets. Look, if you will just leave us alone, we will give you land. But hopefully Israel has learned a lesson that even though you are tired of the rockets, you are as tired of the destruction from Hamas and from radical Islamists as you were from the PLO, you can't buy peace by giving away your country, not part of it, not all of it. As long as you exist, they will want to kill you, eradicate you, and wipe you out. They have said they will create a worse holocaust than World War II, and I think they are quite serious. What this administration ought to do for the good of mankind is to recognize that in Hamas are some of the most heinous war crimes in current days because Hamas is willing to take schoolchildren, the sick, the afflicted, and families and put weapons in their homes, their schools, and their hospitals, hiding them under, hiding them in, and then when Israel defends itself by taking out the weapons, they get to claim: Oh, gee, look. You killed innocent civilians. Shame on you. The Hamas leaders ought to be tried for war crimes, convicted and killed. They ought to be put to death in a war crimes system of justice for using children and innocent people as shields. And this administration ought to be leading the cry against Hamas' exposure of its children and its people. But unfortunately, because some of the American money we have spent is capable of being used to fund schoolbooks that teach the children to hate Israelis and hate Americans, hate Jews, hate Christians, you actually have families that say sure, you want to hide your weapons in here, gee, if we are taken out by the Israelis, then we are martyred and we will be heroes. What kind of sick thinking have we contributed to in the region? It is time to cut off every dime that America is giving to the Palestinians, to Hamas, anybody working with Hamas, anybody having any relationship with Hamas. It is time to take President Bush's words that you are either with us or you are against us. If you are doing business with Hamas, if you are helping Hamas, if you are friendly with Hamas, then you are our enemy, and then we ought to enforce that. Israel is standing in defense not only of itself but of the United States of America because the radical Islamists represented in Hamas don't just want an end to Israel. Anyone who wants the destruction and end of Israel wants the destruction and the end of the United States of America, and it is time that somebody in this administration recognized that. I think there are military leaders that recognize that, and some day they are going to grow a pair and tell the President of the United States that he is helping the wrong side, and God bless him when they do. We even have Jewish self-loathers in this country and in the media-- which there have always been--who want to beat up and vilify Israel when the country just wants to defend itself. But we know this has happened as long as there have been the Jewish people. I mean, going back to World War II, there were actually Jews who went and identified where other Jews lived for the Germans. So is it any surprise that you would have some Jewish people, self-loathing Jews, who would ridicule Israel when it is just trying to defend itself? Here is another article, ``World suspension of Israel flights a `great victory': Hamas'': The success of Hamas in closing Israeli airspace is a great victory for the resistance, and is the crown of Israel's failure. That is Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri. Well, he should give credit to this administration. This administration is the one who gave it to him. And then here is an article from Reuters. Netanyahu asks Kerry to help resume flights to Israel. Well, good luck with that. As long as they think they are hurting Israel, they will probably keep it. Sure, the President has already got his Nobel Peace Prize, he got that before he really got started. But Secretary Kerry doesn't have his yet, and the only chance he will have of bringing any peace to the Middle East from his perspective is if you put pressure on the only reasonable group over there, and that is the Israelis, because they are the only ones that recognize that human life is valuable and we ought to try to save as much as we can. They have shown great restraint in the Gaza Strip. They shouldn't have to. We should clean it up for them. Another article by Andrew McCarthy, ``Palestinians Chose Hamas and the Mass Murder of Civilians, Including Their Own.'' He posted this July 22: Today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of Palestinian woe after Hamas's familiar barbarism has provoked an Israeli military response. It thus bears remembering that the Palestinian people chose Hamas. Whatever happened to all of those Democracy Project paeans to self-determination? Hamas is Palestinian self-determination. Hamas was not forced on Palestinians. Hamas did not militarily conquer Gaza. No, Hamas swept parliamentary elections freely held in the Palestinian territories in 2006--thrashing its rival, Fatah, which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of Israel. Anyway, Andrew McCarthy quotes from The Wall Street Journal: The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel as their designated representatives. Almost instantly Hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation. What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low. Children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore. To make matters worse, Gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside ottoman sofas and dirty diapers. When Israel warned them of impending attacks, the inhabitants defiantly refused to leave. On some basic level you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect members of a terrorist organization as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands, and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. At that point you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians. And you have wittingly made yourself targets. It also calls your parenting skills into serious question. In the U.S. if a parent is found to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a summer day with the windows closed, a social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. In Gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on MSNBC, where they can call Israel a genocidal murderer. He says it is just a warmup for Jew hatred that pervades the Charter's Article 7, and then he quotes: Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of Martyr Izz-a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 war, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolved in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible, nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise, whatever time it takes. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him. This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree. Anyway, Andrew McCarthy said: This is what Palestinians voted for. The highlighted section of Article 7 comes straight from Islamic scripture, from the authoritative Bukhari and Muslim collections of hadith (the sayings and doings of the prophet Mohammed). It foretells an eternal struggle until the end of time, when, with Allah's intercession, the rocks and trees will help Muslims battalions find and kill every remaining Jew. Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous time. Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks the help of his former ally, the United States, not the stabbing in the back by the ally, the United States. I have asked my office to try to set up an appointment with Prime Minister Netanyahu if he would see me this weekend. I know the Sabbath is coming up, but I would find a commercial way to fly in there because I believe in the Israeli people and their ability to keep me safe despite the efforts of the United States in consoling their enemy. Just as my friend Dana Rohrabacher came to me several years ago and said, look, the U.S. State Department is saying we cannot go into northern Iraq, the Kurdish area, for more than just maybe a meal because if we do, they won't protect us. They say it is too dangerous. Well, it was the safest area in Iraq, and the Kurdish people were begging for our help. Well, we went in. We were protected 3 days, and I know and I would put my life in the hands of the Israelis. I trust them and I wish the rest of the United States would trust them despite this administration. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I do appreciate the hour spent on talking about energy, because if you hit a big rock in the right way, you just might get oil or gas out of it, and it would bring the price down in no time. I do wish to talk about our southern border, but I was inspired by my friend, Mr. Duncan, and it brought back a history lesson from east Texas where I live. In 1930, a man named Dad Joiner--``Dad'' was not his given name. His parents didn't give it to him. But, anyway, that is what he went by, Dad Joiner. He just knew there had to be oil in east Texas. He tried and he tried and he tried. He ran out of money. He had no more money, and he had the men. He could drill one more well. He thought he knew geology. He thought he had figured out there had to be an east Texas oilfield, and since he knew he could only drill one more time, Dad Joiner set his sights on the one place there had to be oil because he knew if he didn't strike it there--he was broke--he probably would never have another chance to do anything and be broke rest of his life. This big old rig was on wooden skids, and they were dragging it toward the spot where he knew there had to be oil. The people in my district there in east Texas, they are praying people. They were praying people back in the 1920s and the 1930s. The Depression had just begun, and here you had Dad Joiner just sure there had to be oil. Well, one of the skids broke. He didn't have money to fix it. He knew he couldn't get to the perfect spot there had to be oil for his last attempt, so he didn't have any choice. He had to drill where the rig broke, where the skid broke, broke down, so he drilled there and he struck oil. He found the East Texas Oil Field that, until North Dakota and west Texas got so productive, for a while during World War I, it was the largest known oilfield in the world, and then the second largest for a long time after that. But it turned out if he had gotten to that spot he thought there was sure oil, he would have missed it, would have missed the big East Texas Oil Field. It would have been American tanks and vehicles running out of gasoline in Europe during the Battle of the Bulge instead of German. But we had gasoline, and we had the oil we needed because east Texas was producing. But if that skid hadn't broken where it did, none of that would have happened. And so as it turned out, all through the 1930s, when people were looking for jobs, many people were told, well, they found oil down in east Texas. There have got to be jobs there. People flooded down to east Texas, and they got jobs. They didn't go to the government. They didn't look for government to dictate what to do in their lives. Many people went to east Texas, and they found jobs. The sad thing is there are areas all over the country that could be doing the same thing, including New York upstate where they have got some of the same gas formations in Pennsylvania where things are going much better than their areas of New York, because New York doesn't allow that drilling and, therefore, they have condemned people to suffer a desperate economy instead of allowing it to thrive and flourish. In the meantime, you look across our border at our neighbor Mexico. Mexico has tremendous natural resources. We import a good bit of their oil. Canada has oil. We import oil from there--not as much as we would if the XL pipeline had been constructed giving more people jobs, giving more in the world a chance to have North American oil, but the President stands in the way for political gain, it would appear, because what else is there? What else is he gaining from keeping people from having jobs and cheaper oil and gas? But in Mexico, we also know they have got hardworking people. We know because I am told constantly, if you want somebody that is really willing to work hard, long hours, do whatever it takes to finish the job, then you do well to hire a Hispanic. Generally speaking, some people say, oh, you are a Hispanophobe or whatever they say. I look at the Hispanic culture, generally one that loves God, is devoted to family, and has a hard work ethic. That is what America used to be. That is what America used to be. It is what I would love to see America doing again, back loving family and not saying that fathers are unneeded, unnecessary, and unwanted, not saying that the village is a better family than the foundational family of father, mother, and children that nature designed--and some of us believe nature is God. But there are, in Mexico, incredible natural resources. So why is Mexico not one of the top economies in the world? Or at least it could be top 10, if not top 5, because they have got hardworking people and they have natural resources. Well, the answer is pretty clear. It is because the law is not enforced fairly across the board. There is graft and corruption. Capital, as it is said--that is money that is being invested--capital is a coward. It goes to where it feels safest. There is money being invested in Mexico, but because of the drug cartels, because of graft and corruption, and because of the way people are seeing mistreatment even of police, capital is not flowing like it should to Mexico. The jobs are not in Mexico as they should be. Mexico ought to be one of those shining lights on a hill where people are struggling all over the world wanting to get in. Of course, if you try to get into Mexico illegally, unless, of course, you are coming to the United States, you certainly don't get treated very well. If you try to buy land in your own name as a foreigner in Mexico, you are not going to be treated very well. You have got to have someone from Mexico buying with you. There are a lot of things in Mexican law that, if we placed it in American law, many Mexicans would be just insanely furious because we dared to put in our laws what Mexico has in its laws. So, Mr. Speaker, I pose the question: Who is the better governmental neighbor? A government that forces lawful gun dealers to sell 2,000 or so guns--weapons--to people that they know will have them in criminal hands in no time in Mexico? Who is the better neighbor? One that is a government neighbor who throws a little money here and there but never really comes in and helps deal with the drug cartels that are a threat to its own existence as well as Mexico's? Mr. Speaker, I heard Bill O'Reilly just before I came over here tonight debating with an individual who was saying that we should let everyone in that wants to come, basically. As Bill O'Reilly properly pointed out, there are children all over the world--South America, Africa, Asia, islands all over the world--who are in poor conditions, even squalor, and would love to come to this country. We had a rally just out here on the west side last week by hundreds of North Koreans. They didn't come over here and say: We demand that you allow us to come into your country illegally because we have it so bad in North Korea. No. What they were saying is that America can bring great pressure to bear on an evil government in a place like North Korea. They are begging that, since there is not room in the United States for every child living in difficult circumstances to flood into America, they are asking an appropriate thing: put pressure on North Korea's Government so that we can help them make a more free North Korea. Help them by putting pressure. But if you look at the record of this administration around the world, what has happened? It broke my heart to see, in the last few days, Mosul there in Iraq, where so many Americans gave their lives fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, fighting for freedom in that area, now the last known Christian in Mosul after nearly 2,000 years, going back nearly to the time of Jesus Himself, has had to leave. The country that we, Americans, freed at the price of great treasure and American lives and limbs because of the poor foreign policy handling, the bungling of this administration, the failure to reach a status of forces agreement which was basically teed up and handed to it by the last administration, was fumbled, and now, as a result of this administration's ineptness, Christians around the world are being persecuted in greater numbers than ever before. It was once thought that it may be the U.S. legacy. Mr. Speaker, just down the hall, you have seen it many times, the massive mural, the painting of the famous prayer meeting that the Pilgrims had in Holland before they went to England, and then from England came to America. You see the word ``Speedwell'' on the ship where the prayer meeting is being held, an open Bible where you can see the page is open to the New Testament of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You can read that on the page. It is exactly as that particular type of Bible read, the same print, and they were having this prayer meeting, asking for God's guidance and God's deliverance. They went to England. The Speedwell began taking on water, and so it didn't get to make the trip to America. It was a much smaller ship, the Mayflower, that ended up bringing Pilgrims to America. But even back then they were praying that this country to which the Pilgrims were coming would be a country where Christians would have the freedom to worship without persecution, and that Christians in this new country to which the Pilgrims were coming would be able to spread freedom, the freedom that our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence says, the Divine Providence, as it says, that blessing that was given to us by God as an opportunity to spread freedom and with freedom the chance to freely acknowledge God or reject him, not at the point of a sword, not at the end of a gun, but either freely accept or reject the promises of Jesus, because in true Christianity, it reflects the freedom that God has given each one of us. It can't be forced on anyone. It is a free choice. But with free choice comes great responsibility, and that is why in George Washington's resignation that he sent to the 13 governors, the last part has a prayer, and the prayer ends with the words from Washington that he hopes that we will follow the example of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, without a humble imitation of in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. He signs it ``the humble servant.'' What an extraordinary man. This country has been so richly blessed that a good neighbor would make sure that in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, all through Central America, South America, we would help any nation to help themselves, that we would help them to have that freedom. That is what America used to be about, although there are some who would say America has always been about being divisive, derisive, dismissive. Look, America has been an exceptional country because of the freedom that people recognize came from the Divine Author of our blessed religion, that came from our Creator, that came from Divine Providence, which is why our Constitution itself was dated in the year of our Lord 1787. This country is at a crossroads, and it is not a pretty one. Yes, I have spent a lot of time on our southern border in the last couple of months. I have seen these beautiful children that break your heart, and I wonder why this administration will not help us by helping our neighbor rather than just throwing our borders open. And then this administration has the nerve to say, well, you know, the numbers are down in recent weeks. Well, gee, do you think, Mr. Speaker, it might be because Texans have realized they are going to have to pick up the slack that this administration refuses to do? Our Border Patrol is overwhelmed in some ways. And yet we read an article here from Ryan Lovelace that says--and it is dated July 21, National Review Online--that: President Obama is encouraging Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to slack off on the job, former border cops tell National Review Online. Some ICE officials think the Obama administration has intentionally neglected to give them orders to support efforts to resolve the crisis on America's southwestern border, says Ronald Colburn, former national deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. As a result, the wave of unaccompanied children from Central America is unfolding while ICE officials cool their heels. ``They are sitting still at their desks--reading newspapers, playing video games on their government computers--because they are not being tasked with work, and they feel like it is coming all of the way down from the top,'' Colburn tells NRO. ``These are guys that do want to go out more, but basically they are not. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, down on the border, they needed help. They still need help. The Border Patrol a few weeks ago, driving on those dirt roads, as I was honored to take Glenn Beck down in the dark with some of his staff, people from Mercury One, as I told his staff: Unless you let me take him in the dark down these roads, you never really understand what is going on. One night some of us for an hour and a half we didn't run into Border Patrol, and we finally found out why. The drug cartels were told, the drug lords control different parts of the borders, and you don't cross without making sure that they get paid, or they will seek you out in America. So you make sure that you do things in accordance with what you are told, and that means making sure that the drug cartels get their money. And it means, as a border patrolman told me this past weekend--as a Hispanic, he speaks good Spanish--he is constantly being told: Well, we left Central America to get away from gangs. And as he said: I tell them, You may tell that to some people and have them buy it, but you and I know that is not true. You and I know that it was the gangs that brought you up here. The gangs got paid to bring you to the United States, so don't tell me that you fled Central America to get away from gangs when the gangs brought you here. He said 90 percent of the time the people acknowledge that is true, but say we were told to say when we got here that we were fleeing gang violence. Well, not everybody in this government is ignorant of what is happening. The fact is there was not a spike in violence before the huge spike of people coming to America, to the United States. There was not a huge spike in violence in Central America, but they came because the President began promising, you get to stay if you come. The government should leave charity to the people. And in this country, the people are the most charitable of any nation in the history of the world. The government doesn't do charity very well. Look at what is happening in our Veterans Administration hospitals. That is not charity. That is medical assistance that was earned. It is not even charity. This is what was promised to our military. We will provide you good medical help if you need it, if you serve in this manner. And this government can't even keep our promises to those who have earned good medical care. So how much worse do you think it gets if we are trying to keep promises that were not even actually made, just one administration thinking they can turn Texas blue and the country blue if they bring enough people in here, promise them that they are the party that likes to give away things, and as a result get them voting their direction until they realize that is the kind of philosophy that wrecks a country. It is time Americans woke up. There is so much suffering in this world in Central America and South America, and a good neighbor would help them stop the violence where it is, help stop the violence in Nigeria, radical Islam, help stop the violence of radical Islam around the world. This President was perfectly willing to blow up al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in Yemen. How was he an American citizen? Well, his parents came over on a visa and had him while he was here. That made him an American citizen. They took him back home, taught him to hate America, and even though both the Bush and Obama administration tried to work with him, he was still radicalizing people, so they blew him up. Wouldn't it be just as well to blow up people who have sworn they are going to destroy America? Wouldn't it be just as well to blow up the nuclear technology being developed in Iran by people who have promised in effect it will be the new gas chambers; instead of at Auschwitz they will be in Iran, and they will be delivered to a theater near you. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Americans to wake up. We must secure our borders. I never said I want them closed. They should be secure so people come legally. And all this stuff that we have to fix the Wilberforce bill or we can't secure our borders is baloney. This administration can secure our border without any change in the Wilberforce bill. They have to provide additional hearings, but they can do that. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to finish tonight by directing your attention to an estimate from a group I am not always pleased with, but this administration generally is very pleased with them, and that is the Congressional Budget Office. I don't put a lot of stock in their estimates. And especially their estimates of what things are going to cost over time, but when they tell you how much a bill allocates to be spent this year, that is something you can trust. And so with all the talk about how important it is, we have got to have the House and the Senate pass our bill, it is an emergency, we have got to get this bill passed, oh, Mr. Speaker, you have to do this to help fix our problem at our border. Well, you know why that is all lies? It is right here in the CBO study, the estimate. It tells you exactly what this administration is saying it needs to spend between now and September 30, the end of the fiscal year. It says the budget allocation that is already done, it has already been appropriated, was $1.83 billion, but what it wants additionally to be spent this year by the end of this fiscal year is not the 3.7, is not the $4.3 billion that it is asking for, this incredible emergency this administration is saying it has to have to get this big bill that will save our border, it is asking for $25 million, with an m, for this year. That is it. And it doesn't go to the border--it goes to Health and Human Services. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all of this is a ruse. They don't need this bill and the $25 million for Health and Human Services. They don't need all of the money that they are asking for in 2015, 2016, 2017 to go to groups that no doubt will be the new ACORNs of the future. They say we don't need anything other than $25 million, and we are not giving a dime of it to Homeland Security. They have all they need. Mr. Speaker, this is a ruse. This administration can secure the border without this ridiculous claim for money. And if the administration needs help, we will get it. But in the meantime, they need to secure the border. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. It is.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from South Carolina. He understands what is at stake here. I would like to ask him a question if he has got time to answer one question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask my friend from South Carolina what it would mean to the people of South Carolina if we could get back to $2 a gallon gasoline or less.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in Israel right now, there is a battle for peace. They are being embattled by a group who teach their children, in the educational materials we help pay for, to hate Jews, to hate Israelis. They teach the people to hate Israelis as well. They name streets and holidays after people who kill innocent people. It is time to cut off every dime of American money going to anyone who has any kind of relationship with Hamas or those killing in the Middle East, and especially in Israel. It is time to bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is time for the United States, if we are not going to stop Iran's nukes, then let Israel do it. A friend will not put another friend in this kind of jeopardy.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my dear friend from Iowa (Mr. King). I know we have a good friend here on the other side of the aisle who was recently quoted as saying something along the lines that Mr. King and I have never met an immigrant that we didn't think was a criminal, something of that sort, and I like the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. I think he is a good guy. I think he has a big heart. But the truth is escaping him on such grandiose claims. He doesn't know my heart. I know he is a good guy. He has a big heart. But he doesn't understand the role of government. When I looked at one of the most beautiful little girls I had ever seen. It was a Saturday night in the wee hours. She had been drug clear across Mexico. She was asked about home. Well, were you anxious to leave home? She starts crying. She didn't want to leave home, she said. She misses her family. But some adult decided that because the administration's policies are luring people here with the promise that they will most likely be able to stay, then people are coming and the children are not afraid of violence in their home country. Some adults may be. But they are adults making decisions to subject a beautiful child like that and so many of the others that our border patrolmen are processing, our border patrolmen and -women are processing out there, especially in the McAllen sector, which is a rough area. It was interesting seeing my first tarantula in the wild. I have seen plenty of rattlesnakes before in that area of Texas, but I haven't seen any in the last month that I have been down there. I know they are there. The border patrolmen tell me they are there. But I had never seen a tarantula in the wild like that. It was interesting. But parents are choosing to send their children, bring their children, in some cases put their children in the hands of drug cartel human traffickers hoping that the tremendous money they pay will get them to the United States rather than make them sex slaves. Some make it, some don't. Some die on the way. Some are raped. Some are abused. And it is all because there is what, under the civil law, might be called an attractive nuisance. We learned in law school that if you have a swimming pool and you have no fence and a child comes over and drowns in your pool because you didn't have a fence, then you would be liable for civil damages for having an attractive nuisance that lured a child to his or her death. Well, this administration has created an attractive nuisance under civil law. Mr. Speaker, you and I know the United States is not a nuisance. It has been a force for good because it has applied the laws of the Judeo- Christian heritage. That is why George Washington, in the resignation he sent to the 13 Governors, as the first and only general commander to have led the military in revolution, won the revolution, and then resigned and went home, asking nothing further. But at the end of his resignation that he sent out to the Governors, he had a prayer for the Nation, praying that he hoped we would never forget those who have served in the field. And I am grateful that both sides of the aisle repeatedly are grateful to our military for their service. I have, in past years, heard someone say, you know, no liberal ever spit at anybody in uniform. Well, they just don't know; because I served 4 years in the Army after Vietnam, and it was not a good time to be in the Army as far as accolades for your service. I have been spit at. And when I went through basic at Fort Riley, Kansas, there was a standing order from our commander going through training that we were not to ever wear our uniform off post because--though Kansas is one of the greatest States there is, with wonderful people--there were people who didn't like the military. And if they found you as one or two together, then you would likely get beat up. They had had instances, and we were ordered--that is what we were told--we were ordered not to ever wear uniforms off post or in basic. Every now and then, even at Fort Benning, Georgia, there would be indications, orders, don't be wearing your uniform off post this weekend. So it was not a good time. And I thank God that people have realized the importance and value of our United States military men and women who take an oath and are willing to lay down their lives for their friends and for their fellow Americans. But government has a different position from individuals. And that is why some Christians get confused and say, well, I am a Christian. I am supposed to turn the other cheek. I am supposed to love my fellow man. I am supposed to reach out and help sojourners. All of that is true. The beatitudes that Jesus gave are the kinds of things we need to be doing for anyone who is a Christian, and I would humbly submit for anybody who is an atheist, Buddhist. Buddhists practice many of the beatitudes and are very noble in doing so. But for a government, it is different. The government's role, even when it is composed of Christians, is to make sure that the law is enforced fairly and impartially. Romans talks about the government being an agent for good, for encouraging good, but if you do evil, be afraid because the government is not given the sword in vain. If you do evil, the government is not supposed to turn the other cheek. It is supposed to apply the law fairly across the board. So when an adult child of one of the wealthier families in all of east Texas who was before my court--and my predecessor had repeatedly given her probation--I couldn't give her probation because I knew I would not do that to anyone else in her situation. So I sent her to prison because I had to be fair and impartial despite knowing the parents, the family, and knowing that that family brought most of my contributors, the biggest contributors I had, into my courtroom the day of sentencing. Well, it would be nice to do special favors for friends, and I realized that day there may be nobody in this courtroom that ever supports me for office again, and if that is the way it is, so be it. But I had faith in my friends that they would understand. Some didn't, most did. But it is the job of the government to apply the law fairly across the board, whether it is a very wealthy person, as the girl I sentenced, or whether it is someone of no means whatsoever, the law is supposed to be applied impartially. In that case, it was some years later, I heard that she had served her time and been released and that she got involved in her father's business, but he had passed away while she was in prison. I knew her parents hated my guts and would probably never speak to me again, but I had heard she got off drugs, cleaned up her act, got involved in the family business after she got out, and was doing well. When I was walking the neighborhood, I walked by the parents' house. And I thought, well, they may still hate me, but I want to let them know how proud I am of their daughter that has gotten out of prison, has gotten drugs under control and was clean and sober. I knocked on the door. It took a while for her mom to come to the door. Eventually she did. I didn't realize her sight had gotten so bad. She asked who it was. I said, it is Louie Gohmert, and she immediately opened the door and said, please, please come in and sit down. We sat down there in the foyer of their beautiful home. She said, I feel a bit guilty. And I said, I don't know why you would feel guilty. She said, because I owed you an apology and a thank you. And I said, you don't owe me anything. I just stopped by to tell--I was hoping your daughter would be here to let her know how proud I am that she was able to overcome her addiction. I know it is a daily fight, but that she is doing so well. I just wanted to encourage. I was hoping you didn't still hate me like I knew you once did. And she said, no, my husband and I were visiting our daughter. In one of our trips to see her in prison, we realized you gave us our daughter back. You saved her life. I didn't do anything special. I just stood up to those who wanted me to act partially and give special favor to very wealthy friends. I couldn't do that as a judge because I had the role of government. I had to treat people impartially and fairly across the board, and that is what I did. Someone once raised the issue that perhaps judges--and I know they had gotten it at a seminar--raised the issue that maybe your judge-- since judges, even though they don't select the grand jurors, they select the grand jury foreman, the one that leads the grand jury-- raised the issue, especially in death penalty cases, that judges have been unfair racially and that there would be racial disparity in their appointments. So I got a subpoena to appear to talk about my appointments. But then the criminal defense lawyer got my grand jury records and found that there was a great racial disparity in my appointments of grand jury foremen, men and women both, that I had appointed, and the great racial disparity was that I had appointed significantly more African Americans to be grand jury foremen, men and women, given the racial components of our district. And so I was notified I was no longer needed and was not wanted to testify. Well, I didn't pick grand jury foremen because of their skin color. I could have cared less. I looked at all of those people, the 12 that were on the grand jury each time--and I knew so many of them--and I picked people I knew were upright, good, and smart leaders. And each time I selected grand jury foremen, I would ultimately have people come to me that were on the grand jury individually and say, you really made a good choice of your grand jury foreman. Well, it was because I did so fairly and impartially without any regard for their status in the community. They were good people, they were leaders, and I knew they would do a good job leading the grand jury without regard to their race, creed, color, national origin, or gender. It didn't matter. It was who would be the best. That is what government is supposed to be about. Mr. Speaker, it breaks down a government's effectiveness when the leaders of a government use partiality to make decisions. It may have been humorous, but, as it is often said, humor usually has a little element of truth, but I sarcastically and cynically sent out a tweet yesterday that since basically we knew the President--according to the United States CIS, they said that the President had given amnesty to 553,000 or so people who were here illegally, and that there had recently been another surge, we were told by sources like The New York Times, of another 300,000, and then we hear yesterday that 38 people were being deported. And so my cynical tweet was, in essence, that the Obama administration had dramatically lowered the chances of anyone coming in illegally being able to stay from 100 percent to 99.9955 percent, and that should scare people. Dana Loesch responded that the administration must have found 38 Republicans, which is rather funny and amusing. But the little element of truth is that this administration has been partial, and they have been unfair. This administration, through its Internal Revenue Service, has gone after conservatives and Republicans even to the point of demanding to know the contents of their prayers and demanding to know information they had no business knowing. Actually, they were violating the law and committing crimes by turning over information to other entities. That was a violation of the law, and they did so knowingly. Crimes have been committed, and it is important we have a special prosecutor because this Attorney General has made clear his Justice Department is about ``just us.'' It is more a Department of Injustice. So it is time to make a change. Through all of this, the story yesterday from The Hill, by Alexander Bolton: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, on Tuesday asserted the southern border is secure despite the massive surge of illegal minors from Central America that has overwhelmed federal agencies. ``The border is secure,'' he told reporters after the Senate Democrats' weekly policy lunch. Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat from New Mexico, talked to the caucus today. He is a border State Senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure. Well, it is not. And anybody who will be fair and impartial and with the least semblance of objectivity who has eyes to see and ears to hear will go to the border, as I have a number of times now, and find the border is not secure. That is how you have 550,000 people that this President gives amnesty to. Then this article from NetRight Daily by Robert Romano: Last September, the National Council of La Raza issued comments in favor of a Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation. Under the regulation, in October the Obama administration will be empowered to condition eligibility for community development block grants on redrawing zoning maps to create evenly distributed neighborhoods based on racial composition and income. Mr. Speaker, this article is exactly what I am talking about. The Bible warns against, and wise people throughout time have warned against, if you want to have peace in a nation, you must have a leader or a government that is fair and impartial across the board, that you do not look at people's race, you don't look at their income, you do as I had to do to that very rich lady when I sent her to prison. Why? She was white, and she was rich. But I knew anybody else in her circumstance I would have sent to prison, so I sent her. That is why perhaps she was able to turn her life around. One of the saddest things I ever heard during a sentencing was during her sentencing. They put on quite a dog and pony show, some impressive evidence about the family and the upbringing and she never really had discipline growing up, never had to make up her bed, study for school, and all kinds of things. At the end of the hearing her lawyer basically said: Is there anything left you want to tell the judge? She looked up at me with tears in her eyes because she knew what I was going to do because I was going to do what I would do to anybody in her situation with the priors she had, the chances she had already had, she looked up at me with tears in her eyes and said: I just wish someone had told me no before today and meant it. It was tragic. Nobody had told her no before today. She was raised so wealthy. She said I was the first one who ever told her no because I was being fair and impartial and treating her like any other defendant. Well, this government, this administration, wants to look and be unfair and partial and make decisions based on the color of people's skin, rather than on the content of the character, and in fact, this administration is taking us away from the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. He is the one who said those fantastic words. He had a dream, and part of the dream was that people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. We have made so much progress in America, and the President that went abroad and criticized America for being divisive, he has divided this country more than any President in my lifetime--along gender lines, along racial lines--by playing partial politics. It looks, from this article, as if it is going to happen again: In 2012, HUD dispersed about $3.8 billion of these grants to almost 1,200 municipalities. According to La Raza's comment in favor of the regulation, Hispanic families often do not know their housing rights and have cited fear of deportation as reason for not reporting rights violations. This is telling. By La Raza's own analysis, then, HUD implementation of the racial rezoning rule will benefit those who have cited fear of deportation--that is, low-skilled, low-income illegal immigrants, either those who are outright illegal the moment they set foot in the United States or who have simply overstayed their visas. After all, who else would fear deportation? Therefore, one of the sure effects of HUD's regime will be to flood unwilling communities with a significant percentage of illegal immigrants. While the current relocation of thousands, including children, from detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border has garnered national headlines and the ire of elected Republicans, including Senator Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, and Governor Dave Heineman, Republican of Nebraska, the HUD regulation has largely flown under the radar. But it is every bit as important. It is not enough to arbitrarily implement amnesty, whether through refusal to enforce existing law or congressional action. The Federal Government wants to draw the maps of where the new residents will live, forcing local communities to make room whether they like it or not. It is no secret that Republicans, with their low tax message, tend to do better among the middle and upper middle classes, while Democrats with their social welfare regime tend to do better among the poor. The political effect of the HUD rule will invariably be to gerrymander Republican districts at the local level. Take a Republican State like Texas as a prime example of how this might work. Houston, currently controlled by Democrats, has accepted $38.5 million of these community development block grants. Harris County has accepted another $10.3 million. Dallas, another Democratic stronghold, has accepted $16.6 million, and Dallas County took $2.1 million. Austin, too controlled by Democrats, took $7.5 million of the grants. Republicans at the State level cannot block these grants going to these municipalities, and now, thanks to the HUD rule, by virtue of accepting these grants, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., will get to redraw zoning maps along racial and income boundaries to include more affordable ``units and combat discrimination.'' It has all the hallmarks of a master plan. Too conspiratorial? It does not take a cynic to see who the winners and losers will be in implement the racial housing quotas. In the case of La Raza and illegal immigration amnesty proponents, the likely beneficiaries of the HUD rezoning rule will be Democrat parties across the country. Both U.S. and immigrant-born Hispanics favor Democrats by nearly 2 to 1, according to Gallup. What emerges is a plan to resettle as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in specific communities as a pretext to tilt the political scales on the national and local political scenes to favor Democrats. Fortunately, the House of Representatives has already acted, passing an amendment to the Transportation and HUD Appropriations bill by Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, in a close 219 to 207 vote to defund implementation of the regulation. Anyway, I keep coming back to true peace in a country can come from a government that treats everyone impartially, and the great genius of America has been free enterprise, the ability of somebody like Darrell Issa that is a captain in the United States Army, who comes up with a brilliant idea of a door lock that would go up and down automatically, which idea was apparently stolen, as I recall, and then he figures, well, I can spend 20 years in litigation or so, or if I can come up with something smart then--I can come up with something else smart, and he comes up with the idea of the automatic car alarm, and my friend Darrell has done quite well with that. This is America. It is the genius of American free enterprise. Let people profit when they have good ideas, when they work hard and do well. America is a stronger place to be. But the results of failing to enforce the law fairly and impartially as it is written, also brought about this headline today from Breitbart, ``Released Alien from Border Crisis Arrested for Alleged Murder, Kidnapping in Texas.'' An illegal immigrant who was released by U.S. authorities with a notice to appear has been arrested for the alleged murder of a woman and kidnapping of children on U.S. soil. The alleged crimes occurred after the man was released. It goes on in the article and talks about the AP actually reported this, but they neglected to say the man was an illegal alien. It is time for the AP, for the media, for this administration, to start following and enforcing the law, and this country will be a better place in which to live. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate that recognition. First of all, I would like to direct attention to the Middle East, to our dear friend and ally, Israel, and the fact that I pointed out to Prime Minister Netanyahu twice, a few years apart, that going back to the very inception of Israel as a nation more than 3,000 years ago, there has never been a time when Israel gave away land trying to buy peace, that that land was not ultimately used as a staging area from which to attack it. It has been true all those years, the original founding of Israel, the promised land, going through the division of Israel into two kingdoms, northern and southern, and then the rejuvenation really of that nation in the late 1940s. No matter which President, no matter which party the President was from, no matter which Secretary of State was pushing to get a Nobel Peace Prize by trying to bring people together, anyone that pushed and forced Israel to give away land ended up bringing about attacks on Israel because they gave away land that should have been Israel's. Southern Lebanon has been the source of so many attacks and kidnappings, intrusions into Israel. The Gaza Strip had so many Israeli families living peacefully, greenhouses, methods of taking care of themselves. In an act--a unilateral act by Israel to attempt to secure a bit of peace, Israel gave away the Gaza Strip, now governed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that the United States through this administration is funding because we are funding the Palestinians and they have the relationship now with Hamas. So we are taking American tax dollars from many people in the United States who do not believe it is a good idea to curse Israel and to supply money to its enemy, so Israel can be attacked, and yet, that money is being taken and given to them. They can say because money is fungible, where we are not actually using the money you give us to attack Israel, and they can also claim they are not actually using the money that we give them to teach hatred in textbooks and all kinds of ways actually, including the naming of holidays after barbarians who have committed attacks on innocent people and killed innocent people. They name holidays after them. They name streets after them. Here in the United States, we tend to name holidays or streets after people like Martin Luther King, Jr., who subscribed to peaceful means of protest, who would never encourage killing or attacks to achieve what Hamas and the PLO have utilized. It is time to cut off the money. Until they quit teaching hatred, they quit utilizing funds to attack Israel, you cut off their funds. You cut off the teaching of hatred, and you have got a shot at some semblance of peace in the Middle East. In the meantime, Israel is being attacked--every day, the rockets flying, hoping--the Palestinians hoping that maybe they will kill some innocent Israeli people. Wouldn't that be great, they are thinking, if we could just kill maybe some children, maybe blow off some legs and arms? What a great accomplishment Hamas and the PLO can be thrilled about. Of course, Hamas took over from the PLO in governing, but the area is no more peaceable, and it is time to cut off all American funding to any area that subscribes to the shooting of rockets to kill innocent people, as is going on in the Middle East, enemies of Israel attempting to kill innocent Israelis. There was an attempt by Israel to enter into an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with Hamas, but according to The Jerusalem Post story, by Yaakov Lappin, that collapsed Tuesday when Gazan terrorists continued to fire rocket barrages on the south, center, and north of Israel. A fragment from a mortar shell killed an Israeli man, Dor Chanin, 37. Chanin had come as a civilian volunteer to distribute food to soldiers at Erez. It is time to quit aiding and abetting the attacks on our friend Israel. It is time to start helping them. And when it comes to the disastrous effort to negotiate with terrorist leaders in Iran--they are developing nuclear weapons. They are developing the ability to develop nuclear weapons because they have their centrifuges spinning. And I think those who say they want enough nuclear material to produce several nuclear weapons at the same time, they are not going to just do one. They are going to wait until they have enough to do several so that they can spread out, be difficult to track and be difficult to stop before they utilize them to destroy Israel, as the Little Satan, as they see it, and the United States, as the Great Satan. It has been described in one of Joel Rosenberg's novels far too accurately: Even though Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads to the United States--``the Great Satan'' they call us--they really don't even need those. They could put them on a cargo ship, a yacht, whatever, and bring them over--have one in New York, have one in Chicago, have one up the Potomac. And they could pretty well devastate American economic powerhouse cities. If they put one in New Orleans, the Houston ship channel, there goes most of our refined gasoline. It is time for America to wake up. This administration is not adequately protecting us, and that is why our Attorney General has now finally admitted this month, in an ABC interview, that, in effect, he is extremely concerned and in fear more now of a terrorist attack than he has been at most any time in his time as Attorney General. And this is a guy that knows terrorism. I mean, he has helped terrorists in his role prior to working for this administration. He is quite familiar with what they are capable of doing. So for him to say that, people ought to take notice. Of course we have our Secretary of State, John Kerry, in an article of July 15 from The Weekly Standard by Jeryl Bier. The headline, ``Kerry: I Get `A Little Uptight When I Hear Politicians Say How Exceptional We Are.''' Heaven forbid that we should realize the capability of America and that there is no other nation in the history of the world that has fought, has lost lives of our military, has spent tremendous amounts of our treasure not to create an empire, but simply to bring liberty and freedom to people we don't even share languages with, we don't share religions so much with. Nations haven't done that. America is an exceptional nation, and we are losing that exceptional status. So perhaps I will make our Secretary of State feel much better and be much prouder as I say that under this administration--as has been pointed out to me by Africans in Nigeria, by Africans in Togo--the United States has gotten much weaker in world opinion under this President. So that should make our Secretary of State feel very, very pleased because a Member of Congress is not claiming to be exceptional. We are. But really, I am claiming that Nigerians and others who were so pleased, as they told me, that you elected your first Black President have now grown scared as they have watched America, under this President, get weaker and weaker and become far less exceptional in the eyes of the world as we once were. One of the problems has been that this country has been under assault, has been under an invasion through our southern border. As border patrolmen will attest, the Tucson sector of our 2,000-or-so-mile border on the south had traditionally been where there were more people coming into this country illegally. We have an area in Arizona where there is a national park on the American side, where the sign has been seen--and I have had a picture of it here on the floor--during the Obama Presidency that simply directs American citizens, warns them not to use this area because there are criminals and drug activity in the national park. So American citizens are encouraged to use an area north of the interstate because this administration has just pretty well relegated that area to criminals from outside of this country. That would mean that is a failure to adequately provide for our common defense, and it might be support for Andrew McCarthy's book title, ``Faithless Execution.'' Now, I feel like the appropriate thing to do is to pass the resolution that I filed a year ago here in this House that goes through explaining how the President has failed to secure our country, has failed to secure our borders. We don't want our borders closed. I certainly don't. Immigration is a wonderful thing. There is no country in the world where they have five times our population, or less--no country allows 1 million people or more to come into their country legally. We do. We love immigration. It is a great thing. ``E pluribus unum,'' the Latin phrase meaning, out of many, one, has been a part of the Great Seal since the 1770s. It is on the ribbon that runs through the beak in the eagle's mouth on one side of the Great Seal. I was taught, growing up, that our melting pot is one of the many things that has made us so great. People come here, assimilate, speak the same language, love the same country, and become Americans. Well, we have seen hyphenated Americans become the order of the day in recent years. And I so look forward to the day, if it ever arrives-- and I hope and pray it does--when, once again, we are Americans. I know on 9/12/2001, as I looked around our courthouse square, the hundreds of people there--all races, both genders, lots of national origins--but that day, we were all Americans. There were no hyphenated Americans, not on 9/12. Through the tragedy and the hate and the death and the sorrow of 9/11/2001, on 9/12, we saw our Nation shine, a compassionate nation, a caring nation, but also a nation committed that we would not be struck again. And now--I mean right now--our Attorney General, under this administration, refused to prosecute what a Federal district court said were the named coconspirators of those convicted of supporting terrorism, which was echoed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. These were front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood. There was plenty of evidence to support that they were coconspirators with the convicted defendants in supporting terrorism, and this administration, this Attorney General, refused to prosecute them. Under this administration, they even got a heads-up from Russia, you have a Muslim coming back in named Tsarnaev who has been to a terrorist area. He has been radicalized. And Russia warned not once, but twice. And this administration that has removed information about radical Islam from its training materials for the different departments--and I have reviewed some of it that they have removed. We were told that most of it that they removed from the FBI training materials. Well, people who have not been allowed to fully see and be trained on what radical Islam is were sent out to the mosque where Tsarnaev went regularly, not to ask questions about has Tsarnaev talked about Qutb that wrote ``Milestones'' that Osama bin Laden credits with having brought him along the road to terrorism, to violence. They didn't know the questions to ask. So the only reason we had the FBI sent out under this administration was for the outreach program. They were so ignorant that while the outreach program was going on, what was really happening and what had happened at that mosque and who had been radicalized and who had not, that the Director of the FBI did not even know that the founder of the two Muslim mosques there in the Boston area were founded by a man named al-Amoudi, who had helped the Clinton administration and then helped the Bush administration until he was found to be supporting terrorist activity. He was arrested just right out here at Dulles International Airport, and he is now doing over 20 years in Federal prison for supporting terrorism. He was the founder of the Islamic Society of Boston, which founded those mosques. The FBI Director didn't even know. They didn't go out there and talk to anybody about whether or not Tsarnaev had been radicalized. But lo and behold, they said, hey, we talked to Tsarnaev himself, and he didn't admit that he was radicalized. And we talked to his mom, and she didn't admit that he was radicalized. So apparently they thought he was good. And people died and lost limbs in Boston. Instead, we have seen spying on American citizens to an extent that it is hard to believe we have reached here in America, where you have the NSA getting everybody's phone logs of all calls they make--and this is all reported in public formats, in the public media--where you have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was established to protect us from unscrupulous banks and banking habits and practices. That was done when we had a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. They set it up where that Bureau would never have to be responsible to Congress at all. We could never have oversight. They would get their money from the Federal Reserve so they could run independently. And what have they done? Well, they have been gathering debit and credit card purchase and use information on Americans. Some of us think that if they really want to protect us from unscrupulous bank practices, they ought to wait until we tell them that we have been treated unfairly and then go after the criminal. That is really what the Constitution Bill of Rights anticipates. You don't go gathering everybody's personal information, except on probable cause. You get a warrant. But not now. This administration has the CFPB that is gathering information in the name of protecting us. I don't want that kind of protection. I want them to leave us alone and quit drawing and gathering all the personal data on people in America. It is none of your business unless there has been a crime, and then, and only then, your gathering should be based on probable cause. We have got the ability of the United States Government to use drones, thermal imaging, and all kinds of technology to spy on American citizens like never before. We have the ability, as this administration has shown, to be concerned about an American citizen in Yemen who was radicalized, who was a terrorist, even though he had met with people in this administration, met with people in the prior administration, and had led prayers here on Capitol Hill of Muslim staff members. Wouldn't it have been interesting if this administration had decided to capture him during one of his numerous trips into the United States instead of blowing him up in Yemen? It might have been interesting to find out what he had to say about the people he worked with in this administration and the prior administration on Capitol Hill. Well, how, one might wonder, could an American citizen be radicalized to hate Americans so well? If you go look at his life, his parents were not American citizens. They came into the United States on a visa for college. That is when he was born and taken back to Yemen. In Yemen growing up he learned to hate America. How many people has this happened to? We know the Muslim Brother who was leading Egypt and weaponizing the Sinai, which is still an area of devastation because of all the weapons Morsi made sure were there. Morsi's wife had a daughter here in the United States, an American citizen, and obviously he didn't care a whole lot for America. So I had a resolution a year ago that just went through all the whereases explaining that there is no need to pass any bill through the House and Senate to secure our border or to do immigration reform until the President actually goes through the effort of securing our borders. He has got the money. Some people have already forgotten that Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano just announced one day that even though Congress had appropriated $4 billion to provide a virtual fence in areas that a fence would be difficult, she just decided that was not practical, too expensive. So she would not do a virtual fence. And so what happened to the $4 billion? What happened to our security? Well, we didn't get secured, and we didn't get the virtual fence. There was clearly some wasted money in that area. But we still have got to get control of our border. But when you have a President who has not done anything significant to secure our border but has, in fact, pronounced a new law, the initials of which are DACA, he just pronounced a new law that had not been passed by Congress but had simply passed the lips of our President. Here is the new law. Here is what you can do to get amnesty. And he pronounced amnesty in what USCIS has announced has been over 550,000 cases. Our President pronounced an amnesty law into effect that provided amnesty already to over 550,000 people who had come in illegally. The New York Times and others have said that just in very recent months, we have had an additional 300,000 people come into our country illegally. And, this week, we get the report that 38 people have been deported. Well, if you do the math, that means that those 850,000 who came in illegally who had a 100 percent chance of getting to stay here because of this administration not enforcing our law and not enforcing our border, that 100 percent chance of getting to stay here got dramatically reduced. Because of this administration's wonderful efforts, it has now been reduced from a 100 percent chance of staying here to a 99.9955 percent chance of staying here. And that should certainly scare anyone who had started planning a trip into this country illegally, that their odds of staying here had dropped from 100 percent clear down to a 99.995 percent chance of getting to stay here. I still come back to the resolution I filed a year ago. Until the President shows he is going to secure the border, we shouldn't pass anything. As our own Speaker has said, we can't trust this President. When the Secretary of Homeland Security can just say, I don't want to spend $4 billion you guys appropriated for a fence, I am going to do something else. Really? Well, I guess you can do that if you are a bit lawless. But if we are going to be a nation of laws, then laws that have been duly passed by Congress and signed by other Presidents should be enforced, otherwise we become like the countries that people are fleeing. It was rather emotional Saturday night to be down right near the river where children and adults were being processed--processed meaning they have to ask each one of them numerous questions, normally in Spanish. And there are some articles of clothing they are not allowed to take in to the detention area. And when she was asked, were you glad to leave home, she began to cry. She didn't mention she was so glad to get away from all the violence. She didn't mention that things were so terrible at home she couldn't stand to stay, she looked so forward to coming to America. She cried. She missed her home. She missed her relatives that were there. Break your heart. One of the most beautiful little girls I have ever seen. It is a wonder she didn't get drawn into sex trafficking. She was a gorgeous little girl. And I know beautiful girls. My wife and I have had three. Border Patrolmen have talked about, and it has been reported, dead children. Their bodies have been found, one washed up. As this administration continues to lure people into America, that has now been admitted by this administration, that the President's own amnesty bill that he pronounced into law has been luring people up here. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson admitted that in an op-ed that he wrote for Spanish-language newspapers. It is time to stop luring young children and adults into the United States into the arms of human traffickers. It is time to stop. Of course, I mention there is one way that we could stop very quickly the massive invasion that is going on because the ability to stop an invasion like we are seeing now was even anticipated by our Founders, and they put it in the third clause of section 10 of article I of our Constitution. That says: No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact which another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded. Not by a foreign army, it doesn't say that; not by a military, it doesn't say that; just invaded. And there is a great law review article from a Michigan law journal that discusses this provision. It has not been utilized before. There are no cases that we can find that have utilized this. But perhaps it is time to use it now. But it says, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. The Attorney General himself has said the threat of another terrorist attack is scarier now than it has been. And we know that there is an increased number of what are called SIAs, those who would be special interest aliens that come from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. They are coming in from nations where there are leaders who want to destroy us. It is worth trying to make sure we don't have terrorists coming through our southern border because we know there are lots of people coming through that don't get caught. Even though, as one of the border patrolmen said here when I was down there: It is interesting--we used to chase them, and now they chase us. Talking about people coming in illegally. But not all of them chase the Border Patrol. If someone is paid megabucks to be brought into the United States, it can be done, while Border Patrol is spending an hour, hour and a half processing a massive number of groups coming in, 10, 12, 16, 18, 27, and they are having to process all those, and we have such a limited number of border patrolmen, plenty of opportunities to bring in anybody the drug cartels have been paid to bring in with whatever they are bringing. So we have a resolution. It hasn't been filed yet, but it says: Whereas this provision in the Constitution, therefore, recognizes the continued right of individual States to use force in self-defense if ``actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay''; And whereas an unprecedented, organized, mass invasion of the United States is occurring along our southern border; Whereas before this invasion Marine Corps General John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM, in testimony before committees in each House of Congress, the House Armed Services Committee in February, and the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, warned of the security threats to the United States from criminal networks and terrorist organizations penetrating the United States through our southern border and since the invasion he has warned that the situation poses ``an existential threat to the United States''; This general who has been overseeing our military in our southern area says that the threat to our country is a threat to our very existence. Our continued existence is at risk with what is going on at the southern border. This resolution goes on: Whereas, credible sources have reported plans for an even larger invasion; Whereas, between June of 2012, when the Obama administration unilaterally implemented the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) through March of 2014, approximately 550,000 illegal aliens received temporary deferred action, according to USCIS; Whereas, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that DACA was in fact luring people to cross the U.S. border, whether they were eligible for the deferred action or not, in an opinion editorial he wrote for Spanish- language newspapers; Whereas, a court order signed on December 13, 2013, by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas found as factual that ``The DHS, instead of enforcing our border security laws, actually assisted the criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals.'' The U.S. Court also found that a private citizen doing the exact things that DHS is doing ``would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.'' Additionally, the Court found that ``The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States' borders laws,'' and that the ``DHS is rewarding criminal conduct,'' and that ``these illegal activities help fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico''; Whereas the State of Texas reported it has identified, between October of 2008 and April of 2014, a total of 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails who are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults; Think about that, Mr. Speaker: 177,588 criminal aliens booked for crimes in Texas. People are being killed in America and specifically, according to these figures, 2,993 that we know of by criminal aliens in this country. And they have committed at least 7,695 sexual assaults. You want to talk about a war on women, this administration will not defend the women of America from criminal aliens by the thousands and hundreds of thousands. Well, we know thousands, and we know people are coming in by the hundreds of thousands illegally, and this administration wants to talk about other people having a war on women when they will not defend the women that are being sexually assaulted by illegal aliens in this country. In Texas alone, we know of 7,695 such assaults: Whereas the Department of Homeland Security, through the General Services Administration, issued a solicitation in January, 2014, which proves the falsity of statements by officials in that Department, that they had no knowledge that this mass invasion would occur; Whereas in 2014 there has occurred a sharp increase in the number of Special Interest Aliens apprehended illegally crossing the United States border, being from terrorist- sponsored or affiliated countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Somalia; Whereas Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in an ABC news story in July of 2014 that there exists a clear and present danger of imminent terrorist attack from ``a situation that we can see developing'' and ``more frightening than anything I think I have seen as Attorney General''; Whereas the Commander in Chief of the United States appears to be either unwilling or unable to exercise his constitutional responsibility to defend this country from imminent danger or invasion; Resolved, it is the sense of the House of Representatives that all Governors of the States along the southern border, and other States willing to assist them, are urged to exercise the right of self-defense against invasion or imminent danger as will not admit of delay as provided for in article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution. Some would say, How would you pay for that? Well, how about for one thing we eliminate the child tax credit for people who are here illegally that are getting back much more, many thousands more dollars, than they actually pay in? How about--and we are told a hundred billion or so is sent by people who are illegally in this country to their home country--how about, for allowing people to be here illegally, we put a 5 percent tax on that $100 billion going out of this country? We could pay for whatever we need very quickly. Well, we have a bill that has been filed. It has gotten a lot of acclaim, and in the remaining minutes I would just like to look at some of this bill that my good friend, Senator John Cornyn, and my good friend, Henry Cuellar, a fellow House Member, have filed. We have a copy of what is being proposed. It has been sent to different folks on Capitol Hill. And it does, at page 2, take a shot at changing the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It makes a shot at fixing that. How ironic that Wilberforce, the champion of ending slavery in all of the British Empire, had this bill named for him that was supposed to help stop sexual trafficking, but as a result of this bill and the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as a result of that bill countless children have been lured into sexual slavery. We can't even be told a number, but we are told that it is definitely happening. As the drug cartels are paid to humanly traffic people up, they find people who would make attractive sex slaves, and so an effort to stop sexual trafficking has actually helped create more. But anyway, the first few pages deal with that. It does say on page 4 that such person may not be placed, talking about unaccompanied children--which, by the way, having been to the border a number of times, it is clear to me there is no child coming across the border unaccompanied unless they are teenagers. The children you see are accompanied by somebody. And even if the coyote leaves them right before they go into the custody of Border Patrol, they were accompanied right up until that time. But unaccompanied minors under this proposed new bill may not be placed in the custody of a nongovernmental sponsor or otherwise released from the custody of the United States Government until the child is repatriated unless the child is the subject of an order under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It goes on, the next section, 102, defines the term ``asylum officer,'' which means an immigration officer, and it puts some pretty tough conditions, including has had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications. So that means we are going to have to have people who have been doing this a lot. You couldn't have fair judges sent there if they haven't had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications. That seems a little unnecessary. Anyway, then it sets deadlines, 7 days and 72 hours shall issue an order, but then it does indicate if it is impractical by reason of an alien's mental incompetency for the alien to be present, the Attorney General shall prescribe safeguards to protect the rights and privileges of the alien. The alien shall be given the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government, shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine evidence, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. On page 8 is Withdrawal of Application for Admission. In the discretion of the Attorney General--and that is the guy that hasn't been enforcing the law as it is, who is currently in contempt of Congress, who has been obfuscating on Fast and Furious and on other serious crises in our government, has at least been complicit in failing to bring forth evidence and to prosecute people timely, including the IRS scandal, and now we are going to give him a lot of discretion here, that is a matter of concern. Anyway, it says based on a preponderance of the evidence, the judge has got to find that the alien is likely to be eligible for any form of relief of removal. Anyway, basically what it is saying is that in general, an applicant for admission must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien is likely to be eligible for any form of relief from removal. So if they just say, well, there is a good chance we are likely to be eligible, not that we are going to prevail, but it is just likely we are going to be eligible, then they get to go around that requirement. If an immigration judge determines that the unaccompanied alien child has not met the burden of proof required under the subsection, the judge shall order the alien removed unless the alien claims an intention to apply for asylum or that the alien has a fear of persecution. So we have some rigorous steps in here in this bill, and they will be ordered to be removed, unless, of course, if the alien claims an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. Well, that lets him sidestep some of those requirements. Page 11, if the officer determines credible fear of persecution, the alien shall be held in the custody of the Secretary for Health and Human Services. Really, I thought that had been one of the problems created by prior law, of giving custody to Health and Human Services. For heaven's sake, let's leave custody with the people dealing with the immigration issues. Let's leave it in Homeland Security. Let's not be transferring people to another department because we have seen what HHS does. They transfer them all over the country, and there are consequences there because now we find out that under a HUD requirement, those people may be eligible for housing which will allow the government to rezone your neighborhood. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.