Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, well, here we are, the fifth anniversary of--well, at least this weekend--what many affectionately or disaffectionately call ObamaCare. It is kind of hard to call it the Affordable Care Act because we-- many of us--know exactly how much jeopardy it has put finances for people all over the country. There are some people that are getting back enough in subsidies that they like it. It is important, I think, as a great followup to my friend from Georgia talking about the budget, to follow up and look at the predictions that were made 5 years ago about the bill that passed without a single Republican vote because we had done our homework. I did read the bill before I voted against it. I didn't have time to enmesh all of the references, the other bills that were referenced in the changes that would be made in those bills, but I could certainly tell from what was there, what I was reading in the about 2,500-page bill, that it was going to be a disaster for health care. In any event, here is an article from Sam Baker, ``5 Years In, 5 Busted Predictions About Obamacare,'' March 22, 2015: When President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law 5 years ago, many Republicans essentially predicted it would grow up to be a serial killer--that seniors, Medicare, private insurance companies, jobs, and the American Dream would die by its hand. It has turned out to be far more well adjusted. On the other hand, many Democrats thought the law would quickly make it through its awkward phase and turn into the most popular kid in school--liked by most, respected by all, a sophisticated winner, possessed of all the latest technology but also with unassailable principles. It has turned out to be a much bigger screwup. I might add parenthetically here--into the article--that, actually, there were Republicans like me that knew that it was not going to die. We knew that it was going to shrivel up the number of insurance companies, as it has. We knew that Medicare was going to take a hit because ObamaCare cut $716 billion from seniors' health care, and even though the President and all the king's horses and all the king's men were promising that, Gee, that $716 billion in cuts to Medicare, it is not going to affect you seniors, they were told. No, no, that is only going to affect the health care providers. Well, I don't know about the rest of the country, but the seniors I talked to around Texas figured out, Wait a minute, if you are not going to reimburse the people that provide us health care, we are going to have a hard time getting health care. They figured it out. That is exactly what has happened. Mr. Baker, talking about, I guess, the worst of the projection by Republicans--were not what I projected, but there are people that have not gotten the care they need. They have been put in dire physical straits because of ObamaCare. Some have lost their insurance. I had insurance before. I liked my insurance. I liked my doctors. ObamaCare changed all of that. This article, though, says, ``Say what you will about Obamacare, but if nothing else, it's a survivor.'' That is the point, Madam Speaker, that is important to note; any kind of socialized medicine is always a survivor. Some were saying, Oh, we don't have to worry about ObamaCare. It will go broke. It will die of its own accord--no, that is what happens to socialism. But socialized health care, socialized medicine in any form--even in this beginning stage, as the President has once said on video, that he wanted a single payer--in other words, total socialized medicine, where the government gets to tell everybody what they get and pay for it and so people get rationed health care, is what it amounts to. Socialism dies of its own accord. As Margaret Thatcher once said, it eventually runs out of other people's money. Socialized medicine in any form does not die of its own volition. It doesn't happen because what happens when you are dealing with government-run health care, it doesn't die of its own accord, no. What happens is people have more and more health care rationed. More and more people have health care they don't get because they are put in line, like the young man from Canada in my district that said his father died of a heart attack because he had been on the list in Canada for 2 years and he never got the bypass he needed. Until ObamaCare came along, basically, if you needed bypass surgery-- whether it was in east Texas or elsewhere--if you needed it now, you were going to get it now; but over time, as the government takes over health care, now, you get on a list, like my constituent's father was put on a list. I said: 2 years, that is incredible. He said: Well, yes, people kept getting moved in front of him. I said: Well, my understanding was that it was a crime to do anything to get yourself moved up the list. He said: Well, that is true, but there is a board, a group that decides who gets moved up the list in priority. They kept moving people in front of his father until he died. Anyway, some critics of this article said they didn't even think they would need to kill it, just that they could help it along. The law's opponents argued for years that the law would never work, predictions that reached new intensity when www.healthcare.gov launched in 2013. That is not true of all of us. Some of us knew it would not die of its own accord. We knew that it is like any government-run health care. You just ration it, and people get less of it. There is a board--whether anybody wants to acknowledge that Sarah Palin had a great point, she did. Whether you want to call it a death panel or not, it is a panel that will get to decide the parameters for people getting, you know, pacemakers. One of my staff had a parent who was told the year before ObamaCare kicked in that he could get a pacemaker; after it kicked in, he couldn't get a pacemaker. Well, that is the power of the government to tell you who lives, who dies. ObamaCare is not going to die of its own accord. People may die because of the new healthcare laws and the decisions of the death panel--or whatever you want to call the IPAB--but they will make decisions that will affect people's ability to live. Anyway, the article further down talks about the prediction that it would get popular: ``I think as people learn about the bill and now that the bill is enacted, it's going to become more and more popular,'' Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2010, just a few days after Obama signed the law. ``I predict...by November, those who voted for health care will find it an asset; those who voted against it will find it a liability.'' Schumer was hardly the only one expressing this optimism. The process of getting ObamaCare passed was brutal for Democrats, but many in the party truly thought the heat would die down between 2010 and 2014 when the law's central provisions kicked in. The debate got to a point where there was no way to win the rhetorical wars over health care, so Democrats' plan was largely to get it done, wait it out, and hope people warmed up to the law once it transitioned from a political abstraction to a set of real-world policies, most of which are pretty boring. It didn't work. The Kaiser Family Foundation has been measuring public approval of the healthcare law every month since it was signed, and the bottom line has stayed the same: people are closely divided over the law and lean against it. This month, Kaiser's poll found 43 percent disapproval for the law, compared to 41 percent approval, which is within a few points of most months. There have been a few blips, where approval topped disapproval or where one side cleared 50 percent, but they never lasted. Anyway, the article goes on. I will skip down to the part, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it.'' It says: Obama made some predictions he probably shouldn't have, including his promise that people wouldn't lose their coverage because of ObamaCare. For starters, policies sold in the individual insurance market were largely 1-year contracts before the Affordable Care Act. In other words, there was never a guarantee that consumers could keep their same policies. Moreover, though, ObamaCare did cause insurers to cancel millions of individual policies, and it wasn't an accident or a side effect. The law set new standards for policies in the individual market. They have to cover a set of ``essential'' benefits, for example, and can't impose an annual or lifetime caps on benefits. A lot of plans that existed before ObamaCare didn't meet those criteria, hence, passing a law to make them. Those policies could technically seek ``grandfathered'' status, but it was hard to get. They could barely make any changes in their plan designs without losing that status. And it was hard for a reason: the law set new standards for insurance, and it wanted to shift people into plans that met those standards. All of this was entirely foreseeable in 2010 and was even spelled out in subsequent regulations. The political uproar might not have been as bad if www.healthcare.gov had been working when people started to receive their cancelation notices. Well, I would submit that it would have been as bad because there were a lot of lies about ObamaCare. Yes, there were some dire predictions, but I knew that ObamaCare was not going to die of its own volition because, when government controls health care, it doesn't. As an exchange student in the Soviet Union, when I saw their poor, pitiful health care system in the Soviet Union, I was literally thanking God that we had the health system we did in America. My family didn't even have anything like insurance at the time growing up in east Texas. It was just that we knew that we had good doctors. We had a good system. If you got in a bind, you hoped and prayed neighbors would help out. Then that is where insurance came along, that you could pay a very small monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annual premium to insure against something unforeseeable so that you could take care of the small things; but once the government gets into something, it doesn't work so well. The more government gets into it, the worse it is. If we don't turn this thing around and get some free market competition back in place in health care, allow people to have their own relationship with their own doctor of their own choosing, where people can actually compare the prices and decide if this doctor or this hospital is worth it--one may cost more, one may cost less, but you compare the pros and cons. That is what competition is about. We haven't had it in health care in many, many years. Why? Because the government got involved. Now, we do need a safety net, and that is a good thing. That is what caring people do, but when the government takes over everything, as ObamaCare will undoubtedly eventually do--why? Because if they get to dictate health care, then they are going to get to dictate your life. An article from John Nolte today points out, number one, ``Premiums are 24.4 percent higher than they would have been without ObamaCare.'' I guess this comes from the New York Daily News: ``'In the Obama administration,' candidate Obama boasted in 2008, 'we'll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family in a year.''' This article says, ``Not quite. A recent report from the National Bureau of Economic Research examined the nongroup marketplace, where families and individuals who don't get coverage through work shop for insurance. The report concluded that 2014 premiums were 24.4 percent higher than they would have been without ObamaCare.'' Completely wrong--ObamaCare sent the price of insurance dramatically up. Madam Speaker, I have people ask regularly: Why is my health insurance so much more? My deductible is so high. I will never have enough money to pay my deductible, and I have got a copay on top of that. I don't have as much covered as I did before with my other policy. I don't get to choose my doctor--or the doctor I had before that I liked, I didn't get to keep him. So why is it costing so much more? Well, the answer is very easily given. You are paying for lots more IRS agents. We knew when ObamaCare passed that there would be 17,000, 18,000 new IRS agents that you would have to pay for. They are not going to ever help you with a head injury or a skinned knee, nothing. No. No. They are going to come after you. They are going to give you stomachaches and headaches. They are not going to help you with health care. And what about all these navigators? They are never going to help you with a knee injury or a backache. No. They are going to give you backaches because they are going to make it harder and harder to figure out what to do, even though they say, oh, they are there to help you. When the government workers say they are there to help you, you grab your wallet and run for the door. But you are paying for so many more government workers who will end up being government union workers, and you have to help pay the union wages. We always apparently do that, paying for part of the costs of the union. That is because Republicans are real good at allowing Democrats to have laws that help fund their campaigns. They have done it for years. Mallory Factor has a good book out called ``Shadowbosses'' that explains the concept. Well, here is another point from John Nolte's article, number 2, ``Less Choice for Patients: From 1,232 Private Market Insurers to 310.'' Rather dramatic, but that was very foreseeable. Many of us talked about it. We knew that this would eliminate many of the insurance companies. It would eliminate so much choice. The same way Dodd-Frank promises, gee, we are going to fix the banking industry. No, you are going to make it hard for small banks to compete; and the big banks chew them up, absorb them when they can't make it, and then you have fewer choices. That is what ObamaCare is doing. This article says: ``Prior to ObamaCare, the individual assurance market (non-group, non-employer) offered a wealth of choices in health care options. ObamaCare has devastated that market, and with it the quality of health care. Keep in mind, the cost of premiums and deductibles have increased as choice and competition collapsed.'' ``Patients may also have fewer doctors to pick from. More than 60 percent of doctors plan to retire earlier than anticipated--by 2016 or sooner, according to Deloitte. The Physicians Foundation reported in the fall that nearly half of the 20,000 doctors who responded to their survey--especially those with more experience--considered ObamaCare's reforms a failure.'' Number 3, ``Deficit Exploded to $1.2 Trillion with a `T'.'' ``Forget the original lies that ObamaCare would be a deficit neutral, or even cut the deficit. The ObamaCare deficit is now in the trillions.'' ``This month, CBO estimated the law's 10-year costs will reach $1.2 trillion--a far cry from the President's initial promise of $940 billion.'' Well, I have to point out, actually, in fairness to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office originally predicted it would be over $1 trillion; but since the President promised it would be less than $1 trillion, the Director of CBO was called to the White House and, magically, after he went back, he reformulated things. I know this offends him, but it is still the truth. It is what happened. He went back, recalculated, and it was less than $1 trillion. The President said: See, there, I told you it would be less than $1 trillion. Then it passes, and then we found out, oh, do you know what? It really is more than $1 trillion. How about that? That is why I think CBO needs competition, and the best thing that could happen is if we started encouraging and even gave rewards to any entity, whether it is universities or private groups that begin scoring bills, if they get within a certain margin. If a bill passes, if they get within a certain margin, it would sure beat the heck out of CBO, and then you pay them. We need competition scoring bills so that we don't have the disasters we had had in the predictions of the cost of ObamaCare. Number 4, ``Media and Government Lying About ObamaCare Expanding Coverage to Millions.'' ``You keep hearing about how ObamaCare is covering millions, when it really isn't. A huge majority of those in the White House and its media throne-sniffers are advertising as `newly-insured' are in fact victims of canceled policies who were forced into the ObamaCare exchanges. They already had insurance and are therefore not `newly insured.' ``Even some of those `newly insured' under ObamaCare's expansion of Medicaid were once paying for their own insurance. Now they are on the government dole.'' ``Further, as many as 89 percent of the Americans who signed up for ObamaCare when the exchanges opened in 2013 already had insurance. In other words, many exchange enrollees simply switched from one plan to another.'' So we were told, gee, there are 30 or 40 million people without insurance. We have to insure them. That is why we have got to force so many tens of millions of Americans into losing their insurance because we have 30, 40 million we have to take care of. And what happened? We are told, well, maybe 7 million or so, 8 million, they got insurance when all these millions lost theirs. That was worth the damage that this administration has done and is doing to the best health care system in the world? Number 5, ``ObamaCare's Deductibles Are Killing Families.'' ``One of the great untold stories about ObamaCare is that while ObamaCare has skyrocketed premium costs in the individual market, deductibles have also increased. ObamaCare is really nothing more than catastrophic insurance priced like regular insurance. ``This year, ObamaCare's lower priced bronze plans have a $5,181 individual deductible and $10,545 dollars family deductible. The more expensive silver plan has a $2,927 individual deductible and $6,010 family deductible. ``On top of your monthly premiums, the deductible is the amount you have to pay out of pocket before your insurance kicks in. The last time I looked, if I enrolled in ObamaCare, my out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductible) would exceed $8,000 before insurance started paying anything. ``One result of this has been an increase over the last 5 years of the percentage of people who put off treatment due to cost. ``Unless something catastrophic happens to you, in most cases, you are still paying out of pocket for all of your health care. On top of that, you are paying for premiums that are doing you absolutely no good. It is just free money for the insurance companies. ``Also, when you are insured, your out-of-pocket expenses are usually higher. Most health care outlets offer steep discounts for the uninsured. ``Basically, ObamaCare is nothing more than a massive tax increase disguised as insurance; a massive financial boon to the same big insurance companies Democrats have demonized for years; a massive redistribution of wealth that primarily soaks the middle class while diminishing their quality of health care. ``In summation: The ObamaCare victims vastly outweigh the beneficiaries. It is not even close.'' John Nolte, for the Record. Then from the Weekly Standard, the Feds say that the cost of healthcare.gov is estimated at $1.7 billion. Of course, when the disastrous rollout of this government Web site happened, we heard from people who really knew what they were doing that said: Gosh, we could have done this for just $6 million or so. Well, not if you are close friends with the occupants of the White House. If you are close friends with the occupants of the White House, you are going to run up a billion-dollar bill for a $6 million, $7 million Web site that doesn't have the security that is required. So we are in big trouble here. Health care has not been helped, and we have more and more government workers who are telling people who know how to provide health care what they can or can't do all to the detriment of the patient. I think about one of my constituents. He is no longer practicing medicine. He was there to help my wife when she first went into labor 8 to 10 weeks prematurely. He was telling me that he had done a surgery, one of the best he had ever done. Because of all his training and his many years of experience, he was good at what he was doing. A couple of days after the surgery, he got a call from somebody, I think he said in Pennsylvania. The guy had no kind of medical degree at all. He is a government worker. He said: I was looking at your records of your surgery--it was one of the best he had ever done of this type. He said: Well, the average is over 3 hours, and you only took 59 minutes; and normally you lose over 3 to 4 pints of blood, and you only lost 10 CCs, so you are going to either have to change the records or we can't reimburse you. As this honest, experienced, and excellent physician said: I am not going to change my records for anybody. He said: Well, then we can only reimburse you about one-quarter of what you should have gotten otherwise. He said: I am not practicing medicine like this. Some idiot doesn't even know what he is doing is going to tell me, one of the best surgeries I have ever done, that I can't be reimbursed--and he is retired. He gave it up. He said: I planned to practice a lot longer, but I am not practicing medicine like this. So who is hurt? His patients. So what happens when you socialize medicine, as we are moving into here, well, you have fewer doctors that are as well trained. The best and brightest don't apply. We have already seen a drop in the quality of people and the numbers of people, I am told, for medical school. Good people are still applying, but eventually, as I saw in the Soviet Union when I was there, you have people who are physicians. Some are like Florence Nightingale, they do it out of a sense of service and dedication; but some just because, you know, hey, it is a job. As people are finding out, if you are not going to get reimbursed, then you are not going to be able to pay back a quarter-million dollars of loans for college, medical school, and getting you through the internship and residency until you are actually out making good money because you are not going to make it as good; therefore, you can't afford to go through as many years. So you end up, over the years you see the college, the medical school, all these years of training and experience squished together. What is the result? Well, you don't have as good physicians. But you also have wonderful nurse practitioners. You have physician assistants that start taking up the jobs that people went through college and medical school, internship, and residency, they start picking up the slack that you used to have quality, well-trained doctors to do. And they are doing a good job, but it lowers further and further the quality of care any time the government gets involved to the extent that it is now. It is not too late. It is 5 years in. It has been a disaster. One broken promise after another, after another, after another. I hope and pray that people don't have to continue to suffer the indignity of much too high health insurance and not near the quality they were getting until we get a new President and can finally get a new health care system and have true reform. I hope and pray that this President does not end up being so stubborn that he will not hear the cries of the people across America who are saying: Please, let us have back our cheaper health care, our own doctors, and our better policies. That should be the conclusion after 5 years of this disaster. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the story out in a number of media, like this from Breitbart, ``First Details of Iran Deal: Allows 6,000 Centrifuges, Rolls Back the U.N. Arms Embargo.'' That story talks about in order to entice Iran to cut back to 6,000 or 6,500 centrifuges, elements of the U.N. arms embargo against Iran could be rolled back. I think it is important to recall, it hasn't been that long ago that a principal cornerstone of the discussions between the Obama administration and the--I have to be careful the words I use here on the House floor--America-killing Iran administration was going to require them to dismantle their efforts toward nuclear production, and now they are floating a draft that is going to allow them to have thousands of centrifuges. Now, I have been advised by people at the IAEA in Vienna that, actually, if they just have 3,000 centrifuges, with all of the uranium that has been enriched to 5 percent, they only need 3,000 to take it up to 90 percent. Once you are at 5 percent, it seems like it would be a long way to get to 90, but actually it is just a matter of weeks. You could do it easily in a facility that would be easy to hide, because you could take those 3,000 in a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and you could enrich from 5 to 90 percent at weapons grade uranium, have the nukes that at least at one time Ayatollah Khamenei has indicated--I understand still believes--that they can hasten the return of the 12th imam, the Mahdi, to rule over this world caliphate, and they can do so because they believe the prophecy is that he will arise--the 12th imam, as the Mahdi, the head of the caliphate, this world caliphate, he will arise out of chaos, and they believe that could be nuclear chaos. So, in effect, if this administration agrees to allow even 1,500 centrifuges to continue to spin in Iran, he is hastening the demise of millions of people, ultimately. A new Holocaust. Now, it is one thing when leaders in the United States could say, ``Gee, we didn't know that millions of Jews were being killed by Hitler; gee, we just didn't know,'' but there came a point where it became very clear, and Hitler and his subordinates really tried to hide what they were doing. Iran has made no bones about what they want to do. They want to wipe Israel off the map. First of all, they are never going to eliminate all of the Jews in the world; it will not happen. As God is my witness, that will not happen. What will happen, as anybody, including this administration, if they are intent on going there, to allow Iran to continue to move toward nuclear weapons under this so-called nuclear agreement, they move there, it will cause judgment to come down on our country for allowing something so horrific to become possible when we had the means to stop it. This is no time for anyone who is a civilized individual, who believes in the rights of men, the rights of women, the rights of children, to be cutting a deal with these cutthroats in Iran. Nobody seems to want to talk about it, but Iran has drug this thing out for over a year. Perhaps Valerie Jarrett was working a deal even longer than that. There were reports that she was negotiating with them early on, trying to see if something could be done. Whether that is true or not, clearly what Iran has done is drug out the talks, continued to increase the number of centrifuges it has spinning, continued to move toward the ability to have a tremendous amount of 5 percent enrichment so that it very quickly can move to 90 percent and develop the nukes. They would likely develop a number of them at the same time, not just do one. They would do a number and then spread them out so that, once they move into nuclear mode, they have several. You try to take them out at that point; you are going to find one or more of them in cities that you care about. So we should never allow that to even become possible. When I see this deal, I see all these articles about it, then I see this article ``Obama Planning Drastic Shake-Up in Policy Toward Israel.'' So because the people of Israel, in their election, made clear, ``We would prefer not to be wiped out by Iran, and we can tell that the deal that the Obama administration is cutting is bad for Israel and puts us at extreme risk,'' they gave more seats than were expected to the Likud Party, Netanyahu's party. What is the response of the Obama administration after they threw everything they possibly could, threw temper tantrums about Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking from right here just to tell us his perspective on the Iranian deal because his country is most at risk? Those that refused to understand--it isn't just Israel at risk--may pay at the cost of thousands or millions of lives. These people have no respect for the lives of people who are not radical Islamists, as they are. So you might think: Oh, gee, maybe the Obama administration learned a lesson; let's don't try to interfere in the election process in a foreign country. It does make you wonder, you know, there were all those rumors about since the Obama money was never audited in his original campaign in 2008 and there were massive numbers of $50 contributions with credit cards, where did those come from? Were any of those foreign? We have seen allegations about money coming in to Hillary Clinton's campaign from foreigners. We know in Bill Clinton's campaign they got caught redhanded with money from monks that was given to Vice President Al Gore, but, you know, foreigners are not supposed to be able to influence our elections. It appears that potentially they have. If that were true--don't know for certain because there wasn't an audit done, but maybe that would help explain why this administration is so quick to get involved in the election process in Israel to try to destroy Netanyahu, who was more concerned with the preservation of the nation of Israel than he was in getting another Nobel Peace Prize for this administration. But this, dated today, by Melanie Batley says: The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported. The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times: ``We're currently evaluating our approach,'' State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, according to the Journal. ``We're not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action.'' She should have said ``if there were,'' but she said ``if there was.'' The article also says: The Obama administration in the past has shielded Israel at the Security Council, using a veto to strike down a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory. Now, Obama officials may decide to allow Israel to be exposed to more international pressure in an attempt to force them back into negotiating. This is what I would call a deal to hasten the attempted demise of Israel. It is interesting, though, ``We're currently evaluating our approach,'' the State Department said, because we were told by a Muslim Brothers publication in December of 2012 that--yes, I believe it was 2012. It was before the fall of Muslim Brother Morsi as President of Egypt, but it was a Muslim Brothers-approved publication in Egypt that bragged about the six top advisers in the Obama administration who they bragged were Muslim Brothers. Now, some in the media don't want to do anything but vilify me for pointing out what the Muslim Brothers have pointed out, but for a number of years I tried to advise the Homeland Security Department that you have elevated a man to the top advisory council, given him a secret security clearance, allowed him to access documents, which I was told by people, I believe, including the director of DPS in Texas, that we know that this man downloaded two documents. We know he downloaded them with his personal computer at his home, and then the report from Patrick Poole, the reporter, that he had direct indication from a national media outlet that Mr. Elibiary had shopped those documents to this national media outlet, who happened to refuse. I asked Secretary Napolitano about it. She said she knew nothing about it. That was interesting, because her chief told the director of Texas Department of Public Safety the night before, who advised me the night before, that she had been totally briefed on what Elibiary had done. When I brought it up the next day, either she lied in front of our committee or her close staff member lied to the Department of Public Safety director in Texas the night before. But we do know this. Later when I again asked her about it and if it had been investigated, she said that DHS had looked into it and there was nothing to it. Yet, when there was a FOIA request for the documents pertaining to the investigation, there were no documents that supported that there ever was an investigation. So either, again, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary lied, committed a crime, or DHS lied and there were documents about that investigation. In any event, last September, the Homeland Security Department, after years of being warned about this person they kept elevating, after one of the ISIS videos hit television and showed the Islamic State cutting off the head of an American, this top adviser to our Homeland Security Department tweeted out, basically, the caliphate's inevitable; people just need to get used to the idea. That was the basis of it. So at Homeland Security, they allowed him to go ahead and not be renewed as a top adviser to Homeland Security. We also know that Imam Magid, who had been head of the Islamic Society of North America, which Islamic Society of North America was aimed as a co-conspirator in the largest prosecution for supporting terrorism in the history of the United States in going after the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, Texas, Federal Court. The Islamic Society of North America was named as a co-conspirator, as was the Council of American Islamic Relations, CAIR. Although, we saw a story last year where they were thinking about changing their name to--I forget what the words were--but instead of CAIR, it would be WTF. I guess they thought better of having WTF be their symbolic letters representing who they are. In any event, CAIR, ISNA, they were named coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. When an effort was made to remove their names from being listed as coconspirators, the judge in the Federal court there in Dallas reviewed the evidence and said, No, there is evidence that supports having their names as coconspirators. They appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States and all those judges looked at it and said, No, there is plenty of evidence here to support that these groups are coconspirators with the Holy Land Foundation--whose principals were convicted of supporting terrorism and sent to prison. This administration gets sworn in within 2 months of the conviction, and instead of being careful about these groups that U.S. Federal courts had said we had plenty of evidence to show that they support terrorism, this administration neglected--refused--to consider that because they thought they knew better. They brought the leaders of CAIR and ISNA into the realm of their close advisers; so is it any mystery that when Prime Minister Netanyahu was coming to Washington in May of 2011, the President sought advice-- got advice--from the leader of this named coconspirator supporting terrorism, Imam Magid? When the President gave this speech in the State Department itself, Imam Magid was there. This administration had obviously given him credentials to allow him not only in the White House, but in the inner sanctum of the State Department. When I read, ``We are currently evaluating our approach,'' from the State Department, I can't help but wonder: Have you got Imam Magid in there--which this Egyptian Muslim Brother-approved article said was a Muslim Brother, a top adviser--have you got him in there helping advise you on how to go after Netanyahu and how to put Israel more at risk than you already have? ``We are evaluating our approach'' scares me--should scare others-- when you know the kind of people that are giving this administration advice. This article says: The Obama administration in the past has shielded Israel at the Security Council, using a veto to strike down a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory. Now, Obama officials may decide to allow Israel to be exposed to more international pressure in an attempt to force them back into negotiating a peace deal. Well, Israel has eyes wide open as Iran continues to spin centrifuges and enrich uranium. They understand that their very existence is at risk; yet we have people here in Washington--this administration--that apparently are hearing from people saying, Oh, no, it's no problem. Israel is the real problem here. Never mind the people that are advising this administration are more upset with Israel wanting to continue to exist than they are with Iran for wanting to wipe out Israel and the United States. This should scare people in the United States because, as Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out--though he didn't have to--he cares about the United States. He was educated here. He would like to see us continue to exist and be friends with Israel. He pointed out, Look, they are developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those are not to hit us in Israel, he says, they are coming after us, but they really don't even need intercontinental ballistic missiles. They can put them on a cargo ship and bring them right into our ports, bring them right up the Potomac River, into the Houston Ship Channel, into New Orleans. In between New Orleans and Houston, they can wipe out 70 percent of our refined gasoline, so we could be in a world of hurt in a real hurry. The President's job is to help provide for the common defense, and it seems that his initiative is more to be opposed to anything Israel knows in its collective heart will keep them protected. Unfortunately, that is not all the news. We look here and find this article from Newsmax: Islamic State jihadists may have committed genocide in trying to wipe out the Yazidi minority in Iraq, the U.N. said Thursday in a report laying out a litany of atrocities. The Islamic State ``may have committed all three of the most serious international crimes--namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide,'' the United Nations human rights office said in a statement. The agency published a horrifying report detailing killings, torture, rape, sexual slavery, and the use of child soldiers by the extremists. All of these crimes, it said, were violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and some may amount to ``crimes against humanity'' and ``war crimes.'' Further down, it says: In numerous Yazidi villages, men and boys over the age of 14 were rounded up and shot, while the women and girls were abducted as the ``spoils of war.'' The report, which was ordered by the U.N. Human Rights Council last September, following a request from the Iraqi Government, pointed out that some villages ``were entirely emptied of their Yazidi population.'' Many Yazidi women and girls were sold into sexual slavery or handed over to Islamic State members as ``gifts,'' the report said, adding that witnesses had described hearing girls as young as 6 screaming for help as they were raped in a house used by Islamic State fighters. A pregnant 19-year-old had told the investigators she had been repeatedly raped by a Islamic State ``doctor'' over a period of 2\1/2\ months and that he deliberately sat on her stomach, saying, ``This baby should die because it is an infidel. I can make a Muslim baby.'' We had the report in the last few weeks from a Catholic source in Nigeria where they have begged the United States for any help that it will give to try to stop Boko Haram and their efforts to wipe out Christians in Nigeria. This source indicated that they had heard from the United States-- from the Obama administration--that the Obama administration will only help them against Boko Haram if Nigeria will change its laws to allow same-sex marriage. Well, apparently, once this administration got through ObamaCare, it promised the Catholic leaders, Christian leaders: Hey, we will never, ever refuse to allow you to practice your religious beliefs. Well, that turned out to be a lie because, of course, they went after Catholic nuns, they went after the Catholic Church--well, at least those who actually practice what they hear preached in the Catholic Church--and any other Christian who believes that abortion is religiously wrong. I guess after the administration broke its promise and went after and used the full force of the government to prevent people from practicing their religious beliefs and being able to conform their conduct to their religious beliefs, it was a no-brainer that they would then try to impose their religious beliefs--or lack thereof--upon countries like Nigeria or others in Africa or around the world. There will be a price for the United States as a country to pay when we know about Jews being wiped out, when we know about Christians being wiped out, and God has blessed us with the ability to protect ourselves and to stop such genocide; not only do we do nothing to stop it, we demand that they abandon their Christian beliefs before we will offer any help. There will be a price to pay for the United States of America for being so callous as Christians and Jews around the world are suffering in numbers like never before. I applaud my friend Brad Sherman. This article from Pam Key today quotes Sherman as saying: I fear that you have misled this committee in telling us that once Iran has the rights of a nonnuclear state subject to additional protocol, that you'll be able to stop sneak- out, because you've said first that, well, they can't develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal. That's a preposterous argument. Obviously, they're willing to break the law. My friend Mr. Sherman and I disagree on so much, but I know him to be an honorable man, and he understands Iran doesn't care about breaking deals. Any deal with Iran is like a deal with Hitler. The Soviet Union thought they could cut a deal with Hitler. The thing that their leaders were most mad about was that Hitler reached the agreement before they did because they had intentions, apparently, of breaching it. We are somewhere between Neville Chamberlain and Stalin in trying to reach a deal with a modern-day Hitler, except Hitler didn't have some crazy religious idea that he should wipe out everybody in the world that didn't have the exact same religious beliefs that he did. Look, we are on the side of right. President al-Sisi in Egypt is on the side of right. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, all over the Middle East, they are becoming afraid because this administration is on the verge of cutting a deal that will allow Iran to continue moving forward to not just one nuke, but many nukes, and a breakout could be a matter of weeks. I know people are talking about it could be years, but when you hear from people that know that you could have a facility 30 meters by 70 meters and that you could sneak that 5 percent into a secret facility without people knowing and you could enrich it to 90 and have nuclear weapons, we ought to take notice. We have been blessed with much, and to whom much is given, of them much is required. The world deserves better with what we have been blessed with in the way of power, and they deserve to have us stand up against Iran. It is time for us to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. 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 ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, March 23, 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour-debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting these days to hear our current Secretary of State, someone who as a Congressman went to Central America and basically was negotiating a deal with a communist leader--corrupt--at the same time the Reagan administration was conducting negotiations. I am very proud of my Senate friends down at the other end of the Capitol who sent a letter to Iran, since the former constitutional law instructor--not professor, but instructor--from Chicago doesn't seem to realize he needs the Senate advice and consent in order to create a binding treaty with another country, especially one that actually has a major impact on the ability to continue to exist for Israel and the United States. If this President and Secretary of State get the deal that includes everything that we would want that this administration has not already taken off the table overtly, then it means nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Our allies in the Middle East, so-called Saudi Arabia; Qatar; UAE; Egypt; and, in fact, most of the nations in the Middle East--Jordan, perhaps--are all going to need nuclear weapons to protect themselves. If this administration continues to persist with anything that does not require dismantling and stoppage of the spinning of the centrifuges in Iran that continue to develop nuclear material for bombs, then the whole world is going to be in trouble. In fact, the negotiations have become so desperate on the part of our own administration that then-Congressman John Kerry would try to sit down and negotiate with a communist criminal leader in Central America and undermine the efforts of the Reagan administration. Our friends down the hall--47 Senators--were completely aboveboard. They said nothing inappropriate. There was no crime, no treason. They were just advising people to the negotiations that here is what the U.S. Constitution says. Apparently, they had not been so advised by our constitutional law instructor Commander in Chief, so it is important that somebody did, and I am pleased that my colleague and friend Tom Cotton did just that. But here we are. I think this article from townhall.com by Katie Pavlich illustrates very clearly just how desperate this administration has gotten to get any kind of deal, just any kind of deal so they can say they got a deal. Yes, okay, Iran has an agreement that will allow Iran to continue to cheat, as they have been found to have done a number of times, so it doesn't actually allow them to have not just a nuke in 10 years, they could covertly develop a nuke within the year if they so wished. My friends Dana Rohrabacher and Steve King met with IAEA representatives who had been inspecting Iran, and it left me extremely concerned about how quickly, easily, and covertly Iran could go ahead and move to the next step, even beyond 5 or 20 percent enrichment, as Iran has gotten. Here is this article from Katie Pavlich from March 16. In part, she says: According to a report in The Times of Israel, the National Intelligence Agency delivered a report to Congress that scraps Iran and Hezbollah from the terrorism list, citing the country's work against ISIS as one of the reasons why. Mr. Speaker, if this administration is scrapping--taking--Iran and Hezbollah off the terrorist list, then the last thing we need this administration doing is negotiating with these terrorists--this terrorist regime--trying to work out a deal because anybody that would say Iran and Hezbollah are not a terrorist country and terrorist organization should not be negotiating anything for the United States of America, where the vast bulk--thank God--of the American people do not want to support, lend credence to, or in any way help terrorist countries or a terrorist organization like Hezbollah. It goes ahead and quotes from the National Intelligence Agency report from The Times of Israel and then has Ms. Pavlich's question: Is ISIS a threat? Absolutely. Should we align ourselves with or appease Iran because of their work against ISIS? Absolutely not. As a reminder, Hezbollah, funded by Iran, is the largest terror organization in the world. Before 9/11, Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, was responsible for the majority of U.S. terrorism deaths, including the 1983 bombings of U.S. Marine barracks and U.S. Embassy in Beirut, in addition to a series of attacks in the 1980s. Hezbollah is also responsible for countless attacks on Israel. In 1992, Hezbollah, with help from Iran, bombed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1994, they bombed the Jewish community center in the same South American city. Those are just a handful of examples that don't even account for the thousands of rockets Hezbollah has launched into Israel throughout the years. So what's going on here? Why strip Hezbollah and its funding parent Iran from the terrorism label? Especially now? It all points back to getting President Obama his deal with Iran at all costs. This reclassification of Iran and Hezbollah without the terrorism label is a certain warning sign the deal the White House is working on to appease the rogue regime does not have the best interests of the United States as a top priority. Since, apparently, this administration is not aware, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues here in Congress would want to be aware of what the administration isn't. Maybe that comes from not reading the intelligence reports, but you don't even have to get an intelligence report from an intelligence agency. This, for example, comes from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and it is a timeline for Hezbollah violence. 1982, Israel invades Lebanon to drive out the PLO's terrorist army, which had frequently attacked Israel from its informal ``state within a state'' in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah, a Shiite group inspired by the teachings and revolution of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, is created with the assistance of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. The group is called Hezbollah, or ``party of God'' after initially taking responsibility for attacks under the name ``Islamic jihad.'' Some thought that was the Republican Party, but actually it is Hezbollah that is the party of God. In July of 1982, the president of American University in Beirut, Davis S. Dodge, is kidnapped. Hezbollah is believed to be behind this and most of the other 30 Westerners kidnapped over the next 10 years. April 18, 1983, Hezbollah attacks the U.S. Embassy in Beirut with a car bomb, killing 63 people, 17 of whom were American citizens. October 23, 1983, the group attacks a U.S. Marine barracks with a truck bomb, killing 241 American military personnel stationed in Beirut as part of the peacekeeping force. A separate attack against the French military compound in Beirut kills 58. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that, to the Obama administration, the killing of all these marines, the killing of all these American citizens in Beirut, and the kidnapping of Americans and other diplomats by Hezbollah would be considered workplace violence. I get that. But to most people in America, they understand these are acts of sheer terrorism, and they need to be called what they are. September of 1984, the group attacks the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut with a car bomb, killing two Americans and 22 others. More workplace violence. March of 1984, William F. Buckley, a CIA operative working at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, is kidnapped and later murdered. April of 1984, Hezbollah attacks a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force Base in Spain. The bombing kills 18 U.S. servicemen, injuries 83. December of '84, Hezbollah terrorists hijack a Kuwait Airlines plane. Four passengers are murdered, including two Americans. I don't see how this administration would be able to classify that hijacking and murders as workplace violence, but you never know. February 1985, Hezbollah publicizes its manifesto. It notes that the group's struggle will continue until Israel is destroyed and rejects any cease-fire or peace treaty with Israel. The document also attacks the U.S. and France. June 1985, Hezbollah terrorists attack TWA Flight 847. The hijackers severely beat passenger Robert Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, before killing him and dumping his body onto the tarmac at the Beirut airport. Other passengers are held hostage before being released on June 30. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that many Americans will remember these events and know how strongly we felt about the terrorism being carried out by Hezbollah, that this administration would like to call a peace- seeking organization. Yeah, it is a peace-seeking organization, just like a heat-seeking missile is a peacekeeping missile. They will blow up anything that they can get ahold of that is American. December '86, under the alias of Organization of Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah announces it had kidnapped and murdered three Lebanese Jews. The organization previously had taken responsibility for killing four other Jews since 1984. February of '88, Hezbollah kidnaps Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving with a U.N. truce-monitoring group in Lebanon, and murders him. October of '89, members of the dissolved Lebanese Parliament ratify the Taif Agreement. Although the agreement calls for the disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, Hezbollah remains active. February '92, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah takes over Hezbollah after Israel kills the group's leader, Abbas Musawi. March of '92, with the help of Iranian intelligence, Hezbollah bombs the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29, injuring over 200. July 1994, Hezbollah bombs the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, again with Iranian help, killing 86 and injuring over 200. November 1995, Hezbollah bombards towns in northern Israel with volleys of Katyusha rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians. March '96, Hezbollah fires 28 Katyusha rockets into northern Israeli towns. A week later, the group fires 16 rockets, injuring 36 Israelis. Israel responds with a major offensive known as the ``Grapes of Wrath'' operation to stop Hezbollah rocket fire. August 1997, Hezbollah opened fire on northern Israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians. October of '97, the United States lists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. And parenthetically, we might insert, this is October of 1997. This is the Clinton administration. This is the Clinton administration that heard cries of Muslims in other parts of the world, and it seemed that, despite the fact that the Clinton administration rushed, sent military to assist Muslims in other parts of the world, all the while, Islamic terrorists were plotting to blow up the World Trade Centers by sending planes crashing into them. Now, it would seem, if these were peace-seeking organizations, like Hezbollah, like the Nation of Iran, the administration of that nation, at least they would take note that, gee, the Clinton administration is reaching out every way they can to help Muslims in the world, and we should take note of that and ease up. But that was not happening, not by a terrorist group like Hezbollah. In fact, in May of 1999, Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on Israeli civilians. June of '99, Hezbollah opens fire on northern Israel, killing two. May of 2000, Israel withdraws troops from Lebanon after 18 years of patrolling the ``security zone,'' a strip of land in the south of the country. The security zone was set up to prevent attacks on northern Israel. June of 2000, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan certifies Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. Shortly thereafter, the U.N. Security Council endorses Annan's report. Hezbollah, nonetheless, alleges Israel occupies Lebanon, claiming the small Shebaa Farms area Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 war as Lebanese territory. It seems Hezbollah was so intent on being a terrorist organization, even when Israel handed over land that it was claiming, they still were not content. They wanted terrorism; and, actually, they want Israel and the United States eliminated. October of 2000, Hezbollah attacks Israel military posts and raids Israel, kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. March 2001, the British Government adds Hezbollah's ``military wing'' to its list of outlawed terrorist organizations. April 2002, Hezbollah launches Katyushas into northern Israeli town, and the assault comes amidst almost daily Hezbollah attacks against Israeli troops in Shebaa Farms. December 2002, Canada lists Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. August 2003, Hezbollah shells and kills 16-year-old Israeli boy, wounds others. June 2003, Australia lists Hezbollah's ``military wing'' as a terrorist organization. September 2004, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the ``disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non- Lebanese militias,'' a reference to Hezbollah. December 2004, both the United States and France bans Hezbollah's satellite television network, Al-Manar. A U.S. State Department spokesman notes the channel ``preaches violence and hatred.'' March 2005, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passes a resolution stating: ``Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The European Union Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them.'' The European Union, nonetheless, refrains from placing the group on its list of terrorist organizations. July of 2006, Hezbollah attacks Israel with Katyushas, crosses the border, kidnaps two Israeli soldiers. Three Israeli soldiers are killed in the initial attack. Five more soldiers are killed as Israel launches an operation to rescue the soldiers and push Hezbollah from its border. And during the ensuing war, Hezbollah launches rockets at civilian targets. August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopts Resolution 1701, which calls for a cessation of hostilities, the deployment of Lebanese and U.N. forces into southern Lebanon, and the disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon. So anybody in this administration here in the U.S. or elsewhere who thinks that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization then clearly thinks that every place that Hezbollah has killed innocent people is just another workplace where violence occurred, a random act of violence or violence in the workplace, because it is insane to think that Iran is not a sponsor of terrorism, that Iran has not killed more Americans than any other country in the last 15 years. It is incredible. That is outside of 9/11, the killing of approximately 3,000 Americans on 9/11 between the Pentagon and New York City. But as far as American servicemembers fighting in Iraq, it was Iran who was behind the killing of most of those American servicemembers. Iran has fought vehemently to eliminate the United States' presence from Iraq. I think if we could get to the bottom of why there was not a status of forces agreement, you would find that it is because the Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, President at the time, said they believed that the twelfth imam, the Mahdi, would come, would arise back to power, would come to power amidst chaos. As I understand their beliefs and their beliefs in prophecy, he would first come to reign from the town of Kufa, which the way the lines were drawn in the 20th century put Kufa in Iraq. Unfortunately, the State Department, the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies under the Obama administration have had their training materials regarding the beliefs of radical Islamists purged, so they are not allowed to learn exactly what our enemy believes and what they have believed, and so it is hard for them to anticipate what our enemies want to do. And perhaps all the purging has helped lead this administration to the idea that if we purge all the educational material about what radical Islamists believe, then maybe it won't be actual and factual. Yet the New York Post says: ``ISIS Accepts Boko Haram's Pledge of Allegiance.'' We had an article in the last recent weeks where a Catholic bishop from Nigeria had indicated that the Obama administration basically was indicating that if Nigeria did not amend their marriage laws to go against the laws of nature and nature's god, as Christians believe and as the Bible teaches, then the Obama administration would not help them at all against the terrorist activities of Boko Haram. I don't know what kind of blindness it takes or prejudice it takes to see the suffering in Africa, in a place like Nigeria, and hold the hands and weep with the parents of daughters who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, and understand the suffering being brought against Christians for their beliefs, these Christian girls that Boko Haram has kidnapped, forced into sexual slavery--what kind of callousness does it take to see that suffering and say, Oh, no, if you don't go against your religious beliefs in marriage between a man and a woman, we are not going to help you, and we are going to let Boko Haram continue to terrorize you and rape your women. You talk about a war against women. When I asked these mothers of the girls that were kidnapped there, Did they initially attack your daughters' school because it was a girls' school? they said, No, no. They hate girls. They consider them nothing. But they attacked the school because it is Christian. There is a report from Investor's Business Daily, March 13, that says Islamic State recruits could enter the United States via the Caribbean. Well, that is not really a news flash. Another story, written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., March 17: ``ISIS Kidnaps 20 Doctors and Nurses in Libya.'' A story from Charles Spiering, 17 March: ``President Obama Blames Bush for Rise of ISIS.'' Well, actually, if you want to talk about class, despite my disagreement with some of George W. Bush's policies and despite what some have said, he had enough class that after 9/11 he never pointed the finger at the Clinton administration. He knew that even though 9/11 was being plotted and planned during the Clinton administration and there was an opportunity in the Clinton administration to take out Osama bin Laden that was not seized upon, that there were so many things that might have been stopped along the way, he didn't blame President Clinton because he had enough class to know that it was an attack by terrorists, and they should be made to pay. If you really want to point the finger, it would go clear back to the late seventies during the days I was in the United States Army and we had what was considered, under most everybody's version of international law, an act of war against the United States in Iran when our Embassy was attacked and our people were taken hostage. And we didn't help. You go back before that, to the Carter administration turning its back upon the shah of Iran--not a great guy, not a good man, from what we understand, but he was able to keep radical Islam contained. But after the Carter administration turned its back on the shah and encouraged his overthrow, you had the coming from exile of Ayatollah Khomeini, and President Carter welcomed him as a man of peace. As a result, radical Islam, once again, raised its ugly head, as it does from time to time. And it is only all-out war against radical Islam that puts it in a box--sometimes for 50 years, sometimes for 100 years. It depends on how staunch the fight is against them. But President Bush did not blame President Carter. There were mistakes all along the way. When the marine barracks in Beirut was hit, the Democrat-controlled Congress made clear that they were not going to fund any more U.S. peacekeeping troops in Beirut. Reagan brought them home. He should have taken them out and done whatever it took, but he didn't. Now this administration, in order to get any deal that is a terrible deal, is willing to turn its back on the fact that Iran and Hezbollah have terrorists in their lead, and they should not be recognized as anything but terrorists. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, last December, we were told that the best way to approach the matter--despite some of us thinking to the contrary--was to fund everything but DHS. We were told, This is the play. Well, some of us were afraid that if we did that, that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we are not going to take action to defund illegal, unconstitutional amnesty. So I stand with those veterans who believe that they should get health care before people who came illegally, that they should get a hotline to call before those who came illegally. I stand with the seniors who believe they deserve the Social Security they paid into, rather than people who have come illegally and are even going to get tax refunds, when they didn't put any taxes in. I stand with the Speaker of the House of Representatives--at least where he was last week.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, following my friend from Mississippi, it is important that we recognize that it is not just a person coming tomorrow to speak to us, it is the leader of Israel, our best friend in the Middle East. You think I like to come here and get lectured about the Citizens United case by a guy that doesn't understand that case? You think I enjoy coming over here and being told, You pass my American Jobs Act right now, when he didn't even have one for a couple of weeks? Of course not--I come and listen to the President because of the respect for the position. This is a dangerous precedent some are thinking about starting tomorrow: Well, I am just not going to show up because I don't like the man that is leading Israel. They are our ally, and if you want people to stop showing up for others like the President, then start that tradition. It is a wrong move. Let's pay respect to our best friend's leader in the Middle East.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciated so much my friend Mr. Scott for bringing up that oath. It does mean a lot--in my case, taking that oath to serve in the Army for 4 years, taking, basically, the same oath to be a prosecutor in Texas, to be a judge in Texas, to be a chief justice in Texas, and now to be in Congress. It means something. Protecting the Constitution means that, if we don't preserve the balance of power, then this little experiment in democracy--or ``a Republic, madam,'' as Benjamin Franklin referred to-- will be lost. I appreciated what my friend from Maryland said, and I wrote it down because it was profound: ``we gave up the opportunity to act responsibly.'' I would humbly submit, Madam Speaker, that that has been going on for the last 6 years. Now, some of it went on during the Bush administration as the President used executive orders and took powers that probably shouldn't have been his. In talking to people who have been in Congress over the last 35 years or so, they have told me that, whether it was Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon when Goldwater went down Pennsylvania Avenue, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, there was a willingness on both sides of the aisle to get in a car together and go down Pennsylvania Avenue and say, ``Mr. President, you have usurped far too much power. We can't let you destroy the Constitution any further. We are taking a stand.'' We have missed that opportunity to act responsibly, but, fortunately, it is not yet too late. If you do not know what ``irresponsibility'' is, then look at Judge Hanen's opinion. He spells it out. This President didn't even have the gumption to write an executive order and sign it. He spoke his new amnesty law into being, and then Jeh Johnson did a memo. That took the power of Congress away from us. So the question on acting responsibly is: Do we make that message clear that we are not having laws spoken into being in this country and having some bureaucrat--unelected--come around with a memo that undoes laws by different Congresses all these years that have been signed by different Presidents? With a memo? Come on. It is time to act responsibly. Now is the time. Please. I know party divisions run deep, but stand with us for the Constitution.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize today the outstanding season of the Waskom Wildcats football team, who completed the season by capturing the title of 2014 Class 3A Division II Texas State Champions for the first time in the entirety of Waskom's history. The championship series proved difficult for the Wildcats, but it was not a difficulty that these skilled and devoted athletes could not overcome. In the State semi-final game, the Wildcats trailed the Sonora Broncos until the third quarter, when their defense held the Broncos back while their offense prevailed with a final score of 25-21 to win the game and usher them into the state championship title game. After the scoreless first quarter of the state title game, the tenacious Waskom Wildcats scored their first touchdown to take the lead over the Newton Eagles, but the Eagles battled back to take an 8-7 lead. In an amazing show of resilience and ability, just fifteen seconds later, the Wildcats ran the ball 88 yards to score a touchdown and take the lead once again. From that play on, the Wildcats only increased their lead. Scoring six touchdowns and running 350 total yards of offense, the Wildcats ended an extraordinary and victorious game with a final score of 41-22. The Wildcats are a perfect representation of what can be accomplished when a team possesses both perseverance and resolve with proper guidance from the coaching staff. Although the Wildcats suffered a loss during the first game of their season, their determination remained steadfast, and they recovered to end the season with a stellar record of 13-2. The exceptional athletes who comprise this team of champions are Kevin Johnson, Keileon Johnson, Trace Carter, Jaire Jackson, Junebug Johnson, Kaleb Haynes, Eric Stephens III, Pedro Rodriguez, Lucas Norton, Cullum Ditmore, Dylan Harkrider, Jake Gillard, Chan Amie, Mike Reason, Kyle Kyker, Dillon Benton, Michael Jaeger, Kyle McInnis, Hernan Rico, Victor Tapia, John Lumpkin, Tony Ratcliff, Morgan Browning, Jose Chavarria, Kyle Adams, Brandon Latham, Logan O'Connor, Christian Smith, Jack Smith, Dylan Powell, Jeremy D'Agostino, Hunter Johnson, Jacob Bennett, Dylan Hudson, Matt Norris, Bradley Cochran, Ty Carter, Jason Jinks, Tay Green, Vicente Segura, and Matt Padron. The athletic staff and faculty who led the Wildcats to victory must be congratulated, because no team, no matter how talented and committed can rise to the pinnacle of being State Champions without proper direction, correction, and motivation. Led by Head Coach & Athletic Director Whitney Keeling, the Coaching Staff includes Jeremy Kubiak, Greg Pearson, Daniel Swaim, Jeff Lyles, Gary Wilson, Vencent Lee, David Higginbotham, Matt Goode, and Lorenza Thomas; the Ball Boys include Paxton Keeling, Trent Higginbotham, Jalynn Washington, LaZavion Thomas, and Benito Sanchez. And, of course, if a school and school district is not committed to its athletic program and all the life lessons it provides, the team does not have the opportunity to excel. So thanks and congratulations go to the School Principal Andy Chilcoat and his staff, as well as Superintendent Jimmy E. Cox and all of his staff. It is with great pride that I join with the citizens of Waskom, as well as the entire First District of Texas, in congratulating the Waskom Wildcats on their first State Championship and their impressive season. This outstanding accomplishment is now preserved in the United States Congressional Record which will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to acknowledge and congratulate the superb performance of the Gilmer High School Buckeyes as they came together as a team resulting in their winning the 2014 Texas State 4-A, Div II Football Championship. The Gilmer Buckeyes displayed great resilience and commitment throughout their season, and it is indeed an honor to bring these outstanding athletes to national attention and retention in our national record. After the devastating, unexpected death of a beloved member of the team last year, the Buckeyes and the entire Gilmer community pledged to preserve the memory of Desmond Pollard by honoring him throughout the season. Residents of east Texas generously paid tribute to Desmond by raising funds to pay for all his funeral expenses. So much money was donated and accumulated that it not only paid for the service, but there was also enough to establish a memorial scholarship fund in Desmond's name. The Buckeyes carried Desmond's memory onto the field with them before every game by taking his jersey to midfield for every coin toss. This honorable group of young men created and adopted ``DEZign8'' as the team motto to pay tribute to Desmond throughout the season by combining his name with his team jersey number, #8. The motto was based on the belief that the team was ``DEZign8''-ed to be tested, and to overcome any challenges in order to emerge victorious. When the Buckeyes began the third quarter of the state championship game, they trailed West Orange-Stark 25-7. The Buckeyes recognized the daunting task before them, but they were not about to give up. Instead, every player reached deep inside themselves, and reinvigorated their strength, skill and commitment to such an incredible level that the Buckeyes became virtually unstoppable, scoring four more touchdowns, overtaking the Mustangs, while shutting down their vaunted opponent's powerful offense, and capturing the state title with a final score of 35-25. This amazing team of caring, committed, yet crushing Buckeyes were successful in achieving their objective. They were victorious in honoring their fallen teammate with an entire season of success resulting in the State Championship in honor of Desmond. Ultimately, the Buckeyes finished the season with a perfect, undefeated record of 16-0, and the honor of finishing with the second-highest point total in a season in Texas high school football history with 950 points. Special commendations must be offered to each member of this exceptional company of young men. The team includes: Blevin Burns, Devin Smith, McLane Carter, DeMarco Boyd, Quinn Fluellen, Jamel Jackson, Desmond Pollard, Blake Lynch, Zac Spears, Preston Smith, Kollin Hurt, Brandon Crouch, Ryen Lawhorn, Tanner Harrison, Taylor Lofton, Desmond Jones, Cameron Bowman, Nick Smith, Cambron Granville, Kris Boyd, Kelton Collier, Christian Loyd, Chase Tate, Jamaal Wheeler, LaMarcus Morton, Freddy Curtis, Dustin Brown, Hunter Richardson, CJ Grimmett, Kade Clemens, Tristan Olivares, Juan Esquivel, Nathan Mize, Trendon Brooks, Frankie Coleman, Kaloni Moton, Caleb Gunter, Clayton Williams, Jeremy Kelly, Matthew Caldwell, Jackson Sikes, Brett Rice, Zach Jones, Jake Traylor, Caleb Ritter, Jacob Cullins, Will Harrison, Colin Hardin, Johnny Perez, Dane Jesters, Colton Hendrix, Trevor Lewis, Landry Henson, Cole Hart, Lucas Garrett, Erik Cerda, Dakota Williamson, Andrew Hollis, Cameron Tennison, Colby Gipson, Zack Troell, Zod Heath, and Stoney Fuller. No matter how talented and committed, no team could achieve so much resulting in an undefeated season without a head coach and coaching staff of extraordinary vision and ability who could lead the Buckeyes to success, both on and off the field. Superintendent Rick Albritton, Principal Greg Watson, Head Coach and Athletic Director Jeff Traylor, Todd Barr, Robert Bero, Colton Bunn, Randall Canady, Wayne Coleman, Russell Cunningham, Tommy Edwards, Todd Fenton, Dustin Gunter, Lonnie Henry, Olan Johnson, Kerry Lane, Terrence Lovely, Max Low, Alan Metzel, Cody Robinson, Keith Tate, Kurt Traylor, Matt Turner, and Brandon Williams; along with athletic trainers Kara Kanutson and Will Bennett. It is truly an incalculable honor to pay tribute to this sensationally astounding group of young people who became so much more than the sum total of the team's individual parts. And they magnificently represent the very best of the Gilmer community and the entire First District of Texas. Their legacy, along with the memory of their friend and cherished teammate Desmond Pollard, 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, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate my friend's discussion today. In fact, there is an article I would like to move right into regarding the President's proposal to help middle America by going after corporations. This is an article of Money News from Newsmax, by Peter Morici. This points out: Posturing as champion of needed public investments and fairness, President Barack Obama wants new taxes on the overseas earnings of American businesses. That would kill jobs and punish retired Americans. Although special deals permit some corporations to pay low taxes, most pay a heavy burden. The estimated effective U.S. corporate tax rate is about 27 percent and is well above the 20 percent imposed by other industrialized countries. The United States is virtually alone by taxing the overseas profits of its multinationals when those are repatriated. This has encouraged U.S. firms to invest nearly $2.1 trillion of their earnings abroad instead of bringing some of that money home to create jobs in America. Now the President wants an immediate 14 percent tax levy on those assets to raise about $500 billion and to impose a 19 percent tax on future earnings to finance infrastructure investments. Madam Speaker, we have heard this before, this mantra about how we are going to build infrastructure. If you will just give us, as it was the last time, $900 billion, we are going to rebuild the infrastructure of America. What happened? We got Solyndra, and some Democratic friends got lots and lots of money and grants and all kinds of benefits, and we didn't get the infrastructure we were promised. Every time the President wants to trot out a new program, he throws that in because it worked. Seriously, it worked 6 years ago. Americans bought into it, and the majority here bought into it. Let's give him the money so we can build infrastructure, and we saw that that was a word that was not kept. There is the point that many have made about the President's new proposals that he brought up in the State of the Union Address to help the middle class, to help the Nation's poor, and we have seen how the middle class has been helped under this President--the middle class has gotten smaller. The gap between the ultra rich and the poor has gotten wider, and we have more poor. We have got more people on food stamps than ever in history, more than anybody could have ever imagined when that program was started, and it continues to be a massive problem for much of America. There is trouble getting a job. Oh, I know we keep being told that the Cook numbers work well. Gee, the economy is doing so well. But across America, people understand ``I am not doing well.'' If they have been able to keep their jobs, they have not seen their wages keep up like they should have. At the same time, the administration is trying to convince the middle class and the Nation's poor: ``I am taking care of you.'' What is actually happening behind the scenes? We know for at least the first 5, 6 years of this administration and for the first time in our Nation's history, 95 percent of the Nation's income went to the top 1 percent. Before this administration, the Obama administration, that had never, ever happened. It is tragic when you see the effect that it has on families. It is tragic when you see that people had such hope for this President's helping the poor, not adding to the poor. They had hope for climbing up through the middle class and maybe, one day, having a shot at being wealthy. Unless you are a President or a former President, it is kind of tough to make that kind of move because not everybody gets paid a million bucks or even $100,000 for giving a speech. So most of America that was suffering before is still suffering. In many cases, it is much worse. The people who really understand money management are pointing out: wait a minute. If you break down what the President is proposing in order to help, supposedly, the middle class, and if he is going to tax these evil corporations on money they have earned overseas when they have a corporate presence here and there, some of us have been proposing: if you will just eliminate any penalty, then they will bring that money into the United States; they will use that capital here in the United States; jobs will be created, and plants will be expanded; and there will be more people able to join unions of non-government working people because those are the kinds of jobs that would come back. If you lowered the tax on corporations down to where China has it, you would see companies come flooding back into the United States that built their plants in China. As our good friend Arthur Laffer has pointed out, the rich are the people you are not really able to tax because they will move on you. They will move, and they will change the way they make income. I know people like Democrat Warren Buffett like to say: ``Oh, gee. I am willing to pay more taxes.'' It is one thing to say it. It is another to write the check, and that hasn't happened. If he wanted to pay the same income tax rate that his secretary pays, then he could pay that. Write the check. You don't have to keep it all. It is okay. You can send it to the government if you want to. Unfortunately, when you tax corporations as much as we do in the United States, and when that tax gets passed on to the consumers--because, if it doesn't, they don't stay in business--then it is back to the middle class paying those taxes. If you start taxing these multinational corporations for money they have earned in another country and they have paid taxes on in another country--and if you are going to tax it to bring it into the United States--then they are not going to bring it in. If you are going to tax them for even having a presence here, then you will find the presence will go. The jobs that are here in the United States will go. You are going to have trouble ever taxing the multinational corporations, like the richest people in the world, because they will move. They will change the way they do business to avoid that tax. It is the middle class and those amongst the poor who actually pay tax--income tax, that is--who end up taking the biggest hit. If you want to make taxes fair, let's go to a flat tax across the board. If you make more, you pay more. If you make less, you pay less. I like a deduction for the home mortgage interest, and I like charitable deductions. But, otherwise, let's just drop all of them. If you make more, you pay more. That would be fair. Instead, if you want to look around to what has really done massive damage to the ability of the middle class and the Nation's poor, particularly African Americans, there has been a tremendous problem getting employed, staying employed, and having higher wages because this administration keeps bringing in people, giving them work permits--people who have come in illegally. Now we know that the big corporations are even given a $3,000 bonus if they will hire someone who came here illegally, one of the 5 million. Now, Texas has created most of the jobs that the President stood right here and took credit for. It was rather interesting. I know people in this administration like to make jokes about Texas, but it would have been nice if, when he took credit for creating jobs, that he would have thanked Texas for being the place that really bailed him out and kept him from having to stand up and report a net loss of jobs. So we are glad to help out, not because we are helping the President but because we are helping real people in America. If he really wants to help the Nation's poor, the working poor, those few who are left in the middle class, he would quit giving people who have come in illegally work permits, which actually incentivizes more people to come in illegally, and then there wouldn't be any need for him to come in and say we have got to raise the minimum wage, because we know--there is no question--when you raise the minimum wage, people who are trying to break into the working of America don't have jobs. People lose their jobs. For businesses that are barely getting by at a profit, when you force a higher minimum wage, then those people who are brought in at the entry level naturally don't produce as much as people who have been there a while because it takes a learning curve. But the minimum wage is the entry level if it is even at minimum wage. Most businesses I talk to around east Texas will pay more than the minimum wage even for startup employment. But once you raise the minimum wage, they are going to have to lay somebody off, and somebody is going to have to work harder because they cannot afford, like the government, to be operating in the red--they would go broke--because they don't get to print their own money and create their own monetary system. I see here another article today. This is from Neil Munro of The Daily Caller: ``Obama Quietly Adds 5.46 Million Foreigners to Economy.'' That should be great news for the economy, but since there haven't been 5.46 million jobs created in this administration, that means that they are going to take over jobs and that Americans who emigrated legally are going to lose their jobs. When you tack on that you get a $3,000 bonus under ObamaCare if you hire somebody who came illegally and got one of these work permits--they are not required to have ObamaCare, and so they don't have to provide health insurance; therefore, the companies don't have to pay the $3,000 penalty--it gives incentives to hire people who came illegally and got the work permits. Now, we had before our Judiciary Committee today some witnesses, and I greatly appreciated Chairman Goodlatte for calling the hearing. It was very enlightening. We had a sheriff, a law professor, a couple of people who work on the immigration issue. I didn't realize until the testimony that, when released, about 50 percent of those people who have come here illegally and who have committed a crime commit another crime. I had somebody else explain it to me after the hearing. If you come here and if you have no respect for the law in the United States, is it any mystery that you are going to be more likely to disregard the criminal laws as you have the immigration laws? Fortunately, everybody doesn't see it that way who emigrates here illegally, but it is a problem. If you are a 21-year-old store clerk that is just trying to make it, you are not making that much money, but you are trying to make it, you are working tough hours in a thankless job, and unbeknownst to you as a 21-year-old store clerk, the Obama administration--Homeland Security has followed the lead of the President. They have not been deporting people that came illegally, committed crimes, like they should be. So unknown to you, the 21-year-old store clerk, that man who has committed crimes before and has not been deported because this administration is not following up to the oath that was taken, you are about to have your life taken away from you by someone that should not even be in the country. I was with another Member of Congress today when staff came and notified him that one of their staff had been hit by another car. It was the fault of the other car, and the people in the other car got out, walked around, and then by the time the officer got there, they complained one of their group couldn't walk, couldn't use their legs. So here comes the ambulance. Who knows. Maybe they have figured out our system well enough to know you just file a lawsuit even though you were at fault for the wreck, file a claim against the insurance company. But there are people who are here in this country illegally who would like to be here legally, and we ought to help and encourage them to do just that: Come legally; follow the law; make application. There are those of us whose offices help those who come legally. We have been helping people who have immigrated legally to try to get their spouse into the country, and we find out that actually this administration, by the executive amnesties and decrees, has apparently used the fees that were paid by people who came legally, trying to bring in others legally, trying to do everything right, some paid a higher fee to try to speed up the time with which they could get their spouse or loved one in the country, and with the stroke of the pen this President apparently put those on hold, said: We are going to take those fees that people who were acting legally and within the law paid to get their loved one in, we are going to put their applications on hold because I have got a whole bunch of people over here who entered illegally that I want to come in. I am sure they will vote Democrat when they get the chance, but I need them beholden to the Federal Government, so we are going to bring in these people that didn't believe in following the law, give them amnesty and a work permit, allow a $3,000 bonus under ObamaCare to businesses that hire them, get rid of their American workers, their legal immigrants, and hire people that came in illegally. The question arises, and it is a very important question because it has criminal consequences, if anyone within the United States Government, executive branch particularly, takes money that was ordered for one purpose under the law and converts that money's use to another without getting the permission of Congress, without jumping through the hoops that are required to use that money for another purpose and use it for a purpose such as getting a lease in Crystal City so that you can set up your amnesty mill, you have got a problem, and so do we because you may have violated the law, and it may be a crime. I am hopeful that we are at the early stages of getting to the bottom of that so we can find out whether somebody broke the law. We know that there are criminal statutes regarding government workers if they use their position, particularly at the IRS, and yet Lois Lerner basically got caught redhanded, took the Fifth Amendment. Even still, the President, the executive branch didn't want to get rid of her, so paid her to stay home for a while. But nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been pursued out of those laws that were broken in the Internal Revenue Service to go after conservative groups. No question. We don't know the full extent, but no question, it had to have helped the President in the election of 2012. All you have got to do is keep your opponents from being able to form groups like the Democrats have. Of course, a lot of the Democrats' funding comes from government money that goes through unions and ends up helping Democrats, but these are groups that were raising their own money that they had earned. It wasn't money received from the government. People who actually did build that, they did earn that, and they were wanting to pool their money for political purposes, but the IRS put them on hold for long enough, some of them for years, so that they could not play any role in the 2012 election. This administration was able to use the laws or the Tax Code and use the IRS in ways Richard Nixon could have only dreamed of. He had an enemies list, but he was not able to carry out the vendetta like some in the IRS appear to have done. So that is here in this country as people are suffering, workers struggling, especially African American minority workers, their unemployment rate so dramatically higher. I have had people ask me--and I am not really sure of the answer--if President Obama actually should get all the credit for the jobs that have been created in the United States, then why in the world was he creating them all in Texas, most of them in Texas? That just seems a little strange. But I would think his supporters would certainly fall away from supporting someone in the Democratic Party that creates jobs mainly in a very red State. But if that is true and he gets the credit for creating all the jobs in Texas, over a million, then he is to be congratulated on the bipartisan nature of that effort, although the Senate would wonder whether or not he actually participated in that. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to one of the more horrendous acts that man has inflicted on man. The Islamic State--and that first word is ``Islamic''--released a video that shows, or purports to show, Jordanian pilot al-Kaseasbeh prior to being burned alive. The video released today appears to show him being burned alive. Some say: How could they do such a thing? It seems to me that if one human being can take a dull knife and jaggedly cut off the head of another human being, he is probably pretty capable of burning another human being alive. There is evil in this world. Adolf Hitler manifested pure evil. It is the only way he could have been responsible for the mass killings of 6 million Jews in Europe. It is unbelievable, but when the United States fails to lead, fails to point out the horrors and the ideology behind it and goes to war against those who invoke this kind of evil and push it and use it against human beings, at a time when the United States is called the lone superpower, then the vacuum in the world of power is filled by the most evil among us, and that is what is happening. It is unbelievable, and yet this is who these radical Islamists are. One story after another in the news about that pilot being burned alive, and yet we come to the story of the President addressing this today, this one entitled, ``Obama Comments on Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive, Doesn't Know What `Ideology' Islamic State Follows.'' The President is quoted as saying: I just got word of the video that had been released. Should in fact this video be authentic, it is just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. He wouldn't even call the organization the Islamic State, which is what they call themselves. The President says: It, I think, will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It is interesting. The President doesn't say we are going to defeat this radical ideology, this Islamic State, we will defeat them, we will stop them. It brings to mind the response of Winston Churchill. He was making sure everyone knew that Britain was not going to let evil win, that they were going to fight them on the beaches, fight them on the land, fight them in the air, fight them wherever they found them. Our leader in this current world crisis here in the United States, the position some say is the most powerful leader's position in the world, says: And it, I think, will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. But it doesn't stop there. Our President goes on to say: It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it is bankrupt. ``Whatever ideology they are operating off of''? It is called the Islamic State. I have seen amazing prosecutors at work trying to pull together a case. I have seen incredible law enforcement minds at work as they try to put together pieces of the puzzle to figure out some law enforcement mystery, figure out the source of some crime. But I don't think it would take the more brilliant law enforcement officers in our country-- so many that I have met and come to appreciate their intellect. I don't think it takes them to figure out what ideology they are out of, because the first piece of the puzzle when we are looking to determine what ideology these evil men are working out of, let's see, what do they call themselves? We will start with that clue. They call themselves the Islamic State. Well, that would seem to indicate that perhaps the ideology they are out of would be an Islamic ideology. Since these people get real upset if anybody draws a cartoon--for example, about the prophet Muhammad, as they call him--then perhaps it is that people that hold Muhammad as a prophet is another unifying clue to the ideology. Perhaps since they are willing to kill people, as they did in Afghanistan when Korans were found being burned because they had been defaced by Muslims using them to pass messages--and the proper remedy for defaced Korans is to destroy them like that--but nonetheless, they killed people because they didn't like Americans--people they consider infidels--burning the Korans that were defaced by Muslims. These seem to be clues that keep bringing us back to the fact that the most evil people in our world today appear to claim radical Islam as their ideology, and I know there are Muslim Brothers who have made clear they want a caliphate. One of the top advisers in the Homeland Security Department here tweeted out back last August, I believe it was, that the caliphate is inevitable, so people just need to get used to the idea. In fact, as I understand it, he put together a long message in recent days that went on a tear after Christians and, as I understand, basically pointing out that maybe the Islamists should be called evangelical Islamists. Well, that has a different meaning, and I am sure Mr. Elibiary doesn't quite understand the term ``evangelical'' because evangelical Christian means you bring peace to the world and you introduce them to knowledge of Jesus Christ. You bring them knowledge of Jesus Christ as a man of peace, and you don't kill them if they don't accept Jesus as their savior. There have been Christians during different historic times in the world that were barbarians and deserved to be put to death for being so barbaric, but the current state of the world is that the most evil people right now are not Christians. One of my Republican friends and I were talking earlier today. I am a Baptist. When a Baptist church, Westboro or any other, does things that are really despicable, we call them out. My friend was Catholic. He said that if the Catholic church does something improper, he calls them out. We also understand that there is a reluctance among moderate Muslims to stand up and condemn the ideology of radical Islam that is so barbaric because they know that if they do that, they shoot to the top of the hit list of people to be taken out. They understand that. They become horrific apostates in the eyes of radical Islamists and should be taken out, in the minds that are so marred by this evil radical Islamic thinking that would allow someone to have their head jaggedly cut off or to be put in a cage and set on fire. To whom much is given, of them much is required. For those who believe the teaching of the Bible, we believe that. We are going to have the President's National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning. There should be people from over 140 or 150 countries there, and that is one time I am greatly appreciative of the President's espoused faith. We can put politics aside. We are supposed to. We did last year while I was cochair. Janice Hahn was cochair. We can thank God. Radical Islamists can't put aside their evil ideology because they want to force it upon everyone, and they are not going to rest until they are dead and they take as many of what they call infidels with them as possible. So it shouldn't have been a big surprise to see this story from Breitbart: ISIS members marched into a Syrian town Friday demanding that all crosses be removed from the churches or have the buildings be completely destroyed. That is according to the Assyrian Patriotic Party. Two trucks carrying 20 armed ISIS members stormed into the predominantly Assyrian town of Tel Hormizd in Hassakeh and forced the residents to remove the cross from the main church tower. Hassakeh, an area made up of five Assyrian villages, is located on the Khabur River. That is radical Islamic ideology, Mr. Speaker, for those in this town who are not aware; but I guess if you are part of this administration, you shouldn't consider that to be all that radical because this administration, under their watch, with Commander in Chief Barack Obama, had orders given to remove crosses from the chapels on our military installations. So maybe--is it possible--radical Islamists could just be following the example that was set by the top commander in our United States military that we want the crosses removed from our chapels? Well, unfortunately, the radical Islamists in the Middle East go further. They want all Americans dead. They want all Jews dead. They want Israel wiped off the map. They want the United States, as the great Satan, to become a caliphate, paying homage to their choice of leaders, not ours. That is an affront to the Constitution, and anyone who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution should fight shari'a law supplanting our Constitution. I was also talking today with someone who works with victims in Nigeria. Boko Haram remains not only unapologetic for the death, torture, and suffering that they have caused to Christians in Nigeria, but they are emboldened. No one from the United States with power to stop them has lifted a finger, other than to tweet: ``Bring back our girls.'' Having been over there, talking to victims' families--I had it reaffirmed today--the Twitter campaign that was started by this administration against Boko Haram has not been effective. Again, they have been emboldened. I was advised that there are Christian children in northeast Nigeria who haven't been to school for 2 years because they know that if they do, they will be killed. If they are boys, they will be killed. If they are girls, they will normally be made sex slaves or sold into sex slavery or made into wives who are basically slaves. They are told to convert or be killed. In meeting with parents, whose hearts are broken, they have heard that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, but they don't know that because they can't understand, if the United States is so powerful--and if it was powerful and good and not evil like Boko Haram--then why wouldn't we lend something more than a tweet to stop the evil. I also did note that there is a story of French planes helping with intelligence on the Nigerian border. That is encouraging. The United States does not have to send boots on the ground to Nigeria in order to help defeat Boko Haram. Yes, I understand from people I know and respect in Nigeria that Boko Haram has infiltrated the main government, so it is hard to do anything effectively as the Nigerian Government, with Boko Haram becoming more and more powerful each week. But because this country has been given so much, if we don't lend a helping hand to stop the most evil entities and people in the world, there will be American lives lost in big numbers in this country, and it is not going to be in the distant future. In Africa, if Boko Haram takes over Nigeria, as they are well on their way toward pushing to do, then no Christian and no Jew in all of Africa is safe. In fact, they will seek to help establish that caliphate that the Obama adviser in Homeland Security had tweeted out last summer was inevitable. Well, if Boko Haram is not stopped, they will be inevitable in Africa. Radical Islam--that ideology the President is not familiar with--that radical Islamism will take over Africa. God bless the Egyptians. They stood up against the Muslim Brothers. The Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, has been labeled as a terrorist organization. CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some countries consider CAIR to be a radical Islamic terrorist organization, but not here in America because the President relies on them for advice. The Muslim Brotherhood, in the United States, has not been labeled a terrorist organization, like it has in our ally, the UAE, Egypt, other places because, here in the United States, the Muslim Brothers' leaders are sought for advice by this administration. If we don't stand up against radical Islam--as President Bush talked about, I would rather stop it over there than have to stop it here. Well, it is here. There are cells here. There are people who have been radicalized here. There are people who have been born here, like al-Awlaki, who have their American citizen passport, and they have grown up hating America from wherever they were raised, and they have free access in and out of the United States because their parents, or at least their mother, came here. I thought a few years ago it would be years before we saw that kind of effect here. But we know al-Awlaki, whom the President blew up with a drone in Yemen, was helpful in radicalizing people here. Although the President is not familiar with the ideology that was at work at Fort Hood in that act of war at Fort Hood, the act of war in killing a military recruiter in Arkansas, the acts of war that have been taking place as they did in Boston, it is radical Islam. And yes, you don't have to qualify that. We understand that most Muslims do not believe in radical Islam. We got that. We don't need the qualifier every time something is said about radical Islam. We get it. But radical Islam should be identified for what it is. It breaks my heart to say it, but it is a fact. If we don't do more to stop radical Islam in the world, there are large numbers of Americans that are going to die that don't have to. It doesn't have to happen. But we have to have an administration wake up to the danger that faces the world's Christians and Jews, and people who believe in democracy and who believe in representative government, and not shari'a law; because if we don't act as leaders on the world stage and positively point out, that is radical Islam, and we are going to stop radical Islam--and the moderates of the world understand we are not talking about them. They understand radical Islam is a threat to them and their lives if they stand up against it. They get that. But I have met moderate Muslims around the world who are willing to lay down their lives because they don't want radical Islamists controlling their country, and they hope, and they do pray, that the United States will wake up and recognize what ideology the President knows not of, and finally see it is radical Islam, and we are going to stop it. 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, there is a great deal going on, and I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the 70th anniversary of something that should never have happened in civilized society. This is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp. As a schoolboy growing up in east Texas, later attending Texas A&M, and especially in my time, my 4 years in the United States Army, as we discussed and looked at World War II, things that had occurred then--I was a history major and was with the Army for 4 years and majored in history. It was just always amazing. How could people who said they were civilized kill 6 million of any race, gender, national origin? How could that happen? But it did happen. On learning that Eisenhower required people from the surrounding villages to be brought in to help clean up concentration camps, death camps--as I understood the reason--was so no one could ever deny that the death camps occurred. I thought that seemed ridiculous. How could anybody deny the Holocaust? There aren't all that many survivors, but there are enough, and the evidence is there, and it clearly happened. But just as Hitler showed, if any lie is told often enough, people begin to believe it, especially if it is even printed. Here is something that was in print yesterday from a man named Martin Greenfield from foxnews.com, and these are Martin Greenfield's words. Mr. Greenfield said: Seventy years ago, I was in a Nazi concentration camp. Since then, I have seen tyrants and dictators enter and exit the global stage; yet as the world prepares to mark the 70th anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation, it is perhaps well and right that we reflect on how the Holocaust shocked the moral imagination on a scale the world could scarcely fathom. Why ponder such things? Because for far too many, the Holocaust remains a mystery. A major poll taken last year of 53,000 people found that just 54 percent had ever heard of the Holocaust. Knowledge of Auschwitz is likely even more limited, particularly among young people. Past surveys have shown that nearly half of Britons had never heard of Auschwitz. Some schoolchildren even thought Auschwitz was a type of beer. Here at home in America, a debate erupted last year when a teenager posted a smiling selfie at Auschwitz. Whatever your opinion on the appropriateness of her actions, I was at least pleased to be reminded that some young Americans still visit the Nazi concentration camp to learn history up close. I, too, visited Auschwitz as a teenager. In 1944, my family and I stood in line before Dr. Josef Mengele--the Nazi physician known as the ``Angel of Death''--as my mother, grandparents, two sisters, and baby brother were all sent to the left to be burned in Hitler's ovens. My father and I were sent to the right. The first night inside Auschwitz, my father said we must separate because, together, we would suffer double. He quoted his father, ``On your own, you will survive,'' his father told him. ``You are young and strong, and I know you will survive. If you survive by yourself, you must honor us by living, by not feeling sorry for us. This is what you must do.'' That was the last time I ever saw my father. I am grateful for my father's words of grace and guidance. They echo in my heart even still. It is a cruel thing, feeling guilty for surviving, but my father erased any future guilt and replaced it with purpose. It was a gift only a father's wisdom could give. It gave me a reason to go forward, a reason to be. It does still. Part of heeding my father's words involved replacing the horrors of my Holocaust past with a life spent creating beauty in the form of hand-tailored suits for U.S. Presidents, Hollywood films, and the world's most influential men. In fact, my first sewing lesson took place in the Auschwitz concentration camp laundry when I accidentally ripped the collar of a Nazi soldier's shirt. A guard beat me before a kind, older inmate taught me how to sew a simple stitch to repair the torn shirt. It was hardly the ideal tailoring apprenticeship, but it was my first lesson in the skill that became my livelihood. But at 86, another part of honoring my father's wishes requires being a voice for the voiceless. Indeed, as parents, educators, and citizens, we must all do our part to help ensure that ``Never Forget'' remains much more than a threadbare catchphrase that gathers dust and loses meaning with each passing year. For example, many people are surprised to learn that Auschwitz was actually a complex comprised of three main camps and dozens of satellites. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's statistics estimate that between 1940 and 1945, at least 1.1 million Jews and 200,000 of Hitler's undesirables were sent to the Auschwitz complex. Of those, 1.1 million were murdered. As I have noted elsewhere, that number would have been far greater were it not for the courage of the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who traveled around the world to defeat a moral darkness that consumed at least 6 million Jewish souls. That is a lesson worthy of remembrance. The 70th anniversary of the liberation marks that moment when freedom conquered barbarism through sureness of virtue and strength of will. Sadly, as recent events reveal, that remains a lesson humanity must learn and relearn from generation to generation. The word ``Holocaust'' means sacrifice by fire. May the memory of the millions who were engulfed in the flames like my family never be forgotten. That is Martin Greenfield, 70 years after being liberated from Auschwitz death camp. There is another article from CBC News. Aleksandra Sagan includes this regarding Mordechai Ronen, 82, born with the family name Markovits. He would be making a second visit to Auschwitz for the commemoration ceremonies. At nearly 12, Ronen saw Auschwitz for the first time as a prisoner after soldiers forced all the Jews in his Hungarian town into a ghetto and, 2 weeks later, shipped them in cattle cars to the camp. Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazis' Angel of Death, sent Ronen's mother and two sisters to the gas chambers on arrival. Young Ronen made a lifesaving decision when he held on to his father's hand and joined the line of men. He spent about 2 weeks at Auschwitz, where he witnessed soldiers using an infant for target practice and slept on piles of corpses to avoid selection for the gas chamber. He and his father were moved to a nearby labor camp where the brutality continued. One day, his father told Ronen he could no longer get up to work for the cement brigade. Ronen last saw his father as soldiers took him away. It is the only day he remembers crying and the day he decided to survive. Ronen was liberated from a third camp, Gunskirchen, and remembers walking to a nearby town, knocking on a resident's door and asking if he could take a shower. Ronen, who prefers to be called a ``victorer'' rather than a survivor, first returned to Auschwitz in 1999, when he guided then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien around the grounds. It is important to Ronen to show the world he is alive and to share the history of the Holocaust. ``Maybe the world will realize what we went through, and it will be the end, and we are going to have peace and quiet in the world,'' he explains. Unfortunately, it is not the end of horrors. Tragically, Christians now are being killed, persecuted, and tortured in greater numbers than ever in the history of the world. Anti-Semitism, hatred against Jews, is growing like I couldn't have imagined. In college, when I studied in history, I couldn't have imagined the kind of anti-Jewish hatred, the kind of anti-Semitism that would be growing as it has, and the United States of America would be doing precious little about it instead of standing up for the Jewish people and calling out anti-Semitism where it exists and where it grows and proliferates, as it does in the United Nations, for example, as it has in Europe, as it has in England, as it has right here in America. It is unconscionable that at a time in world history when the United States is said to be the true superpower of the world--even as that power has been seen as diminishing by people around the world, as polling indicates around the world, but still to be seen as the great superpower--as anti-Jewish hatred grows and we do precious little about it, and even at times stoke those flames, even in our universities, who are so proud of accepting massive amounts of money from people who are part of organizations that hate Jews and fund such courses or seminars on things like Islamophobia, not a liberated mental process of recognizing anti-Semitism, recognizing Jewish hatred--no, stoking those flames against the Jewish people. It is unbelievable that it is happening here in America as well. And it is even more unbelievable that it is happening among what some would refer to as the intelligentsia, those who are supposed to be more enlightened than the rest of a nation, who see things as they truly are. And yet, in America, some of those supposed enlightened intelligentsia are growing to be some of the most anti-Semitic people in the country. How did all this happen? Money for one thing, political power for another. But it has to stop. Money and initially power in Nazi Germany stoked the flames of anti-Jewish hatred. But there is anti-Christian hatred growing as well. Radical Islam has proliferated around the world. Violent radical Islam has grown. They aren't junior varsities. These are literal cutthroats who have to be stopped. It is not enough for the United States administration to beg radical Islamists, Jew- and Christian-hating leaders to sit at the table or offer to let their murderers go free if they will just sit down and visit with us, reminiscent of what Jimmy Carter wanted to do after an act of war was committed against our Embassy, and in the 36 years that have followed, what appeared to radical Islamists as a weak, paper tiger, toothless America did nothing but beg to sit down and talk and try to encourage Iran to let our prisoners go. It was not until Ronald Reagan took office they were released. They never wanted to fight the United States superpower. That has been changed over the years. Since '79, when they committed an act of war, attacked our Embassy, around the world people have been shown: Oh, you can do that against the United States and get away with it. The good thing is they may end up leaving your country and then they may offer to give you money. They may offer to release murderers from prison so they can come back and help kill more Americans. You know, they are not very smart over there in the United States. That has been going on since 1979. It is tragic when we encourage radical Islamist holocausts, which is what they would like to do, they said they were going to do, by letting the murderers go. How could this administration for months now think that Yemen was a great example of moderate Islam working out? I have known since a constituent months ago was in jeopardy, and we were able to get special ops people to help get them out. According to them, the Embassy was attacked many months ago. Back at the time Embassy personnel officially said: ``No, it was a nearby attack, but it wasn't us.'' When the Iranian-backed Houthis, the radical Islamists in Yemen, were taking over the capital and taking over the country--and instead of standing up firmly against them and protecting our American interests we were releasing murderers, radical Islamic murderers--we were talking about how wonderful things were in Yemen. That is exactly how the kind of anti-Jewish, anti-Christian sentiment could grow to the point of having a holocaust. It is literally breathtaking for an administration not to understand that while it is trying to placate radical Islamic leaders in Iran and telling them: ``We just want to talk. As long as you will keep talking to us, we will keep Israel from protecting themselves to their own detriment. Just keep talking to us and you keep those centrifuges spinning, that is fine with us.'' Now we know, we have been informed, that the administration has taken complete dismantlement of the centrifuges and their equipment to help them create nuclear weapons off the table. It is not even something they are demanding anymore. In other words, the word is out that this administration is apparently okay with Iran getting nukes but just would prefer that it wait until after this President leaves office. It doesn't matter when a President leaves office. If an administration gives bloodthirsty zealots the ability to create a holocaust, history does not forgive them simply because they had already left office when the holocaust actually started. Nigeria doesn't need us to send troops to stop the radical Islamists there, but they need help. Boko Haram continues to kill, rape, torture. There it is about going after Christians. The small-scale holocausts that Boko Haram is creating don't get so much as a whimper these days from this administration. They may say a few words, but they are hollow and they do not affect Boko Haram as they continue to be emboldened. Just like when the IRS was caught redhanded being weaponized and used as a Democratic political tool, which appears to have violated criminal law--yes, we have had hearings, but we haven't held them accountable. And, therefore, it seems to have encouraged even more impropriety by people within the IRS. When people get caught in impropriety and don't pay a cost, then you see what we are seeing in Nigeria, you see what we are seeing in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Syria, in Iran, in Iraq, and in Libya. Oh, I know the President, his administration, bragged about the Arab Spring and about taking out Qadhafi, who had become an ally after he gave up any efforts for nuclear weapons, completely opened his defenses to the United States. This administration and the prior administration had agreements with Qadhafi. But this administration never lets agreements get in the way of helping radical Islamists. Because this administration did help radical Islam turn Libya into a smoking country where people die, where our own people were not protected, because of the fantasy of those who thought that somehow the name, the United States, would be adequate to keep Chris Stevens and the other Americans safe in Benghazi. We didn't need to give them added security like they asked for, we didn't even need to respond when Chris Stevens called and said they were under attack--never said anything about a video because it was not. But that smokescreen worked. The President got reelected. He didn't have to account for that before the election, still hasn't had to account for where he was and why help was not forthcoming. I mean, even after 20 hours this administration that had planes--we know for sure within 3\1/2\ hours--after 20 hours they get a private plane there, that is it. David Ubben, with most of his leg, right leg, blown off, no painkillers, no morphine, they don't have a C-130 that they land to take him up in on a gurney. They get a private plane from somebody who wasn't even American, and they have to knock David up against the door, turning the gurney every which way trying to get him in, without painkillers, causing more pain, more suffering, because this administration, apparently they were thinking that if they sent more help than just a private plane like that, a military plane, if that were sent, it might look like Libya were not the wonderful country that this administration helped create by bombing Qadhafi out of existence. And, yes, it was not, it is true, it was not a U.S. bomb that took Qadhafi out. But our bombs put him on the run, our bombs stopped his caravan. Our President wouldn't respond for 3 days after Qadhafi offered to leave in exile and avoid any bloodshed before it all started. This administration didn't respond. Obviously, they were okay with having bloodshed and Qadhafi being wiped out. So they got what they were hoping for, obviously. But what do we have now? We have a country in Libya that is in absolute turmoil. By the way, because Libya is in turmoil due to this administration, they are helping turn Egypt into as much turmoil as they can. Thank God for President el-Sisi. In having met with him on more than one occasion, I was impressed by the man. Before he was President, he asked that we bring back a message to this administration since this administration-- this President--froze the helicopters that were being sent, the Apaches. The question was: Does this administration--does this President--not understand that we use the Apache helicopters to keep the Suez Canal open? Although there were some that bought Morsi's lies that he was deweaponizing the Sinai--supposedly to diminish the threat to Israel from the Sinai--and after Morsi was removed for his unconstitutional actions, not in a coup but in an uprising, which was a peaceful revolution by reportedly over 30 million of their 90 million people, they found that the Sinai had been dramatically weaponized and had been contributing weapons equipment to Gaza to help threaten and cause terror to Israel. Once again, whether it is the Sinai, Gaza, northern Israel that was given to Lebanon, it seems going back to the very inception of Israel-- back when Israel was first brought, according to the Bible, into the Promised Land--we know of Canaan. The Canaanites no longer exist, so other people claim it who are not Canaanites. Actually, the Israelis had claim to it after the Canaanites. Others who occupied the land back over 3,000 years ago don't exist. This land, according to the Bible, was given to the children of Israel. It seems to be true that there has never been a time when Israel gave away land when trying to buy peace that that land that they gave away was not used as a staging area from which to attack it. Gaza, what a noble thing to do by the Israelis. They took an area that was prosperous, self-sustaining, with greenhouses growing vegetables that would feed the people who lived there. An amazing place was the Gaza Strip. Then some noble Israeli leaders thought, Do you know what? It is not required. We are getting absolutely nothing in return, but we are going to do the unilateral act that will be so noble, that will be so full of grace that the world, even those who don't like us, will go, Wow. Those Israelis, they are okay. They are nice folks. Look, they didn't get anything in return; yet they still gave away the Gaza Strip. What a wonderful group of people. I mean, that just doesn't happen. The United States never gave back its land to England or to Spain or to France or to other countries that initially had claims here. Other countries don't do that, but Israel did. They gave away the Gaza Strip. Previous to that, they had given away what northern Israel now calls southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon, people will recall, has been the site of attacks on Israelis--war. So how was this grace, this beneficence of Israel's giving the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, rewarded? It has been rewarded by their giving back to Israel thousands upon thousands upon thousands of rockets. Some kill. All terrorize. All cost money to Israel. The most important problem they have created is the threat to life, the threat to their existence; and we still have people in this country who say, Well, if you just keep giving away land, eventually, they will be satisfied, when the very materials that are being promoted by the people this administration supports among the Islamists--they made very clear the reason we name holidays, streets, areas, parks after suicide bombers who kill innocent children, women, men is that we, ultimately, are going to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. We hate Jews that much; and this administration thinks, somehow, they will bring radical Islam around to really being this group of peace. Now, there is a document that was an exhibit in the United States v. the Holy Land Foundation in which there were many individuals and groups named as coconspirators. They were not indicted, but they were named as coconspirators. It includes the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, which has a nice office building just up the street here, and the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, the leader of which is Imam Magid, who goes to the White House, who goes to the State Department, who advises the President and let's him know when somebody is criticizing Islam, so the administration steps in and goes after him. In this exhibit from the Holy Land Foundation trial--it was the biggest funding of terrorism case ever in U.S. history, and people who were involved originally had indicated the goal was to convict these first five, to name all of these coconspirators, and if we get convictions of those first five, like we think we should, then we proceed and go after the remainder. They were convicted in late 2008. President Obama took office a month or two later, and this administration would under no circumstances go after these people who had been alleged in the documents of funding radical Islamic terrorism even after the U.S. District Court in Dallas and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans confirmed that there was plenty of evidence to support that someone like ISNA or CAIR was a legitimate coconspirator named in the indictment and that their names would not be removed. I have asked for years now of the Justice Department to make available the documents that were provided to the convicted terrorists--those funding terrorism or terrorists--and this administration now, for years, has drug their feet and has refused to provide all of the documents that were provided to the terrorists. On one occasion, the Attorney General basically said there are issues here of privilege, and my point was--and is--you gave them to the terrorists; surely, you can give them to Members of Congress. But the answer is, no, they can't. They are going to keep obfuscating. They don't want us to see all of the documents that they had in their possession that they gave to the terrorists. I have a feeling, if we saw all of the documents, it would be very, very clear in the purging that this administration has done of our training materials of the FBI's, of the intelligence agency's, of the State Department's, and the Justice Department's that, if there is anything that might bother a radical Islamist who wants to kill us, then it has to be removed. They removed it. In the document from a 1991 meeting, in what is called an ``Explanatory Memorandum,'' it spells out their goals. It was written in 1991 by a member of the board of directors of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and by a senior Hamas leader named Mohamed Akram. It had been approved by the Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council and Organizational Conference, and it was meant for internal review by the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt. It was not intended for public consumption. These are the words from the introduction that is part of this document from the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the document, itself, prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1991, setting their goals for America: One: The Memorandum is Derived from: One, the general strategic goal of the group in America, which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year 1987, is: ``Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally and which works to expand the observant Muslim base; aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts; presents Islam as a civilization alternative; and supports the global Islamic state--if that name sounds familiar--wherever it is.'' Two, the priority that is approved by the Shura Council for the work of the group in its current and former session, which is ``settlement.'' Skipping down to ``Two: An Introduction to the Explanatory Memorandum,'' it says: The question we are facing is: ``How do you like to see the Islam movement in North America in 10 years?'' or ``taking along'' the following sentence when planning and working ``Islamic Work in North America in the year 2000: A strategic vision.'' It goes on: Also, we must summon and take along elements of the general strategic goal of the group in North America. For those large numbers of people in college who may not realize, North America is where we live. The document says: I will intentionally repeat them in numbers. They are: One, establishing an effective and stable Islamic movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Two, adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally. Three, expanding the observant Muslim base. Four, unifying and directing Muslim efforts. Five, presenting Islam as a civilization alternative. Six, supporting the establishment of the global Islamic state, wherever it is. The document says: It must be stressed that it has become clear and emphatically known that all is in agreement that we must ``settle'' or ``enable'' Islam and its movement in this part of the world. Three: The Concept of Settlement: The term was mentioned in the group's ``dictionary'' and documents with various meanings in spite of the fact that everyone meant one thing with it. We believe that the understanding of the essence is the same, and we will attempt here to give the word and its ``meanings'' a practical explanation with a practical movement tone and not a philosophical linguistic explanation, while stressing that this explanation of ours is not complete until our explanation of ``the process'' of settlement itself is understood which is mentioned in the following paragraph. We briefly say the following: Settlement: ``That Islam and its movement become a part of the homeland it lives in.'' Establishment: ``That Islam turns into firmly rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure, and testimony are built.'' Further down, it goes on, ``That Islam is stable in the land.'' Rooting: ``That Islam is resident and not a passing thing or rooted `entrenched' in the soil of the spot where it moves and not a strange plant to it.'' Four: The Process of Settlement: In order for Islam and its movement to become ``a part of the homeland'' in which it lives-- Talking about North America. --``stable'' in its land, ``rooted'' in the spirits and minds of its people, ``enabled'' in the life of its society and has firmly established ``organizations'' on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the movement must plan and struggle to obtain ``the keys'' and the tools of this process in carrying out this grand mission as a ``civilization jihadist'' responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and--on top of them--the Muslim Brotherhood in this country. Talking about here in the United States, North America. ``Among these keys and tools are the following.'' It goes on to talk about the settlement concept and the fundamental shift toward settlement of this country. Number four: Understanding the Role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a ``civilization jihadist process,'' with all the word means. Anyway, it goes on. Another place here, it says: There is a conviction--with which this memorandum disagrees--that our focus in attempting to settle Islam in this country will lead to negligence in our duty towards the global Islamic movement in supporting its project to establish the state. We believe that the reply is in two segments. One, the success of the movement in America-- Talking about the United States of America. One, the success of the movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global movement project. And the second is the global movement has not succeeded yet in ``distributing roles'' to its branches, stating what is the needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani branch will have far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud. It is a great document goal for taking over the United States, which brings another story to the surface. It is from Bob Price from breitbart.com. ``Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas; Attorney Claims 'It's Voluntary,''' and it talks about the new Islamic tribunal in Texas that has been confirmed now by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a nonprofit organization in Dallas. Because when you understand the goals, if there is a major defeat or a major success, Muslim Brotherhood requires a mosque be built there and a presence there. Naturally, they would want one at Ground Zero in New York; further, they would want a mosque and a strong presence in Dallas which was, they believe, the place of their big defeat when the Holy Land Foundation principals were convicted and sent to prison. I did want to point out, as we finish up here today, that the President was giving an excellent speech in India about the importance of stopping the global war on women. He didn't call it that. He only calls it that for Republicans, but there is a war on women, and it is not by Republicans. It is radical Islam and even some moderate Islamists. He is giving this talk about the importance of recognizing the importance and the equality of women--or some of us might say they are more equal than we are--but as he was doing that, this picture was on Saudi television. We have our United States President depicted here, and this is the First Lady of the United States of America being blurred out by this country's allies because she wasn't covered. Michelle Obama should never need to be covered if she doesn't want to be; yet at the very time our President is talking about equality of women, he fails to notice that people that he considers allies are treating his own wife like this. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we stand up against radical Islam or any Islam that wants a settlement civilization jihad in America. Anything and anybody who disagrees with the United States Constitution and wants to destroy it, tear it down, is an enemy to the United States and needs to be recognized as such and not welcomed with open arms at the State Department and the White House. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson). No Nuclear Iran

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a week. There have been tragedies, and there have been wonderful events. In having been to Nigeria this past year and in having met with family members of girls who were kidnapped because they went to Christian schools, there were three girls I met who had escaped after they had been kidnapped. The kidnapped girls, it was known, were being sexually abused and may have now been sold into sex trafficking, given as wives, and have been ordered to convert from Christianity to Islam or be killed. I know there are some in this town who think they are being asked to convert to an Islam that doesn't exist as a religion, but to those girls who are being told they must convert to the religion of Islam or be killed, it does seem to be a religion. In having grieved with others around the world who have been harmed or who have had family killed or harmed by radical Islam, it is tragic this week. I will read a story from Breitbart: According to the United Nations, ISIS--the Islamic State-- is killing educated women following shari'a court sentences. That is a problem. There is nothing wrong with religious people participating in government. Most of our Founders were very strong Christians. Around a third or so of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were actually ordained Christian servants. So that is a good thing, but when a religion also becomes the state, then this is the kind of thing you get, and it is tragic. In an article by Edwin Mora, it says: The U.N. warned on Tuesday that the Islamic State, known as ISIS, ISIL, or IS, is showing a ``monstrous disregard for human life'' in the areas it has conquered, which include swaths of Iraq and Syria. This article points out: Nevertheless, President Obama, during his State of the Union Address delivered Tuesday night, proclaimed that the United States ``is stopping ISIL's advance'' in Iraq and Syria. Just last week, The Daily Beast, citing an unnamed Pentagon official, reported that, despite U.S.-led airstrikes, ISIS is gaining ground in Syria. The U.N. warned that the jihadist group is meting out ``cruel and inhuman punishments against men, women, and children'' through ``unlawful'' shari'a courts it has established in territory under its control. The civilians falling victim to ISIS' wrath are accused of ``violating the group's extremist interpretations of Islamic shari'a law or for suspected disloyalty,'' said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. ISIS has killed fellow jihadists and local residents for violating the harsh version of Islamic law imposed on the areas it now controls. ``Educated, professional women, particularly women who had run as candidates in elections for public office, seem to be particularly at risk. In just the first 2 weeks of the year, reports indicated that three female lawyers were executed.'' It goes on: ``The ruthless murder of two men who were thrown off the top of a building after having been accused of homosexual acts by a so-called `court' in Mosul is another terrible example of the kind of monstrous disregard for human life that characterized ISIL's reign of terror over areas of Iraq that were under the group's control.'' Look. I know, Mr. Speaker, that our President stood right here at the second level and told us ``the shadow of crisis has passed.'' Apparently, he is not getting the briefings, or maybe the briefings don't include just how bad the situation is around the world. Christians are being persecuted and are being killed in greater numbers than at any time in history since Jesus came. Jews are being subjected to anti-Semitic hate in many places, we are told, which has not been seen since before and during World War II. Now, in growing up reading and studying history, I couldn't imagine that there would ever come another day that we would see hate growing against Jewish people that could inspire another Holocaust. I just didn't think it would happen. So, when I had read about General Eisenhower's having soldiers bring people from the surrounding communities to help clean up the death camps, I thought: These are civilians in the community, and that may have been a little harsh if they had nothing to do with the death camps. I had read that his reasoning was--and this was many years ago--that he wanted to make sure that nobody could ever proclaim that the death camps did not exist and that they were a figment of someone's imagination. He wanted to make sure that could not happen, so they were brought out to clean up. Yet, mere decades later, here we are at a time when there are radical Islamists calling for a new, greater Holocaust to kill Jewish people, calling for the complete wiping off the map of Israel, calling for the complete destruction of what they call the ``Great Satan''--the United States. The shadow of crisis may have passed, but the mental image I got when I heard the President say ``the shadow of crisis has passed'' took me back to fifth grade. I was very small in elementary school, and there was one guy who could have been two grades ahead, but he had been held back. He was about two heads taller than I was. I was on the playground one day, and as a little kid, I saw Ray's shadow pass me. I turned around, and I got smashed in the face, and it made my nose bleed. That was the image I had when the President invoked the shadow of the crisis' passing. If the shadow of this crisis has passed, then we may be just about to get smacked in the face by these radical Islamists, and it will be a lot more than a bloody nose that ends up occurring. This is a very desperate time in the world for millions of people. Since they, perhaps, weren't journalists--the nearly 2,000 or so Nigerians who were killed by radical Islamists--Boko Haram, in Nigeria, didn't quite get the attention I thought it should have as did the horrendous killings in Paris get the attention, as they absolutely should have. Under Western civilization law--and it was true in the early days of this country, and it has been true, as far as I know, under every State's law. I know, absolutely, it is true under State law--when it comes to a physical assault, the law has been clear: provoking words are never a defense to a physical assault. In this country, under our law and under the law of every State, no matter what you say, it does not justify a physical attack. We have even had the President of the United States basically stand up before the U.N., stand up in front of media, stand up in front of crowds, and say that we need to be more careful. But he goes beyond that. He appears to attribute blame for an attack on the people being attacked to the point that he and those who work for him were asked to go out and tell the country before the 2012 election that a video was responsible for the deaths of four Americans who were serving their country in Benghazi, Libya. It turns out that that was not true at all. It turns out people knew that before that was trotted out. According to the book written about the blood feud between the Clintons and the Obamas, there was a phone call from Hillary Clinton to her husband in which she was upset that the President was asking her to go out and say that the Benghazi attack was the result of a video. According to the book, she was advised that America wouldn't buy a lie like that. Ultimately, they decided, at least, not to have her go on the Sunday shows--again, according to the book--and that, gee, if she resigns, that might cost him the election, and Democrats would be upset about it, so they would never want to nominate her for President if she resigned and cost Obama the election in 2012. That was according to the book as to why she didn't resign, but she didn't go on the Sunday shows. Susan Rice was sent out with that task to blame a video when it was very clear, when Chris Stevens called, saying that he was under attack, there was nothing about a video mentioned. When the warnings were being given by those who were aware of a buildup of radicals--and of potential problems even across the street--nothing was mentioned about a video because it wasn't about a video; but that would have been an inconvenient truth so close to the election. Our heartbreaks collectively for these killings, and it is my hope and prayer--liberal women's groups here in the United States prefer the easy task of attacking conservatives and of creating allegations that, gee, there is some war on women when, actually, as I speak, there is a war on women going on in radical Islamist-held countries. There is a war on baby women going on around the world, and there are people who actually choose to abort babies because they are baby women. There is a war on women, but it is not by conservatives in the country, who want them to have the best health care they can get, who want young girls to have the best care they can get, both in the womb and outside the womb. This isn't where the war on women is occurring. Although there are still some vestiges of prejudice against women, we are very hopeful that since the President has made such a big issue about treating women equally, it won't be too long before the White House will start treating women equally and giving them equal pay for equal work. So I am encouraged the President keeps bringing that up, hoping that will inure to the benefit of people working at the White House so they will eventually be paid what men in the White House are paid. I really do hope that liberal women's groups that take the easy path--taking potshots at conservatives--will stand with us against radical Islam. I asked mothers of girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria: Did they attack this school because it was a school for girls? They said that apparently they didn't realize that it was only girls at the school because they did ask: Where are the boys? Because they wanted to bring them out and shoot them, as they did at other places. When they realized it was only girls, they took them to become slaves, sexually and otherwise, and to force them to convert. But the school wasn't attacked because it was a girls school, because they didn't know it was only for girls. They knew it was Christian. There was also an attack on Christian women. And I would hope that even the most atheist of women in the United States and in Western civilized countries around the world would start standing up for the mistreatment of Christian women who are particularly being brutalized because of their faith and because of their sex, combined. So, of the Presidents we have had since 9/11, the President failed to mention al Qaeda. And I can understand that, and I have to be a little defensive for the President here. He and the Vice President had been saying before the 2012 election that al Qaeda was on the run. In some cases, Osama bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run, and General Motors is alive. Well, it turns out if al Qaeda is on the run, it is a run directly at us and our allies, our friends. And that is particularly true of Israel. They consider Israel the little Satan and us the great Satan, but we have no better friend in the Middle East than Israel. Our President has been overheard on a microphone that picked him up basically casting aspersions on the character of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Fair people that I have known, if they ever got caught maligning someone inappropriately, they would go out of their way to show that it was inappropriate--I want to make it up, and I want to show that we are friends. We may have disagreements, but we are friends. Of course, people have read about him treating Prime Minister Netanyahu so poorly when he came to the White House in prior years, having him sit around. One account said he was told: Just wait here. And when you have a change of position, let me know. I'm going to eat with my family. The Prime Minister ended up leaving rather than sitting in his corner for a timeout, as the President wanted. We haven't seen this President make clear to the world that Israel is our friend, as well as to its leader, the people, and the legislature they have elected. We haven't seen those kind of outreaches. And then, we find out the President is upset that the Speaker of the House invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to come speak here on February 11. And perhaps that is yet another indication of the ignorance. And, Mr. Speaker and our Parliamentarian, it doesn't cast aspersions to be ignorant of something--we are all ignorant of things--but apparently there is a blind spot in the Constitution for the President on a number of things, and apparently one is how the legislature works, even though he has been in the Senate, because under the Constitution, we can't have anybody in the people's House come speak here who is not a Member of Congress, with one exception. Under the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's Rules of the House, under which we have been operating since 1789--with modifications, but it has still been the rule, you can't come speak in the House Chamber officially unless you are invited by the House. You can't come speak to a joint session of Congress, both the House and Senate, unless both the House and the Senate invite you. Now how do we know that the President doesn't really grasp that concept and is not aware of the constitutional and the rule ramifications in Congress? It has been a few years back, but the President decided, as I recall, that he was going to come lecture Congress on a jobs bill and tell us--I think it was 16 or so times-- that we had to pass it right now, right away, failing to mention he didn't even have a bill. Nevertheless, the President went out publicly and the statement was released that he was going to come to Congress and speak to Congress on a specific day at a specific time, and he had not even spoken to the Speaker of the House. Maybe he had talked to Majority Leader Reid, but he hadn't talked to the Speaker of the House, and this is the House Chamber where the House actually has to vote to invite him. He didn't even bother to see what was convenient. And as I recall, not only was there ignorance of the rules and the constitutional requirements, but there was also ignorance about the NFL, what is known as football here in the United States, and I believe it was the beginning of the season. The President had just announced he wanted to come to Congress. He demanded to come speak to us, in conflict with the beginning of the first football game of the season. I believe it was the first. It was a big night. After that was pointed out, he ended up coming and speaking earlier. But the point being, no President has ever picked a date, said, Here's when I'm coming to speak to the House, without understanding you can't come unless you are invited. You are not even allowed to come give an oral State of the Union Address unless the House and Senate vote to invite you to speak to a joint session. That has been the rule since we began. Under the Constitution, it is not required that a State of the Union Address be orally given in a speech. There is a constitutional requirement for a State of the Union report to be given. But in the early years of our country, there were times when the President just sent a report. Here's my report on the state of the Union. So the President has snubbed Congress, the rules, and the Constitution repeatedly, and then our Speaker is condemned by the White House for inviting a world leader to come speak here. Again, the President doesn't realize there is no requirement to check with the President. If it hasn't already occurred, we will have to have a unanimous consent or a vote to have the House approve the invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to come speak here. That has to happen, if it hasn't already. So there is no requirement to check with the President. We don't even have to invite him over here to speak to do his State of the Union. And when the unanimous consent request is made, anybody here could object to the President coming. I am not aware of that ever happening. I don't anticipate that ever happening. Interestingly, we have been reading--when I have been in Israel and talked to leaders over there, they talk about the massive pressure by the Obama administration to try to push Israel into getting rid of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Now we know what our President did to help support the removal of President Mubarak. We know that he went even further in Libya, after Qadhafi--after the 2003 invasion of Iraq--threw all of his weapons systems open to the United States and said, You tell me what I can keep, basically. And as some in Israel have advised, after Qadhafi's conversion experience in fear that the U.S. would invade Libya in 2003, he became more of a help in going after radical Islamic terrorists than almost anybody, except in Israel. We have got friends around the world that are trying to help us with radical Islam, and even our friends in Egypt, a neighbor of Israel. As many of us feared, they had an election too quick after the so-called Arab Spring, which was more of an Arab nightmare for the Egyptian people. They had an election too soon. The most organized group was the radical Islamic Muslim Brotherhood. It was not really a military coup, and that has offended the Egyptian people, as they have indicated, when news media or the White House have said it was a coup because you had the largest uprising in the history of the world occur in Egypt. It was demonstration after demonstration for the ages. It was 20 million, 30 million, 33 million, came the reports of the uprising, of the around 90 million people in Egypt--massive. That would be like over 100 million people in America going to the streets and demanding the President be removed. It is hard to get a third of the United States just to go out and vote. They did more than that. They put themselves at risk and came to the streets and said, Enough is enough. And the Coptic Christian Pope has told me of how touched he was to have moderate Muslims, secularists, and people of different faiths come and literally and figuratively join arms and march together to stop the brutality against Christianity and against Jews in Egypt. That was extraordinary. And so much of our media missed it. I think our President never really understood that. Briefings must not have been adequate--or he missed them--but that was extraordinary. That was an event for the ages, the Egyptian people uprising in millions like no country had ever experienced in our entire history of mankind. Extraordinary. They are to be commended. What happened? Yeah, there were even a couple of Republican Senators, but you had the President, the White House, the State Department, people condemning Egypt for saying: We don't want radical Islam running our country. I didn't realize, but the constitution--that as I understand this administration helped with--did not include a provision for impeachment. We didn't give them a peaceable way within the constitution to remove a leader once he acted outside the constitution, as Morsi was doing. Now, because I have been told by a former CIA operative--I asked General al-Sisi while he was still general, before Morsi was elected: Did you have evidence that he was trying to have you killed? I was told by a former CIA operative that he did. He was reluctant to respond, but he eventually responded: Yes, we did. He didn't even really need that because of the unconstitutional actions of President Morsi. Now, I have had friends of Israel that were saying: We want to give Morsi a chance because he is really working to bring peace to the Sinai. Well, as we found out after the people arose and a peaceful revolution occurred--I thought about the Egyptian peaceable revolution as I watched the movie ``Selma.'' It is tragic that that ever came about and circumstances ever came to the point that we were treating, especially as a Christian, treating brothers and sisters like that. Thank God for Martin Luther King, Jr. We honor him this week. What an example. People in Egypt know about Dr. King. The Pope, Coptic Christian Pope knows of Dr. King. He wanted a peaceful demonstration, and they were part of peaceful demonstration. Unfortunately, radical Islam did not like being removed. They burned churches. They went after Christians. They went after Jews. It was so offensive to the moderate Muslims that make up most all of Egypt that they even voted, overwhelmingly, for a constitution that required the government to build back the churches that the Muslim Brotherhood burned down. That is historic for the ages. We have this one country, 90 million, most Muslim. At one time, there may have been, as I understand, maybe 10 percent or more Christians, but radical Islam took over after the alleged Arab Spring that was anything but a spring. It is a place of hope with a very, very difficult road in front of them. Some of the military leaders were asking Members of Congress that were visiting over there about the Apache helicopters and the tanks that have been frozen by President Obama's administration and the refusal, for so long, to provide them. The military leaders are saying: Does your President not understand that we use those Apache helicopters to keep the Suez Canal open? Does he want a tragedy at the Suez Canal? Is that why he is not allowing us to have new Apaches that we need in order to keep the Suez Canal properly open and safe? We use the Apache helicopters to go after the massive weapon buildup that occurred in the Sinai under Morsi, and the Sinai is an area with rapid, huge weapon buildup under Morsi that is a threat and was a threat to Israel, our ally. Somebody in the administration needs to get out a memo to everyone else saying: Look, Israel really is our friend. Netanyahu has more in common in his government and what his government believes than any other government in the entire Middle East with us here in America. Maybe we ought to go easy on pushing for a new leader. Well, it hasn't happened today. Here is an article. Not only, apparently, is the White House furious with our Speaker--heck, I have been mad with our Speaker. I am telling you, this is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, that has been done here in inviting the Prime Minister of Israel. Here is an article, since the leader of our closest ally and friend in the Middle East, Israel, is coming, this article from NBCNews.com, Kristen Welker and Carrie Dann: President Barack Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the United Nations in March, his administration announced Thursday, citing a ``longstanding practice'' of avoiding appearances with heads of states in close proximity to their elections. I guess he is glad that countries around the world don't have that same policy because he was sure running around before the election wanting to make appearances with them. I guess it would only be natural that foreign leaders would assume, since he did it before his election, that he would certainly not want to appear less than consistent. They didn't use that excuse when the President gave Prime Minister Netanyahu a timeout. You wait here, I am going to go eat. Let me know when you have a change of mind. I mean, that is what parents used to say to us. That is what some of us, as parents, have said: Until you are willing to act right, you go to your room. For a President of the United States to do that to the leader of the country that is our best ally in the Middle East is really extraordinary, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that he wants him snubbed before his reelection; but I also think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we have him here to hear his side about what Iran is doing. Some of us, in December, met with leading investigators at the IAEA in Vienna to talk about Iran's current status, as best they can figure out. I think it was the most candid meeting that we have had with representatives of the IAEA. I appreciate their honesty and forthrightness. But Iran's centrifuges are still spinning. They are still enriching uranium. They are increasing the amount of uranium that they are enriching. Even though they are assuring the IAEA that they are not taking it any more--they are not taking it past 5 percent enrichment, people that know about the enrichment process know it is not that much of a step to go from 5 percent to 90 percent, have weapons-grade uranium that can be used for bombs. I think my friend, Joel Rosenberg, in his all-too-realistic novel, previously depicted Iran as developing enough nuclear material to use-- not just in one bomb, they wanted enough to use in several bombs, so that when they got to that point, in a secret facility that even the IAEA, U.S., others didn't know about, according to the novel, they were able to prepare nuclear weapons, multiple nuclear weapons at the same time and immediately ship them out in different directions, so that anyone trying to stop their nukes, once developed, would have to worry that if they attacked Iran to stop their nuclear weapons--they had several--that it would be unlikely they would get them all, and that would mean that nukes would probably show up in Israel and the United States. It seems pretty realistic. That seems like a realistic consideration for Iran. They seem to be following that procedure, developing as much 5 percent enriched uranium, that we know of; but as even the experts can tell you, it is possible they have got a facility we didn't know about. They have surprised us before. This is a tragic time in so many places in the world. The shadow of the crisis may have passed us, but too often, that means, now, the shadow is passed and the crisis is upon us. It is time to stand up to radical Islam and to stand in Erbil and talk to Kurdish leaders--or outside Erbil, at the headquarters where they are able to watch things that are going on; hear a Commander say: You have no idea how heartbreaking it is to see a vehicle, an American vehicle, up-armored vehicle that the United States produced that is in the Islamic State hands, that has now been made into a massive suicide bomb, comes at our Kurdish fighters, fighting heroically, but not having a single weapon that will stop an American up-armored vehicle as the vehicle comes, as they know it is going to explode, and it gets nearer and nearer, and they are frantic. Everybody watching the video feed, everybody on the ground there knows they are not going to stop it because the United States has not provided the weapons to our friends that will stop the weapons, the U.S. weapons that are in the hands of our enemies. Then, ultimately, the suicide bomb of a U.S. up-armored vehicle takes out those valiant, heroic Kurdish fighters. These are not people that threw down their weapons and ran, like so much of the Iraqi Army did. There are Iraqi officials that say: This is why we really needed a small American presence here, to give us the backbone, to tell us, ``Here is what you do. Yes, they are coming, but don't throw down your weapons. Go here. Go there.'' We needed that help, that coordination, the same kind of help and direction, coordination that our embedded Special Forces, Special Ops people gave to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002, when the Taliban was initially decimated, defeated before we added tens of thousands of troops and became occupiers. It has worked. It worked in Afghanistan before we became occupiers. It has worked when we help people that want to defend themselves to defend themselves. We have seen over and over these reports that, in Syria, this so- called vetted, moderate Free Syrian Army is joining forces with al Qaeda affiliates. This administration still thinks it is a good idea to send them weapons that they can use, ultimately, to go after our friends, the Kurds. Turkey, our ally and friend, NATO partner, says we can't use their bases to fight the Islamic State. I have got friends in Turkey, leaders there I have met with. They don't like the idea of the Kurds being armed. Well, I think it is time the administration should announce that we are not sending weapons to Baghdad so that they can send what can't stop the Islamic State to the Kurds. We are sending weapons directly to Erbil. We are sending them directly to the Kurds. Okay. Turkey, we understand you don't like that idea. If you don't like it enough, you have a powerful enough military to stop and destroy the Islamic State by yourself if you want to. So we would much prefer Turkey take out the Islamic State by themselves. But as it appears, Turkey is becoming more radical in their legislation and activities. It explains, perhaps, why they will not allow us to use our bases and will not directly, themselves, fight the Islamic State. Well, the Kurds are willing. They are doing it. They are fighting valiantly. Let's help them out directly, not through Baghdad, but directly. Let's try to be friends with Israel. Let's try not to snub their leaders. I mean, since I have been in Congress, I have tried to be encouraging when I have met with other Israeli leaders. Before Netanyahu became the Prime Minister, we met with others. We encouraged them. I wasn't crazy about some of the things they were doing, but they were leaders of our friend Israel, and I wanted to be their friend. I wish that it were so with this administration. Now, we had what was purported to be the State of the Union Address in here. We were told ``the shadow of crisis has passed.'' I don't know. I am finding that maybe the President, a few years ago when he came and told us, ``Pass my bill right away, right away, right away,'' maybe he didn't really know he didn't have a bill. But we kept trying for days to get a copy of his bill, and finally, after a week, there was no President's American Jobs Act. Well, I went ahead and created one, and what it did was eliminate the biggest tariff that any country in the world puts on their own manufactured goods. It is called a corporate tax. It has to be passed on to consumers, which makes the price of the product or their services more expensive. Imagine the manufacturing jobs that would come flooding back to America if we even just reduced the corporate tax, this tariff that we are putting on our own goods. And I have had reporters around Washington who don't really get it say: Well, how would you make up for the lost corporate taxes? Those corporate taxes are paid by Americans. They are paid by the consumers. Any corporation that doesn't pass on that tax is not going to stay in business. So the consumers pay it. The American taxpayers pay it anyway. But what would happen when you lower the corporate tax rate? Some of those massive manufacturing businesses--like the President's dear friends own that have moved over to China and other places--some of them have told a group of us that went over there: Well, the biggest reason we had to move is America had such a massive and now the highest corporate tax in the world. If you lower that like to China levels, 17 percent, we would be able to be back there. Now, I loved hearing from leaders of industry in China that the best workers they have were American workers in the United States of America. Their best quality control is right here. Well, if we would lower the corporate tax, those jobs would come flooding back. I loved hearing the President so pleased that we are becoming energy independent. Unfortunately, it is not due to anything the Federal Government is doing. His administration is doing whatever it can to slow down energy production of oil and gas that we are so reliant on, and production from Federal lands, under his watch, is down significantly. So it is all the private sector that has done this, Sarah Palin and others saying, ``Drill, baby, drill.'' That has actually happened, and now we have got an abundance. It has brought down gasoline prices. And what is the Democrat reaction to prices of gasoline going down? Well, that means we need to add some taxes to gasoline. Really? I loved hearing the President say we need to do infrastructure, except, dadgummit, I remember him talking about that repeatedly when he first became President. That is why he said we had to have this massive $900 billion, because we are going to build infrastructure. And what did he do? He got the $900 billion from a Democratic House and Senate, and only a fraction of it went to infrastructure. We were told it was going to go to shovel-ready jobs, and then we find out some years later, well, actually there was no such thing as the shovel-ready jobs. They did send it to companies like Solyndra and others that lived high off the hog for a while and then went broke. I am sure they are getting some other grant somewhere else. Which brings us to another story, which was reported as a bombshell, a story by Richard Pollock, ``Bombshell: IRS Has Active Contract for Millions With Company HHS Fired Over Botched Healthcare.gov'' Web site. Wow. Well, no wonder the President wants more money. He is still doing deals for millions of dollars with people they paid massive millions of dollars to do a Web site that didn't work. We have had people come to the Hill and say: We could have done that for about one- twentieth of the cost of what was paid and actually had it working. But things are a little better in Texas. I loved hearing the President take credit for jobs that have been created in Texas. Unfortunately, when you look at the jobs that his policies have helped create around the country, the biggest thing he has helped create is part-time jobs in numbers like we have never had before. I love when he brings people in here to hold them up as good examples. I wish he had brought some of my constituents, some of whom are brokenhearted because their part-time job went from 39 hours to 29. They had to get a second one. And they have also lost what benefits they did have at their first employment. Now they are spending more time away from their children, making less. I know he has the image that $15,000 a year is supposed to support a family of four, but what most people in business can tell you-- especially small business that employs about 70 percent of American workers--the minimum wage is entry level. And when I talk to people at places like McDonald's, they are not even paying the minimum wage. They are paying more than that. And places where oil is being drilled and gas is being drilled, they are paying a lot more than minimum wage. Some of them are paying bonuses because that is what happens when the Federal Government does not impede the ability of industry and of American entrepreneurialism. But here, also, the President wants to provide net neutrality. I want neutrality. I want Internet neutrality. But I don't want the government taking over because I know his friends end up doing well and his enemies don't do well. I would like to make sure that the market is able to play. I would love it if he had come in here and said: You know what? We have wasted a lot of money trying to prop up solar energy and wind energy. We have squandered massive amounts of money, of taxpayer dollars, money we have had to borrow from China that won't be paid back in my lifetime. But here is a tax notion. Let's eliminate the subsidies for every energy form, whatever it is, eliminate them. Nobody is going to get subsidies. Nobody gets grants. Good luck. What would that mean? It would mean the free market would take over. And when I hear the commercials, oh, buy a solar energy whatever, air conditioner or whatever it is, heater, buy it now because the subsidies may be running out before long, well, let's run them all out. Let's let energy be determined by the free market without government intervention, without using the Tax Code. I am pleased that perhaps the President has heard some of us. As we have said, the President keeps talking about Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, but he has never offered any solutions to fix that, as some of us here have. What would be the best solution? Well, bring down the secretary's income tax rate to the capital gains rate that Warren Buffett is paying. That is how you do it. I just love Arthur Laffer, Ronald Reagan's former economic adviser, such a brilliant guy. He explained to a group of us a few years ago here--and I am paraphrasing Arthur--he said: I hear people talking about we are going to tax the rich. The rich, he says, are the ones you are not going to tax. Now, if you say we are going to tax this activity of the rich, they will change the activity. They can do that because they are ultrarich. If you say we are going to tax you in this location, this State, this city, this country, they are ultrarich; they can move. That is what rich people do. So if one State where Secretary Kerry has his yacht has a really high tax, well, what is he going to do? He is going to do what he has done. He is going to move the yacht to a State that has a lower tax. That is what rich people do. So you may say: I am going to go after the rich and tax them, really put it to them, and then spread that wealth. The ultrarich are the ones you are not going to tax. They will move. The rest of us, we can't just say: You know what? I am going to go be a lawyer in another country, another place. You can't just do that. You have got to go through all kinds of training. You just can't do that. You can't go be a Member of Congress somewhere else. You can't just pick up your job and take it when you are middle class or you are poor. So what happens when somebody says we are going to increase taxes on the rich, well, they move. They change their activity. They avoid the tax because they can do that. That is why Warren Buffett can say he is not worried about the inheritance tax. He takes actions to make sure he is not going to get hit with it. The poor can't do that. Of course, you have to have over a minimum amount now, so the poor don't get hit with it, but the middle class does. My great-aunt was middle class through and through--as they say, land rich, cash poor. Land prices dropped within 6 months of her death. The IRS took every acre of her 2,500-acre farm. Every acre. They sold her home at an auction because land prices dropped. The FDIC had dumped land around there. Prices dropped. Under the inheritance tax, it is the value of that land at the time of the death. They took every acre, took the home place. The people she had specified in her will that would get specific things didn't get them. The IRS got them. That is why I went when the call went out to family members to please show up and buy whatever you can so that we can keep it in the family. Yes, that lady was middle class. She lived middle class. I had been to her home numerous times. You wouldn't find anything that you would say was even upper middle class. They took every acre of her land, her home for taxes. But if you are ultrarich, you don't run into that situation. You buy insurance policies. You convert the way you get income. You move cash here, there, to other countries. You can do that. But not when you are middle class. So the policies of this President have caused, for the first time in American history, 95 percent of America's income to go to the top 1 percent. The President admitted it a couple years ago, yeah, he was aware that happened. Well, how about working with the rest of us who have some good ideas that would increase the number of middle class, moving people up from poor; increase the people moving from lower middle class up to upper middle class; and moving people from middle class to wealthy? We want that. That is what we hope for. We don't want to bring down people from where they have done well, even if they are one of the few that were born on third base and have gone through life thinking they hit a triple. We want everybody to do well. And if you get jealous of them, your life is going to be ruined. I loved the quotes from Martin Luther King, so many of them brought out in the movie ``Selma'': If you get eaten up with anger, revenge-- and in the cases around here--jealousy, you are the one that is going to be miserable. Let's encourage people to get wealthy not by taking from the wealthy and bringing people down. Let's have a flat tax: if you make more, then you are going to pay more; if you make less, then you are going to pay less. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that in 40 years over 57 million babies have been killed here in America. As a father who held a premature daughter in my hand and had her grasp the end of my finger with her tiny little hand, it wrenches my heart to think there are people that will want to kill a baby girl of that same age. Let's stop. God bless the March for Life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting short week. And with all the drills in the world going on, it is important that we deal with our Department of Homeland Security. And I am proud the House has taken quick action to pass such a budget and passed it handily. Homeland Security needs to be funded, and the President needs to sign the bill. We have finished that today and are sending it to the Senate. Hopefully they will work quickly and deal with this issue because, as people in America know, we have crises all around us. We have threats to our security all around us that require immediate attention. The world is watching as we play golf while they come together, millions at a time, to stand against radical Islam and Islamic terrorism. So it has been interesting to see the White House as the only significant international capital where the ultimate leader of the country cannot bring himself and, therefore, his spokespeople cannot bring themselves, to say the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' because that is what we are talking about. And for an administration to diminish the seriousness of radical Islamic terrorists wanting to destroy Western civilization is worse than having our leadership's head in the sand, or wherever their head is. It is important to wake up and recognize what the world has recognized, what our Muslim friends have recognized--that radical Islam is a threat to our very existence and way of life. The Weekly Standard has an article, January 13, by Daniel Halper, which says: ``The White House won't be calling jihadists adherents to `radical Islam.' At least, that's the reasonable takeaway from this extraordinary exchange the White House press secretary had today with a reporter.'' And I will jump down to a statement by President Obama's chief spokesperson: Mr. Earnest: I think the reason is twofold. One is I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position where I'm repeating the justification that they have cited that I think is completely illegitimate, right? That they have invoked Islam to try to justify their attacks. And the reporter said: But to call it radical Islam you feel would be playing into their hands. Mr. Earnest: Well, I think what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to describe to you what happened and what they did. These are individuals who are terrorists. And what they did was they tried to invoke their own distorted deviant view of Islam to try to justify them. And I want to stop there. The President's mouthpiece says that he is not going to call it ``radical Islam'' or ``Islamic terrorism'' because that is a deviant view. Well, if you look at the definition of ``deviant,'' that is what deviates from what most people do or say or think. So it would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the deviant thought process is not what the reporters had and not what the major countries in the world have and not what our Muslim leader friends in the world have. It is what this White House has. Theirs is the deviation from what is truth, because the truth is--as much as this President doesn't want to say it, and he doesn't allow his spokespeople to say it, I will say it, Mr. Speaker: this is radical Islamic terrorism, and it is a threat to Western civilization. And the more our leaders refuse to recognize it for what it is, the worse it gets because the radical Islamic terrorists realize they are winning. And the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the OIC, composed of the Islamic states in the world, all 57--I know it gets confusing to some in this country's leadership whether we have 57 States and they have 50 or they have 57 and we have 50. But they have 57 because they include one that is not actually a state. But they are the ones that started the campaign after 9/11 of calling anyone who expresses concern about radical Islamic terrorism ``Islamophobes.'' I fear God. I don't fear any man. I am not a phobe of anything. But it is time to recognize truth, and that is that radical Islamic terrorists want to destroy our life and kill us. It is very simple. And what is remarkable--and I think it is very important that both Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to travel around and speak to world leaders in their own countries because when you are there in their country talking to them, as some of us on both sides of the aisle have done in those Middle Eastern countries, led by moderate Muslims who don't believe they need to have an explosive jihad, they recognize that the terrorism that is a threat to them, as moderate Muslims, and the terrorism that is a threat to us and Western civilization, is radical Islam. They recognize that it is a religion. And they recognize that when people in the name of Allah and Islam take territory and claim they are their own caliphate, their own government, then you had better understand who they are and what they are. And in this case, the Islamic State has enough strength and enough power to be taken seriously so that they are totally defeated and wiped off the map, whether it is in Syria, northern Iraq, wherever they find themselves, because they are at war with us. And I mentioned it before, Mr. Speaker, but as we have had this administration do a cleansing--not necessarily a book-burning but a burning, in essence, of parts of the training books that talk about radical Islam, that tried to educate our FBI, our State Department, our intelligence communities, all of our government workers on what radical Islam is, what it believes, the intelligence officer said: We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. And that has never been more apparent than it has been this week, with the radical Islamic jihad terrorist attack in Paris and in Nigeria. Even though there weren't reporters killed in Nigeria, those lives were every bit as much precious--around 2,000 lives. Somehow, much of the mainstream media had trouble reporting that. They were concentrating on the horrors of the journalists killed in Paris, and rightfully so. But they should not be neglecting the horrors for those villagers, so many of them Christian, who have been killed because they did not believe in radical Islam. And one of the reasons, I would submit, that we should have had a President there in Paris--and I know it would have been difficult for this President, but he should have been there locked arm-in-arm with Prime Minster Netanyahu. Words keep leaking out about things that are said, about strained relations that this administration has with the Netanyahu administration. There is a leader whose eyes are clear and his vision is clear, and he can see exactly who is at war against him, who is helping him and the nation of Israel and who is not helping him and the nation of Israel. And as we know from history, anytime a nation's enemies see that nation's strongest ally pulling away, it is provocative. And the more the United States distances itself from Israel, from those who recognize that radical Islamic terrorism is a threat to Western civilization, then the more radical Islamists win. I really, honest to goodness, didn't think we would be 6 years in to President Obama's administration with him still not willing to acknowledge that radical Islam is a threat, is at war with us. It is a religion. This administration may not like it, but it is a religion. It is a radical form of Islam. I hope one day that our top leaders in this country will have the courage of President al-Sisi in Egypt and that will reflect, as General al-Sisi has, the will of the people of their country. If the story is properly written about Egypt--and one day it will be. It won't be by people at The New York Times. It will be by people who are not trying to twist and turn and create history the way they want it. It will be by historians that are really looking at what has happened. They will see that in the last 6 years that, besides Israel, the country that has been most fearless--and by ``country,'' I mean the people of the country--most fearless in standing up for freedom and against radical Islamic terrorism, unfortunately, has not been the United States because of our leadership. It has been the nation of Egypt. Certainly, Israel has stood strong and fearless. Their nation has been under attack nonstop. God bless them and protect them. Egypt was not under attack other than by the radical form of Islam, the religion of radical Islam, and this administration helped oust one of this country's allies. Like him or not, there were plenty of agreements signed by this country with President Mubarak, and this administration disregarded them. That is a problem for other countries and other leaders who want to sign agreements with this administration, but they don't know that our country can be trusted anymore. As people see the decline of respect for America around the world, they should understand that it is being credited to the lack of reliability of the United States to keep its word, to support its friends, not to turn its back on its friends. This Nation's leaders have begun repeatedly appearing more helpful to our enemies than to our own friends. They don't know who to trust. I mentioned to Secretary Kerry that I have talked to people in the Middle East, Muslim leaders, who say: We talk among ourselves, we are all worried we may be the next ally to be thrown under the bus. He wanted to know who said that. Well, obviously, I couldn't tell him because he would throw them under the bus. For many of us that have traveled around the Middle East and talked to leaders in the Middle East, we understand what they feel. Maybe they are not able to be as open and candid with this administration for fear of it turning on them the way it does anybody within the administration here in America or outside the administration. God help the whistleblowers. If you want to stand up for truth, justice, and the American way in this administration and point out massive problems that could subject our country to attacks, to terrorism, God help you because this administration is coming after you. They will use the Justice Department, they will use the EPA, they will use the IRS. This administration has been weaponized to go after anybody that dares to stand up, especially within the administration. People that want to stand up and tell the truth, they are attacked, they are threatened with prosecution. If someone like General Petraeus, who has defended the administration--but this administration knows that General Petraeus has information that would virtually destroy any credibility that the administration might still have nationally and internationally--so what else would this administration do but leave over his head, for over a year-and-a-half, the threat: We are going to prosecute you, so you better keep your mouth shut. They actually know just the threat of prosecution helps diminish potential credibility. So if you wonder why General Petraeus has not come out in the last year and a half and said, ``No, those weren't our talking points, somebody that created them needs to be prosecuted, it was a fraud on the American people,'' he is not going to say that. He has got this administration hanging a prosecution over his head. What do you expect? I doubt he will ever be able to say it without worrying about something over his shoulder coming after him. Here he is. He has been defensive of the administration. He has been a good soldier. He has said what they wanted him to say. He hasn't told all he could say, and they are going to make sure he doesn't--or if he does, he pays a heavy criminal price. That is where we are now in America. It may have been the kind of administration Richard Nixon dreamed of, but he knew he could never get there. He couldn't weaponize the IRS. He apparently dreamed of it. This administration has done it. For the President, for his spokespeople not to be able to call the terrorism a result of radical Islamic terrorism, it weakens our country, it emboldens our enemies, and as we have seen, you may take out Osama bin Laden, but when you withdraw our troops prematurely before Iraq soldiers are ready to stand on their own and you have blinded ourselves of the ability to recognize that any believers like Khamenei or Ahmadinejad, the former President of Iran, if you have blinded yourself of the ability to learn and educate our administration on what they believe, then you are going to fall prey to everything they decide to do toward you and about you because you don't understand where they are coming from. I repeatedly reflect on that scene in the movie ``Patton,'' and although he didn't know Rommel was not there with his tank division, he yells out in the movie after his tanks have defeated Rommel's: Rommel, you magnificent fatherless--I am paraphrasing--fatherless man, I read your book. If you read and learn and educate yourself about your enemies, you have got a better chance of defeating them, but this administration continues to make it more and more difficult to understand who our enemies are. All of this backing up and crawfishing, well, you know, this isn't all Islam. Of course, it is not all Islam. That is how I can go to Afghanistan and hug dear Muslim friends, we have the same enemies--and a big old bear of a man who led the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban by February of 2002 in the initial defeat is now the Vice President, and thank God he is. Some of us that just met with the new leadership recently--and I have known General Dostum for a while and met with my good friend the Honorable Massoud. President Ghani basically has gathered around him people a bit like what Lincoln did. He took people who opposed him, ran against him, but because he clearly cares deeply about Afghanistan, he gathered around him a team of rivals, and the good thing is, unlike the current administration here, he is not afraid of having people with opposing viewpoints around him. He is just like Lincoln. Lincoln had rivals all around him, and he listened to their input. He got their opinions, and it helped him make better decisions. This administration here needs to do what President Ghani in Afghanistan is trying to do, and it is not easy because our U.S. administration here has been reaching out for the Taliban. Initially, the Taliban are defeated, and then this administration comes in--and I know the prior administration started the massive occupation of Afghanistan with tens of thousands of troops. This President comes in, and in his campaign, he said that was the real war. Well, yeah, but once you defeat your enemy in that part of the world, you don't help yourself by becoming an occupier--you add over 100,000 troops to the country that is so thrilled that you relieved them of radical Islamic leadership, then you become an enemy because, now, you are an occupier. We didn't do ourselves any favors. There are people, unlike the Iraqis who threw down weapons and ran, turned them over to the Islamic State, in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was willing to fight the Taliban initially, and they are still willing to fight. In fact, before President Ghani was elected--that was so much uncertainty: Is President Karzai going to try to have another term, even though it is against the constitution? Are they in for a civil war? There was a great deal of trepidation on the part of the Northern Alliance that fought against the Taliban on our behalf with less than 500 American special ops and intelligence people embedded. They knew we withdrew, and the Taliban were able to take over the national government. Then they were in for a war, and one of them told me: Look, since you have taken back the weapons, you don't support us anymore, and you are doing everything you can to help the Taliban--that is this administration--we realize the odds are that we will lose our lives, but we are not going down without a fight. Well, fortunately, they have got a team of rivals leading the country. Prayers are with them. They are moderate Muslims that I trust, and they want the best for Afghanistan. According to the military leaders I have talked to repeatedly in Afghanistan and others, the country of Pakistan has been the biggest supplier and supporter of the Taliban. The Taliban didn't do themselves any favors when they just, in such evil fashion, attacked a school and killed 140 or so precious people, including children. There are many more in Pakistan that are saying: You know what, it is time to stop supporting the Taliban, it is time to worry about Pakistan. Some have even started saying it is time to quit persecuting the Baloch people. The arbitrary lines that were drawn many decades ago put probably the bulk of the Baloch people in southern Pakistan where most of their minerals are. It put the Baloch people within the arbitrary lines drawn for a country called Iran. In fact, the Baloch area actually is where the Straits of Hormuz are. It is where much of the oil and gas is. I have grown to admire and love many of the Baloch people. I wouldn't mind seeing them having an independent Balochistan. I wouldn't mind seeing an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, because unlike what is portrayed in much of the mainstream media, the Kurds never threw down their weapons and ran away or turned them over to the Islamic State. They are people we can trust. Mr. Speaker, a solution to our problem there would be to announce that we are going to provide weapons directly to the Kurds. We don't have to go through Baghdad, because Baghdad doesn't want them to have the equipment they need. They are afraid of them. Let them have the equipment they need to defeat the Islamic State. Yes, I know, that would not make Turkey happy, but Turkey has said: Not only are we not fighting the Islamic State--even though we have pledged in our NATO alliance that we will help fight any enemy of our fellow NATO signatories--we are not going to help, and we are not going to let you use any of the NATO bases or U.S. bases here in Turkey. You are on your own. Well, Mr. Speaker, if Turkey is not going to fight them and they are a threat to all Western civilization, then we are just going to have to supply the Kurds and let them take them out. It has been an honor to be over there numerous times and spend time there even when the State Department said it was too dangerous to go. Dana Rohrabacher and I went and spent 3 days when the State Department was telling us it was too dangerous to be there. But I knew that there was no way their leaders were going to let anything happen to us. And they didn't. They were trustworthy. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems this administration has is figuring out whom we can trust and whom we can't. I know that this administration continues to talk about these moderate, vetted Syrian Army soldiers that we can really help. Well, if they were there 3 or 4 years ago, most of them are ready to throw in with the Islamic State or with al Qaeda subsidiaries. In fact, they have done that very thing. They have fought together. I don't know if ``naivete'' is the proper word, but when this administration started supplying their so-called free, vetted moderate Syrian Army personnel and the equipment, they kept ending up in the Islamic State's possession. They even suspended sending them more weapons and equipment for a while, but then some months later they picked it back up. I don't know why, what made them feel they were more believable than they were before, but amazingly, they started sending it, and it started ending up in Islamic State hands. It is heartbreaking to be, as a few of us have, in northern Iraq in the Kurdistan area with real, patriotic Kurds who love their people and who have fought not just for themselves, but they have fought for other groups, Shi'a and Sunni, without throwing down their weapons. They have fought and died. But to look in their eyes and see the hurt as they say: Couldn't you give us some Humvees, some up-armored vehicles? Because we are fighting against the Islamic State, and they are using American Humvees. They are using American armored personnel carriers. They are using American tanks. We don't have anything that can penetrate your American tanks or your personnel carriers. Those are invulnerable almost completely to IEDs because you up-armored them and gave them to the Syrian Army that gave them to ISIS, or you gave them to the Iraqi soldiers that left them for ISIS. The commander who had lost soldiers said: You don't know what it is like to see a big, armored vehicle that is going to be used for a suicide bombing coming at your soldiers who have weapons that can't possibly penetrate those vehicles. And they are shooting. They are doing everything they can to try to stop them, but because they are the best America has in the way of fighting vehicles, we can't stop them, and we know my guys are going to get blown up as this American vehicle gets close, and it has been set up to be a suicide bomb. Mr. Speaker, since this administration has not been effective in fighting IS for so long, for too long they looked at them as the junior varsity, the JVs, shouldn't we at least help those who are fighting to help us, along with themselves, by giving them vehicles that could match up against the vehicles we provided to the Islamic State? It seems like the least we can do. It really does. This administration was going to be the most transparent in history. There is a story out this week from PJ Media. Josh Earnest doesn't think President Obama is upset about missing the solidarity gathering of world leaders. The world leaders see that our way of life is at risk, and our leadership doesn't see it. He thinks if we give a good enough speech, we coddle, we offer to buy offices in Qatar, or we release more of their murderers, that surely they will recognize how truly wonderful, kind, and generous we are and they will stop their evil ways of killing innocent people. It is not going to happen. I have Christian friends that say: Yes, but as Christians, we are supposed to turn the other cheek. That is as individuals. Individual Christians should live out the beatitudes as Christ gave them. But the government has a different role. If you do evil, you should be afraid because the government, within the bounds of Christianity--Romans 13:4--is supposed to punish the evil, eliminate the evils, and protect your people. I don't try to convert anybody using my position in government, but for those who misunderstand Christian teaching, you need to read Romans 13. We have an Attorney General still holding on, Holder the Holdover. He said he is concerned about the so-called lone wolf attacks in the United States--one of the things, Mr. Speaker, I don't think, again, that this administration understands. They talk about these lone wolf attacks, and yet when you get down to the bottom of it, you find out, gee, they had talked to al-Awlaki, the man born in the United States so he gets an American birth certificate, an American passport, and American citizenship because his parents came over and had him while they were here, so he is an American citizen. He is radicalizing people. These weren't lone wolfs. They got information, they got advice, and they got radicalization from somebody else. It is tough to find anybody self-radicalized because apparently there are plenty of imams in this country that are not the general rank-and-file imams. They are imams that are ready to radicalize those--and twist and convert into evil-- that would kill innocent children, women, and men. Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize the threat that is upon us, and you can't do that when an administration will not even call the evil for what it is. I know indications are, gee, the economy is getting so much better. We still have over 90 million people that are not counted as unemployed because they just finally gave up looking for a job. To me, that is unemployed. But we don't count them in our statistics. And this staggering story came out today, written by Wyton Hall: In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that ``for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.'' I can't help but think that has something to do with the massive overregulation by this administration continuing to set records in the number of regulations it sets. How in the world can businesses keep up with over 70,000 new pages of regulations year after year? They did it again in 2014, over 70,000 pages of new regulations, and they are expected to follow them and manage to keep a business. You don't have to look very far to find CEO after CEO or a person that started a business, no matter how massive, who said: In looking at all the regulations now, it is a good thing I started my business when I did, because if I were trying to start it now, I never could. I couldn't overcome all of the massive government overregulation. Now, Mr. Speaker, we see ObamaCare continuing to fail and continuing to provide less care for more money. But not to worry. A lot of your good health care dollars are going to fund navigators who will never put a Band-Aid on anybody or never even blow on a cut to make it feel better. No. They will never even pat somebody on the back. They are bureaucrats. They are not in the health care business, nor are the thousands and thousands and thousands of new IRS agents who are not looking out for your health. They will probably give you ulcers. But they are part of the health care dollars now. So people keep asking me: Louie, I don't understand. My deductible is higher. I am paying more money than ever. I am getting less care. I am getting turned down for things. I don't get to choose my doctor. I sure don't have the insurance policy I wanted. I don't understand. I have to explain: Well, that is because you are paying for a lot of government workers that don't really help in anybody's health problems at all. They create health problems, more likely. With all of this as a background, all of the failures of the Federal Government, the Federal Government, in fact, is intruding in people's private lives. As they access email and gather phone logs of every call to and from American individuals, we were assured that would not happen when the PATRIOT Act was extended. I was not here when it was passed. We were told it was only if you were a foreign terrorist, a known foreign terrorist, or you had ties to foreign terrorists would you be even eligible to have your phone logs gathered, emails checked. ``Only'' we were told. Well, that turned out not to be true. That was just an outright lie. It is time to stop the government intrusion into people's private lives unless the government has a warrant. As a judge, I had no problem signing a warrant if there was probable cause spelled out in the affidavit. There were times I would turn away law officers and say: You have plenty of speculation there that sounds good, but you don't have facts that get you to probable cause. That should be in there, under the Constitution, before the government can start invading your privacy. Then when the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats, President Obama is in the Oval Office, they passed a bill creating this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that apparently is out there thinking they need to be able to monitor everybody's debit and credit card records so that they can see if anybody is being taken advantage of. Well, how about following the Constitution and not getting anybody's bank records or credit card or debit card records unless you have probable cause or unless the person gives permission. I am hoping that is going to be a bill that we pass because I have talked to enough Republicans and know how we feel, and there are Democrats who feel the same way. Of course, they are the ones that created this monster, but that needs to be reined in. And now with that as a backdrop, we have the story: ``Obama backs government-run Internet.'' And I know there was somebody who wrote into the Longview paper that they want net neutrality. They love the idea of the government playing more of a role in the Internet. Well guess what? When the government takes control of the Internet in the name of neutrality, it will probably not be neutral, according to most Americans' opinions. So I hope Americans are not fooled. I hope Americans don't buy into this because when the United States Government takes control of the Internet, then we are going to start having the same problems they have in China, in Russia, and other parts of the world where their government does control their Internet, and they control your freedom to search for what you want or to say what you want. I know of numerous occasions where people said they were in China typing, and they mention anything about the government, even if it is not terrible what they said about the government, they start typing again, and they have lost their Internet connection. They have learned not to say anything about the government, let it go, and they keep their Internet connection better. Mr. Speaker, I just want to also touch on this because we passed the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. I hope the President doesn't veto the bill. I hope the Senate will pass what we passed. There are some things in there I would have liked to have been different, but I read the bill totally. There are some parts that aren't great, and there are some parts that are great. I am very proud--my friend John Carter has some great language in there. I know he has worked very hard on language that is very good. As I was reading the bill this weekend, I said, that was John Carter's specific language from an earlier bill. Overall, it was a good bill. The amendments helped it. I voted for the bill. And now hopefully the Senate will do the right thing and pass it, and we will send it to the President and we will fund the Department of Homeland Security without all of the amnesties he has unconstitutionally created. But if the President wants another way of doing things, I haven't heard anyone else suggest this, but I brought it up with some friends this morning. Perhaps we go ahead, if he doesn't think that he likes that and we are not able to override a veto, maybe it is time to start setting goals for the administration, and when they don't meet them, we just take that money from them and block grant it out to State and local law enforcement. There are some jail cells open. We don't have to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars to hold people being detained. The local law enforcement is tired of holding people on behalf of the Federal Government and not being reimbursed. Let them do the job they are supposed to do of enforcing the law. I know the Arizona case said, the Supreme Court said Arizona could not be enforcing immigration law, that was a Federal job, but we certainly have the authority to say, you know what? Let's block grant that money out and let State and local government do that, enforce our laws for us. I think we will get a whole lot better job done. So that may be something else to consider. If the President is not going to sign a bill that funds homeland security, maybe we need to fund it, and if they can't meet their goals, block grant it out to local authorities. In the time I have left, I wanted to touch on a significant article by Patrick Poole of PJ Media, because, as he says, it is a look back on this year's parade of failure, and expect more in 2015. His article is titled, ``The National Security `Not Top 10' of 2014.'' So my paraphrase is the top 10 failures in national security by this administration. Number one: befriending ``moderate al Qaeda'' in Syria. Patrick Poole said: ``There are some ideas so at war with reason and reality they can only exist in the fetid Potomac fever swamps of D.C. think tank and foreign policy community. Such was the case in January when three of the best and brightest from those ranks published an article in Foreign Affairs (the same publication that in 2007 brought us the `moderate Muslim Brotherhood') contending that the U.S. needed to befriend the Syrian jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham as some kind of counter to more extreme jihadist groups, like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The precedent they cited was the U.S. failure to designate the Taliban after 9/11. Mind you, at the time they wrote this, one of Ahrar al-Sham's top leaders was a lieutenant for al Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri, who openly declared himself a member of al Qaeda. After most of their leadership was wiped out in a bombing in September, they have gravitated closer to the jihadist groups they were supposed to counter and their positions have been bombed by the U.S., much to the consternation of other vetted moderate rebel groups. So ridiculous was their proposition that the original subtitle of their article, `An al Qaeda Affiliate Worth Befriending,' was changed online to `An al Qaeda- Linked Group Worth Befriending' in hopes of minimizing the absurdity of their case.'' But this administration bought into it. And I understand there may be a Republican Senator or two that buys into it. It doesn't make it any less preposterous. Number two of the top 10 national security failures: Obama administration deploys three hashtag divisions in response to Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some folks may remember that the response of this administration to help the Ukrainian people that I hold so dear, having lived with them for a summer back as a college student, the response of this administration was to launch a Twitter war that Russia wasn't terribly concerned about. The number three failure of national security was Obama calling ISIS the ``JV team.'' I am sure Americans remember, and Patrick Poole discusses it, but to call the Islamic state a JV team betrayed his failure to get his security briefings as he should have to really understand what is happening in the world, because I don't believe for a minute, having talked to different intelligence people, I don't believe for a minute that our intelligence people did not know how dangerous the Islamic state was. The number four failure of national security was the State Department official denying that Boko Haram targeted Christians. Having been over there and having hugged and wept with those parents of daughters who were kidnapped and terrorized and made sex slaves, unlike the State Department official who says it wasn't about them being Christians--if you go hug them and weep with them and talk to them and their pastors, as I have, you find out it was precisely because they were Christians. Please, somebody in this administration, wake up. Radical Islam is at war with the United States and any Western civilization, and specifically with Christians. When I asked these mothers whose daughters are still held kidnapped, probably sold into sex slavery by now--and this administration has not done enough because they don't see it as a war against Christianity--I asked, just to be sure, I said: Did they attack--Boko Haram, these radical Islamist terrorists--did they attack your daughter's school because they were girls, because they don't believe girls should be educated? They said: Oh, no, they don't believe girls should be educated, but they attacked it because it is a Christian school. That is precisely why they attacked it. Number five: Homeland Security adviser's pro-caliphate tweet used by ISIS recruiters. I had been warning about this pro-caliphate Homeland Security top adviser in Janet Napolitano's regime in Homeland Security, a guy that has spoken, was a listed speaker to pay tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of vision of the 20th century, who blasted the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorist support prosecution in American history, and he defended the convicted defendants, and he tweets out. Finally, it was enough to show the administration what most of us who had eyes and ears understood. He tweeted out, after ISIS killed more innocent people, that the caliphate was inevitable so just, you know, get ready. And then ISIS used that to help recruit. Number six failure of 2014 of national security in this administration: Obama and the State Department give shout-outs to Islamic cleric who okayed the fatwa authorizing the killing of Americans in Iraq. And Patrick Poole lays out exactly what it involved. Not once but twice, as I understand it, he gave a shout-out to this Islamic cleric who authorized the killing of Americans in Iraq. Number seven: Obama administration gives heavy weapons to ``vetted moderate'' Syrian rebel groups; they promptly turn up in hands of ISIS and al Qaeda. Number eight: The White House defends the Muslim Brotherhood's ``commitment to nonviolence. And that is what some of the moderate Muslim leaders in the Middle East have said, different countries saying, Why are you helping the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you not understand they are at war with you? Number nine: The Obama administration defends U.S. Islamic groups branded as terrorist groups by the UAE. The UAE is run by moderate Muslims. Perhaps this administration could learn something by listening to them and who they recognize to be terrorist groups. And number 10: Having banned discussions of ideology driving Islamic terrorism, the Pentagon says it can't understand the ideology of ISIS. Well, duh. It is no wonder they can't understand it when you are not allowed to be educated about what these people believe. But there are people around this town that have been banned from teaching about radical Islam who perhaps should be unbanned. In conclusion, I just want to reference the vote this week for Speaker. The vote is behind us. It is done. The Speaker was reelected. But one of the big concerns I had has not gone away, and it still needs to be addressed. Those 4 years that Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, they set a record for the most bills brought to the floor where no amendments by anybody were allowed. They wouldn't let us participate in the legislative process. And we railed against that. We said, You put us in the majority, we won't do that. And it breaks my heart that under the current Speaker, a new record broke Nancy Pelosi's record of more bills brought to the floor with no amendments allowed, a closed rule. That has got to change. Some have said our effort had no chance. If all those who said they would have voted with us but it had no chance had voted with us, then it would have been overwhelming. One of the Speaker's supporters came up to me yesterday on the floor and handed me this and said, ``This is from an old novel.'' I think it is called ``The Lion's Den.'' He said, ``This applies to you,'' and I appreciate it more than he would know. The quote is this: No matter how the espousal of a lost cause might hurt his prestige in the House, Zimmer had never hesitated to identify himself with it if it seemed to him to be right. He knew only two ways; the right one and the wrong, and if he sometimes made a mistake, it was never one of honor: he voted as he believed he should, and although sometimes his voice was raised alone on one side of a question, it was never stilled. There were 24 such people that spoke this week, and I hope they will be honored and not belittled. With that, 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 have great appreciation and affection for my friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, and I appreciate her comments. Actually, I didn't realize at the time, but some of the things she said leads into some rather painful things to talk about this evening, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have been greatly encouraged, first of all, over the last few days to find out that Americans are paying attention. They realize what is at risk. They realize there is a great deal at stake in this country, and now--maybe not more than ever, but as much as ever-- we need to be about the business of getting this country on track. I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, in recent years--maybe 3 years or so ago--my wife and I had gone to Togo, West Africa, which is by Nigeria, while Mercy Ships headquartered in my district were there. It is just an awesome charitable institution. They bring a huge medical hospital ship into a dock in a Third World country, usually in Africa, and it is controlled by Christians, operated by Christians. They don't proselytize. They do the job of reaching out and ministering. After the ship has been there, blind can see, and lame can walk. People who had massive tumors that were about to cut off their breathing are able to live. Women who had a child and developed a small hole in either the urinary tract or the colon when having a child that had been banned from families--sometimes, for 20 years, they were not allowed to be with the family. They were considered unclean. They would have the fistula repaired and, after rather emotional ceremonies, for the first time, they would be reunited with family members. Sometimes, like I said, they hadn't seen them in 20 years. There were specific occasions like that. And it is an amazing thing to watch. I was there for a week, really was blessed to help out with a number of different things. But some of the West Africans wanted to meet with me before I left. They knew I was in Congress. Some of them were a little perplexed to see a Member of Congress. They were told he was a Member of Congress, but he is back there washing dishes in the kitchen. But my late mother once said: I am not going to have you bunch of boys grow up and not be able to cook and wash dishes. So she made sure we could, and we can. But we had the meeting with the West Africans there. They were Christians. And the oldest, senior citizen, hardworking man, after we had a really nice visit, he concluded, in essence, by saying: We were so thrilled when you elected your first Black President--his words--but since then, we have seen America getting weaker. It appears you are getting weaker and weaker. And the weaker it appears America gets, the more we suffer. Please, please, go back to Washington and tell your friends there stop getting weaker, because we know where we go when we die, but our only chance of having peace in this world is if America is strong. I don't try to shove my religious beliefs on others, but it is part of who I am, just as it was with most of our Founding Fathers and those that went before us. But we were founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you go look at one of the most important documents that established our independence--yes, the Declaration of Independence is critical. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. But the Treaty of Paris, 1783, that was after the Revolutionary War, after the war had been won, but the Americans weren't sure that Britain wasn't going to come back. They had the most powerful navy, the most powerful army. What is to say they wouldn't come back? So it was critical that a document be signed, and something put in that document that was so important, that would be such an oath that the leaders of Great Britain would not dare break that oath, that they truly would recognize the United States as being independent and free of Great Britain. I didn't know until I got to Congress--I mean, I read history books. I read biographies. I love to learn more all the time. But I was struck when our pastor, David Dykes, his wife, Cindy, were up here and they wanted to go on a tour of the State Department. I had never been through a tour of the State Department. I went with them and, lo and behold, there was an original copy of the Treaty of Paris, the actual treaty. We were told it was an original copy. And I was surprised at the huge, big, bold letters that started the document because that document, if that is not signed, we are not free and independent, regardless of what the Declaration of Independence says. It means Britain is going to come in any time they get ready to. There had to be something so important put in that document so that when they signed it they wouldn't dare want to break it. The words that started the Treaty of Paris, 1783, were: ``In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.'' That is a Christian belief. That was so important and held with such reverence that neither side would want to break an oath under the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. Mr. Speaker, for those that don't know--I know you do--but that means the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is how the Treaty of Paris started that established not just our hopes and aspirations and principles as the Declaration of Independence did, this was the treaty that gave us the independence. So, yes, we got back into a fight with Great Britain in 1812, the War of 1812. 1814, part of that war, this building was burned and, apparently, if it had not been for a massive thunderstorm or rainstorm that night, this would have gone the way--this actual wing didn't come into existence for about 40 years, 44 years or so, but the reason we didn't get a big ruin up here on what was once called Jenkins Hill was because the rainstorm put out the fire. The roof was badly damaged. And even though sandstone, marble granite doesn't burn, necessarily, in the presence of extreme heat you get cracks and it falls. We didn't get a big ruin because of the rainstorm. Some thought maybe we ought to move the Capitol back to Philadelphia or New York, but others felt that what was here was preserved for a reason, so it was built back. It is part of our founding. And what we have seen in the last 6 years as this noble effort by our President wanting to bring peace throughout the world by showing how nice we were, by showing that we meant them no harm, we would be glad to meet with them, to sit down, we will give them offices, we will give them things, we will let murderers go from prison, and those type things will show our enemies how really decent and good we are, and so they will want to be our friends and will not want to be at war with us--the only problem is that may work in some common core-type thing taught in school, but it is not in touch with reality because there is evil in this world, and that evil has been most recently manifested repeatedly in radical Islamic jihadist actions. And there is no way around it. The more the people in this administration refuse to rise up and call evil what it is, the more the evil rises up. Last June, I was asked to go to Nigeria and meet with 23 of the mothers of daughters who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, a radical Islamic group. And I hope and pray more around this town, especially down the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, will begin to develop the courage and understanding that we are not going to bring peace to Christians and Jews throughout the world, and we are not going to bring peace to moderate Muslims who want to stand up to radical Islamists, but they know they go to the top of the death chart. But we have got to have people in the executive branch understand this is evil, and it is done in the name of Islam, and it is radical, and it is what they believe is jihad. Yes, it is their religion. It is not the religion of moderate Muslims, but to them it is their religion. It is their religion. It is their politics. It is their world view. And under their world view, you don't have freedom of expression. Ultimately, shari'a law will prevail, and either they must wipe you out and kill you as dogs, or some of the more moderate of the radicals will allow you to pay a tax, admit that you are subservient to the Islamists, and they may let you live in peace, unless they feel that they are being led by some religious fanatic to do otherwise. Things around the world have gotten worse for Christians and Jews because we had an administration, as noble and idealistic as it wanted to be--as wonderful as it would be if you could just say, ``We want to be at peace and we will turn the other cheek,'' that is not for a government to do, even a Christian-based government, as this one started and was for most of this country's existence. For Christians, there is an obligation to follow the beatitudes, the teachings of Christ. But, Mr. Speaker, some get confused and think that is the government's role, that if its people get killed, well, if we just say, ``Oh, that was probably our fault; we deserved it,'' then it will stop. It does not. It gets worse. People need to begin to understand what is going on in this world. There is evil, and people are being killed and tortured and women and young girls raped and their lives stolen from them, Christians and Jews being persecuted in greater numbers than any time in the world's existence--not a greater percentage but greater numbers. I met with many Nigerians who have been adversely affected by this radical Islamist--yes, radical Islamist--group, Boko Haram. And make no mistake, I am not advocating for sending troops into Nigeria. That would be a huge mistake, in my opinion. But we can help them. They need intelligence. We might use a drone and drop a bomb. That might help save many Christians from the horrors they are experiencing. We could work with the southern, with part of the Nigerian Government, at least, to help save those people. I mentioned before, I asked--these were all Christians. I asked did they attack this girls' school, because I know they don't believe girls should be educated. And they said no, they don't believe girls should be educated, but they attacked the school because they knew it was a Christian school. And usually when they attack a school, if there are boys, they kill the boys, and then they take the girls and sell them into sex slavery. And in the case of these innocent children, these girls, they took them captive. They raped them repeatedly. They abused them severely. They demanded that they convert from Christianity to Islam. But I asked the Christian pastor--and we were a couple of hours outside of town, where I had to go without the State Department or other people that would not have wanted me to put myself in that situation, but getting out to the remote location, secret location, where these survivors were. I said to the pastor: Where are the fathers? And he said: That is another part of the tragedy. They know that girls are being raped, sexually abused, abused in so many ways. They left their homes and they went into the bush because they are the fathers. They were supposed to protect their children, and they feel guilty, and they don't believe they deserve to be in a bed or a home while their daughters are being abused like they are. That is a real human tragedy. Then we hear not of just some violent action in Paris, France--it was a terrorist action, committed by radical Islamic jihadists who are being taught, so many of them, as tiny children growing up, to hate the West, to hate Western civilization, to hate America, that it is a good thing to kill innocent Americans, and that somehow, in their weird religious belief--in this evil--they benefit by killing and harming what are really innocent people. This is a story from CNS News, on January 8, by Curtis Kalin: In the wake of the terrorist attack on the offices of French satirist paper Charlie Hebdo, one Muslim cleric justified the murders under Islamic law. Mr. Speaker, for those who don't understand, when they say they are justifying this under Islamic law, it means, to them, it is their religion. Yes, it is their religion: USA Today published a column by avowed ``radical Muslim cleric'' Anjem Choudary. The piece, titled ``People know the consequences,'' asks why France would allow the paper to mock Islam, and further excuses the systematic murders as justified under Islamic law. Then it quotes him: ``Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment, if found guilty of this crime under sharia law, is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ``Whoever insults a prophet, kill him.'' See, for those who don't understand, those are people who are saying, ``This is our religion; it is our state; it is our lives,'' and until the people leading this administration understand that, it is going to get worse. I do believe what is in the Bible: that to whom much is given, of them much will be required. We have been put here in America in such a place and time that if we stand strong, we don't have to send American troops, who then end up being seen as occupiers, but we can help. We can give them intelligence, and we can give them the ability as we did in Africa. Within about 4 or 5 months, and with fewer than 500 American special ops people and intelligence, they defeated the Taliban by February of 2002. Then we became occupiers and added tens of thousands of troops and ended up, eventually, with over 100,000 in this administration. Occupiers don't do well in that part of the world. If we tried to be occupiers in Nigeria, we wouldn't do very well, but we can help with information and if we get weapons in the right hands. I am not talking about sending weapons to the Free Syrian Army, which is working frequently with the Islamic State. I am talking about putting them in the hands of people who are our friends. Send them directly to those we can be sure are our friends in Nigeria. Send them to Erbil, where I was 2 or 3 weeks ago, in northern Iraq with the Kurds. They didn't throw down their weapons. They didn't hand them over to the Islamic State. They stood and fought. They are still standing and fighting. They helped clear an avenue to free some people who were trapped on a mountain while I was there. My dear friend, Dana Rohrabacher, set the trip up. He and I have traveled to so many places. My friend Steve King was there, and Gregory Meeks was there--a good man. We also were in Kabul in Afghanistan. There is hope there. We have got to be smart about the way that we help, but it does not help when we can't even recognize the enemy. I warned about one of the Homeland Security advisers--top advisers-- for a number of years. Finally, after all of this time--back, I believe it was, in August, he tweeted about the Islamic State's beheading and killing people. This adviser--top adviser--in the Obama administration tweeted out, Hey, the Islamic caliphate is inevitable, so just relax-- words to that effect. Finally, that was enough. They let him resign and not renew his term again. Thank goodness. I have been talking with people in Nigeria and emailing, and I have great hopes for the girls I have met with, these young girls, that they are going to come out of it. They are still traumatized. The families are still traumatized. The girls have not been released, and it doesn't appear that this administration has done anything to really help. As I was communicating with African friends in Nigeria, we got word of this story, this one from NBC News: More than 2,000 people are unaccounted for after radical Islamist sect Boko Haram torched more than 10 towns and villages in Nigeria, a local lawmaker told NBC News. Ahmed Zanna, a senator for Borno state, where the attack happened, said the militants razed the town of Baga as well as ``10 to 20'' other communities in the country's rural northeast over the past 5 days. ``These towns are just gone, burned down. The whole area is covered in bodies.'' Look, I know that there are people in this administration, including our President, who think you can win over evil by just being nice to it--offering to buy offices in Qatar, offering to release the evil forces--murderers--from captivity, and that such wonderful, gallant gestures will turn the tide. Individuals can, but governments are supposed to protect the people. It is causing this weakness to grow, which allows evil to grow around the world. There is a vacuum being filled as we have lost our leadership role around the world, and it is being filled with evil religious nastiness called ``radical Islam.'' As this administration continues to act as if it is not a religion and as if we can win them over with kindness, more people die. Now they are saying maybe 2,000 Nigerians have died today. So I couldn't help but reflect back to my senior citizen friend in Togo and his words, his imploring: ``Stop getting weaker. When America gets weaker, we suffer.'' How much suffering is this administration going to allow before it wakes up to the reality of what radical Islam is? Until such time, this Congress needs to stand up and say we are not going to keep supplying weapons to radical Islamists who are working with the Islamic State in Syria. We will help our friends, like the Kurds. We are not going to keep supplying weapons to people who may have them end up with the Taliban. We are going to help our friends like we did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. It is time to wake up to the reality of evil that this radical Islam is because, until this administration does, it is going to get worse. 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, a lot of my Republican friends have been upset with the comments of Jonathan Gruber, where he was quoted accurately as saying about ObamaCare: ``A lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever.'' He also said that they--President Obama and the Democrats--proposed it and it ``passed because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.'' Now, I would say to my Republican colleagues: chill out. Don't worry. Not a single Republican voted for that bill. Not a single Republican in the Senate voted for that bill. He wasn't talking about Republicans. He wasn't talking about the Democrats, Independents, or Republicans who voted for Republicans to come to the House or the Senate. He was talking about the people he was paid millions by to work on ObamaCare. That is right--he called the Democrats stupid. He wasn't talking about Republicans. He knew we were smarter than that.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here honoring Ralph Hall. He has been my Congressman for many years; and, in fact, after being on the bench for about 10 years, I had a feeling that perhaps I ought to legislate, and I wouldn't do it from the bench. But my Democratic Congressman Ralph Hall, from conversations, he talked like I did--I hope that is not disrespectful to Ralph--but I told him, as long as he is my Congressman, I didn't have any need to run because he would represent me well. Then we had redistricting in 2003, and it opened up a different district. But I felt that way then, if he had stayed my Congressman, I never had a need to run, so some wish we didn't have redistricting. As I hear people talk about his age, I think about Ralph saying that when he turned 90, somebody on his staff said: ``Congressman Hall, would you rather we didn't mention to people that you are 90?'' He said: ``No, I am fine with that. I would a lot rather you say he is 90 than, `Doesn't he look natural?' '' Having been with Ralph yesterday there in Rockwall as he is going through rehab, actually, he doesn't look natural at all, he looks great, and we just look forward to the days when he is fully out of the wheelchair and that rod in his leg is not bothering him as much as it is now. We miss him very much. He did also provide me a quote that struck him having been chairman of the Science Committee. This is a quote Ralph sent: We are reminded of the responsibility given to us by the scripture engraved on the hearing room wall of the Science Committee from Proverbs 29:18, ``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' Well, Ralph's eyesight was 20/20. He could see where we have been, and he could see where we were going. It was an honor, a pleasure, and a real privilege to serve with my friend, Ralph Hall.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, our chaplain today is Dr. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas. His opinions are ubiquitous on radio and television, as is his radio program, ``Pathway to Victory.'' His weekly TV program is on over 1,200 stations and systems worldwide, while he has authored 21 books and is a FOX News contributor. While some churches flee downtown areas, Dr. Jeffress led his church in a massive revitalization of downtown Dallas. He has a bachelor's from Baylor, master's from Dallas Theological Seminary, doctorates from Southwestern Theological Seminary and Dallas Baptist University. He and his wife, Amy, have two daughters, Julia and Dorothy, who are here today, and son-in-law, Ryan Sadler. Dr. Robert Jeffress is principled, brilliant, charitable, and his faith in God leaves no room for fear of man. He and my wife, Kathy, grew up together in church, and he is a dear, treasured friend of mine.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I won't take long, but I wanted to address the bills that we took up late today. First we voted on H.R. 5759. This is the bill exactly as it appears. We always have copies of the bill that we vote on that are out here in the Speaker's Lobby so you can grab them as you come in here and see what we are voting on. But what this did not reflect was the exceptions, the provisions that were added last night that had to be added by hand here on the floor so that as I tried to talk to my colleagues here on the floor and pointed out that our Republican leadership had added an exception, they didn't know that, and I had to show them. So, Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important to explain why a bill that I was listed as a cosponsor on ended up with my voting ``no'' on it, because it was a good bill. My friend, Ted Yoho, is a good man. He is a very dear friend. I think the world of him, and he had a good bill here. The purpose is, it says, ``to establish a rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.'' It was basically to make clear that the President had no authority to do what he did when he started granting amnesty-type work permits to 5 million people who were unauthorized aliens, as the law calls them. My friend Congressman Yoho's bill was entitled the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014. The title was changed by leadership, and it became the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act, and the exception that was added--and I won't read the whole thing--in part the exception says that basically this law that was passed by the House this evening shall apply except for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death. Now, I don't personally think that exception applies right now, but this administration has been using similar exceptions like that to grant amnesty in the way of asylum and refugee status to people that should not have gotten it, but they are already claiming this exception. So it is kind of like what happened at the end of July when our leadership, we had some great principles all Republicans agreed on regarding dealing with the border issue, the immigration issues, all of us agreed on the principles, but nobody got to see the bill until late Tuesday. I finished reading it about 2 a.m. and then got up at 5 a.m. and reread it, and it was a disaster. It was a de facto amnesty bill. So we only had 1 day basically to get the word out that this is a bad bill because we voted on Thursday, and by Thursday, people had awakened, realized it was a de facto amnesty bill, we got it fixed, so very late Friday night around 10 p.m. or so, we passed a good border bill. I know that is news to the President because nobody let him know. He didn't know the House had actually acted. But on this one, by adding that exception, I know the President issued a veto threat, but he probably didn't know about the exception being added either, because if you saw the official printout of the bill, it didn't include that exception. But if the Senate came through and passed this same bill with that exception, the President could actually claim that this exception on here legalizes what he had done illegally as an executive amnesty provision to give these work permits. So the bill that I was willing to cosponsor completely changed in the addition of that exception. It wasn't just the title that changed. On the National Defense Authorization Act, Buck McKeon worked very hard on that bill. The people on Armed Services worked very hard. I was very proud of them. They got things in that bill that we have been fighting for. For example, Fort Hood was not workplace violence. That was an act of war against our military members. The law should have reflected it, and the President should have reflected it. But, instead, those military members, those patriots of ours, had been mistreated. They have not been given the Purple Heart they deserved. They have not been given the benefits they deserved, and that needed to be fixed. That fix got in this NDAA, and I am very grateful to Buck McKeon for getting that in there. Another problem, we have had this administration going after chaplains for saying things like ``in Jesus' name.'' They pray in Jesus' name because as a Christian, Jesus said, if you pray in My name, then it will be answered--but not always ``yes.'' So chaplains were told it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, you can't pray in Jesus' name, and we have got to get rid of all the crosses. The place I reported to every morning for 4 years at Fort Benning had a chapel across the street. Under the orders I had seen, apparently they would have to remove their crosses. Well, the provision in the NDAA extended religious freedom to our chaplains. It should have been a no-brainer, shouldn't have been required to have been said, but in this administration, it did. Also, something that many of us have had problems with was the Authorization for Use of Military Force going back to September 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. It gave the President way too much power. Some thought it was the NDAA that gave too much power, but actually, it was the AUMF. We amended that. The Gohmert amendment help amend that, but I feel a lot better under this NDAA because the AUMF is finally not continued anymore, so that was a good thing. The problem is the NDAA--this massive National Defense Authorization Act that is a big, important bill--got to the Rules Committee last night. We didn't have a chance to read it. I am anal enough, I actually try to read these important bills, and I didn't have time to read this bill. What happened to our 72-hour promise? Well, actually, it was a 3-day promise, and that has been whittled down since then, but we didn't have the 3 days that were originally promised by Republicans. I knew the bill increased TRICARE costs. I wasn't happy about that. I voted no against a process that takes something as important as our national defense and said, ``Here you go, here is the whole thing, trust us. Vote for it.'' We didn't have a chance to review it. Were there any powers in this thing given additionally to the NSA? Is there any more power to spy on Americans under this bill? I don't know. I couldn't vote for a bill that was launched on us last night that is this important, and I deeply regret it with the good things that were in here. There were numerous good things, well thought out, but you can't push a bill this important on us, especially when we know there are problems, we just don't get a chance to find them. Can't vote yes--I couldn't in good conscience vote yes. One additional irony, Mr. Speaker, I had run for Republican Study Committee chair, and I knew if I were elected chair of the Republican Study Committee, I would still vote as representative of my district in Texas, but I also knew if I were representing a majority of the feelings of the Republican Study Committee, I should not and would not be in a position to speak out as boldly against a majority of the people in my organization. Maybe it is fortunate I am not the RSC chair, so I am here to complain about the abuses when they happen by our own leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the words of my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall). I think this body has been blessed by Rob Woodall being here, and his words tonight just reinforce that. The President has declared an amnesty. The law of the land is if someone is in this country illegally, they are not allowed to legally work. To change that law requires a bill. As Saturday Night Live pointed out in their version of Schoolhouse Rock, a bill has to pass the House, it has to pass the Senate, and then it goes to the President and gets his signature if it is going to change existing law. For anyone to just pronounce ``here is the new change'' is an indiscriminate approach to changing the law without following the law. I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration, and it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting to come here legally. Ultimately, our Nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship, and no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. That is what I believe. All of the words--every one of the words I just spoke, beginning with ``I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair''--were words directly out of the mouth of the United States of America's Barack Hussein Obama. He was right. In everything he said in that quote, he was exactly right. There are millions of people lined up around the world who are wanting to come here legally. Most of those who would be coming would have to have some way to support themselves; yet the President spoke into law and signed his oral fiat saying: ``You know what, I am going to disregard everything I have previously said that was exactly right, change the law without a bill going to the House or the Senate or without coming to me for my signature after it has passed both.'' Our President also said: I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now is the President trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that is what I intend to reverse when I am President of the United States of America. The trouble is he said that on March 31, 2008, and when he became President, he forgot that promise. Somebody needs to get that promise in front of him again. Also, in 2008, before he got elected, he said: We have got a government designed by the Founders so there will be checks and balances. You don't want a President who is too powerful or a Congress that is too powerful or a court that is too powerful. Everybody has got their role. Congress' job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or he can sign it. Senator Obama said: I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress. I had a practice court instructor at Baylor Law School. He was an incredible trial lawyer before he came to be a professor at Baylor Law School. He talked even slower than I talk. I can still hear Matt Dawson saying, when he caught a witness saying something different one time than he said another time, he would say to the witness: ``Well, were you lying then, or are you lying now?'' Let the shoe fit on the foot that wears that size. Now, there has been a lot of talk about the law, and I have been called anal and everything else around this House floor, even by people in my party, for actually reading bills and reading laws, but 8 United States Code section 1324a(a)(1) says: It is unlawful for a person or other entity--(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section, with respect to such employment; or (B) (i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section; or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor, to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. Basically, it makes clear, and it is easier for me to see it in print, but when I see it in print, it is very clear, it is illegal for someone to get a job in America who is not an authorized alien. If you are an illegal alien or an unauthorized alien, as the language is here, then you are not entitled, it is illegal for you to get a job in the United States, and it is illegal for someone to hire you. It really raises an interesting question, and I haven't seen this in the President's fiat, the royal decree that he made, I haven't seen if he is providing amnesty for every employer that hires someone who is here illegally because the President is saying, basically, ``I'm giving you amnesty, so you can go work wherever you want to,'' but as the law makes clear in section 1324 of volume 8 of the United States Code, it is illegal to hire someone that is illegally in the country. Is the President going to pardon every employer that hires one of the 5 million that is going to get a permit? We know that the President wants to give pardons to folks who are here illegally, but the trouble is a pardon doesn't work for someone wanting to grant legal status. A pardon only works if you want to forgive a crime that has been committed, like President Clinton did. President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney, he kept them waiting. The service was supposed to start, and President Clinton was over there, just signing pardons as fast as he could. It took him awhile to get that done. He left President-elect George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney waiting. They were late starting the service that day on Inauguration Day for George W. Bush because he was signing those pardons as fast as he could, because he had to sign the individual pardons. Well, the President hasn't signed 5 million pardons, and even if he did, a pardon forgives the committing of a crime. It does not change the status of someone that is illegally in the country. A pardon pertains to criminal law. The changing of status is under naturalization and immigration, and that power is strictly reserved to this House and the body down the hall, the U.S. Senate. We have the power under article I, section 8, to make the law on those things; the President does not. And there is no provision that allows him to pardon someone from the requirements of the naturalization or immigration laws. Now, something else caught my attention. It is down in the miscellaneous provisions of section 1324, because I am always looking: Okay, does the President have a loophole here? And at first I thought maybe he did. It turns out he doesn't. But under the definition of ``unauthorized alien,'' it says: As used in this section, the term ``unauthorized alien'' means, with respect to the employment of an alien at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either: A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or B) authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the attorney general (now the Secretary of Homeland Security). So I thought maybe this is their loophole here that the President might try to use, even though that is not what was said in a basis that was provided. But then when you get over here, it says this exception may not be provided to the alien unless the alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise would, without regard to removal proceedings, be provided such authorization. So again, it kicks it back to the law as Congress has decreed it in the past, by both Houses passing it with a majority and a President previously signing it, that you have to follow the law in order to get this lawful permanent resident status. You have to be lawfully admitted. You are not even eligible for that miscellaneous exception under section 1324. There are people that have violated the law to come into the country in such a way that it is not necessarily a crime, but if they go to work, under volume 8 of the United States Code, section 1324, it will be a crime for anybody that hires them, and it will be a crime for them. That is where the crime may get committed. I guess at that time if the President wants to sign 5 million pardons for 5 million employers, well, he could do that. He has that authority under the Constitution. He can sign pardons for all 5 million employers that employ people who are unauthorized aliens in this country. No matter what the President gives them under the law, that person is still an unauthorized alien under this criminal provision. There are some interesting days ahead, and the statute of limitations will not have run out when a new President comes into office. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the President got a third term, and, of course, we know that would be as unconstitutional as the President legislating, and surely that wouldn't happen. Now, it is interesting, too, that in the manner in which the President has given this amnesty and is authorizing these work permits, he has actually doubled down legally on his violation of the law previously under DACA in which he had said that--well, this is the way he doubled down on it. Basically, he expands his previous unconstitutional action that the House passed a law the last week of July canceling but the Senate didn't take it up. That is why, when the President says Congress hadn't done anything, the House did. They talked about the Senate passing a comprehensive bill, and they forget to mention that the Senate's bill is unconstitutional. We are not allowed to take it up because it raised revenue, and under the Constitution, such a bill has to originate in the House. If the Senate gets around to sending it down here, we don't get to bring it on the floor. It would be what is called ``blue slipped,'' where you put a blue slip on there and say the House cannot take this up. It raises revenue. It has to originate in the House. Therefore, the House is not allowed to take it up. Since the Senate passed a bill that was not allowed under the Constitution, we took one up ourselves and we passed that one, and it was constitutional and it was a good bill. There was more that needed to be done, but for what it did, it was a good bill. It dealt largely with securing our border. Because the question people are not asking and the President is not answering is a very important question. If this act of amnesty, unconstitutional, illegal as it is, if this act of amnesty is allowed to stand, and obviously the border is not secure, we still have thousands and thousands continuing to come across our border illegally, and nowadays nobody apparently is being turned away, then the big question I am getting to that has to be answered is: How often should we go ahead and have an amnesty? Because clearly, since the President has chosen to provide an amnesty unconstitutionally without securing the border first--and the vast majority of Americans do, and even a majority of our Hispanic friends that are legally here want the border secure before we do anything else. I have said over and over, if the President will just secure the border, as we get confirmed by the border States, not by anybody over at Homeland Security--we have already seen their kind of work, at least the people at the top--but if it is confirmed by the border States that the borders are now factually secured, then people would be amazed at what the House and the Senate can negotiate on and get accomplished. But until the border is secured, then we have to decide, if this amnesty is going to stand, as unconstitutional and as illegal as it is, how often should we give an amnesty? The President has given amnesty to 5 million this time. And, of course, those 5 million are in this time where there is already over 92 million people of working age who are not working, they have given up even trying to get a job, and there are millions more that are looking for jobs and can't find them. So we will put 5 million Americans out of work, middle class, poor working Americans that are legally here. They will be put out of work. Why? Because people that have just gotten an amnesty, as unconstitutional as it is, they will surely take jobs for lesser pay than what the American citizens or legal permanent residents were getting paid, so they will bump them out of a job. And then also for any employer that hires more than 50 employees, they have learned over the last few years since ObamaCare passed, actually in 2010, employers have learned if you have got more than 50 employees, then you are going to end up paying a $3,000 fine for anybody that you don't provide what the Federal Government considers adequate insurance for. So, for example, today, our friend Dennis Michael Lynch was pointing out that he has about 200 or so employees that are either American citizens or legally here, and the law is clear he is going to have to provide insurance that is approved by this government. That means even if they are 60 years old and they are a single man, they are going to have to have maternity coverage. Or as the couple I saw on TV, the gay or lesbian couple, women in their sixties, saying, ``We don't need maternity care.'' Well, it won't matter because they require it. If you don't provide that very expensive insurance for your employees, if you have more than 50 employees, then you are going to be paying the $3,000 fine, penalty. As Chief Justice Roberts called it at page 14 and 15 of his opinion, clearly it is not a tax, it is a penalty, it is a fine. Never mind what he said 40 pages later. But you are going to have to pay this fine, this penalty, of $3,000 per employee. So for somebody like our friend Dennis Michael Lynch, this President has, by his act of amnesty, conveyed to Dennis Michael Lynch: If you will let those 200 American citizens or legal permanent residents who have done everything the right way, if you will allow them to be fired, let them go, and then hire these people who are illegally in the country, then my administration has put in place a law called, informally, ObamaCare that will save you $600,000. So basically, Dennis Michael Lynch, how would you like to take home an extra $600,000 this next year? All you have got to do is let your American citizens go, hire people illegally in the country, because under this royal decree from the White House they don't have to be provided insurance. So Dennis Michael Lynch can save at least $600,000. It may be he had 300 employees, in which case he gets to pocket an extra $900,000 if he'll just let the American citizens go and hire those folks that are illegally here. And since there are 5 million of those folks that are going to be looking for jobs, then 300 is a drop in the bucket compared to the 5 million. But $600- to $900,000 for one person in extra income, that is some serious money. Even for people in Congress, that is serious money. But that also doesn't address the issue of whether or not Dennis Michael Lynch, if he went ahead and did that and made himself an extra $600- to $900,000 next year, it doesn't address the issue of whether a new President that comes in in January of 2017 might have their Justice Department actually follow the law, and even though might not be able to pursue the aliens illegally here that got jobs, certainly would be able to prosecute the employers. But here again, the President could do what President Clinton did and leave his successor sitting there waiting on Inauguration Day while he signs 5 million pardons, and he could do that. That doesn't seem to have been this administration's history. If you get thrown under the bus, someone else has said before: When this administration throws you under the bus, they mean for you to stay there. So you probably shouldn't count on a pardon in the future for people that violate the law and don't have a pardon in their hand before this President leaves office. Now, there has been a lot of discussion among Republicans here in the House and among some of our friends. In fact, some of us have been talking tonight about what is the best way to address this unconstitutional amnesty. And I know our leadership has talked about, well, we could fund all of the government with an omnibus, taking appropriations bills that have been done already by the House--there have been seven of those--adding four to them, and then not funding the Department of Homeland Security and only funding them until March, and then by March of next year we could try to overturn the amnesty action taken by the President. Most of us believe if those permits are issued before Congress stops them, it is going to be difficult to get enough votes to withdraw the permits. Once they are out there, it is going to be so tough to get them withdrawn. Some of us have been saying we don't think we can wait until March because, if you wait until March, there is a real risk that permits are done. Maybe if we just do a short-term CR until January, when we get the new Senate in, then we can act on that, but another problem there is that it is not just the Department of Homeland Security that is involved in this process for people that are here illegally. You have the Department of Homeland Security. You also have the Bureau of Consular Affairs that is involved in this unconstitutional amnesty. That is the State Department that is involved. You have the Department of Defense that has been involved in housing for the next influx of people as they flood in. DOD housed many of those people initially. You have got Health and Human Services, who takes custody of minors that comes in and ships them all over the country. You have got Social Security that is going to be issuing Social Security numbers. You have got the Department of Justice and CJS for immigration court processing. You have got HUD for housing. There are a lot of issues here, and as somebody once said, you should never take a hostage that the other person you are trying to influence by taking hostage is willing for you to shoot. It doesn't do you much good to take a hostage that the other side wants you to shoot. We need to be concerned that if we say, ``All right. We are not funding the Department of Homeland Security until you cease this illegal and unconstitutional action,'' the President might say, ``So you mean you're not going to fund the Border Patrol? In other words, you're going to leave the border wide open, so that anybody wants to come in, can. And that's your threat. You are going to leave the border wide open for anybody to come in unless I back off of my amnesty.'' Well, good luck. That is not going to do the trick. We need a short- term CR to get us into the first of the year. For example, the House has defunded ourselves over a 4-year period by over 20 percent. We cut our own budgets over 20 percent. Nobody noticed, nobody cared, except those of us in the House. We had to make real adjustments. If we can make those adjustments, I think the White House ought to be able to make those adjustments. Maybe they could do with a few less czars--maybe we defund all the czars--but there are smart ways to defund the waste, fraud, and abuse in the executive branch, and I don't think it is a good idea to start with Homeland Security. At the same time, what happens when those employers that hire the 5 million people that have just been given amnesty are able to save millions of dollars? What happens to them? They are going to make more money than ever, and that is during a President's administration who has presided for the first time in our history over a Nation where 95 percent of all the income has gone to the top 1 percent. It has got to stop. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.