Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, tonight I wanted to discuss issues regarding the PATRIOT Act. As I understand it, we will be taking up a vote, come Thursday, on what is called the USA FREEDOM Act, I believe. I know that there was a lot of work put into negotiating a compromise there, but I still have a concern, as I did when I was a freshman, with the language in the PATRIOT Act. This is language here from the PATRIOT Act, 50 U.S.C., section 1861, that allows the Federal Government to go into very personal matters and very personal documentation of individuals. Some of us felt like it was allowing the Federal Government to get more than the Federal Government should be entitled to get. There is similar language in the FISA Act. But this language says that the Director of the FBI or a designee of the Director may make an application for an order requiring the production of tangible things, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. And there was a provision put in there that says such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. And back when I was a freshman and this language was being discussed back in '05, '06, during that time frame, I pointed out that it seems like throughout the PATRIOT Act they keep referring to ``international,'' ``foreign,'' as this does, foreign intelligence information, international terrorism, other language with similar references. So I thought, well, that is strange, though, that when it mentions clandestine intelligence activities, that is a vague enough term, it doesn't include the words ``foreign,'' ``international.'' So I was quite concerned about that. And the Bush administration representatives made clear: Look, Congressman, ``foreign,'' ``international,'' that is all the way through this stuff. You don't have to worry about it. It has to do with foreign contacts. So if there is no foreign contact, then the PATRIOT Act doesn't apply because that is throughout the act. It has got to be foreign. It has got to have an international element to it. And so much so that I encouraged my colleagues that were concerned about their own phone logs being gathered that, if they simply avoided using their phone or had foreign terrorists call another number and not their own phone, they ought to be okay, being a bit sarcastic. Well, it turns out that my concerns about the use of the terms ``clandestine intelligence activities'' were apparently spot-on, that despite the assurances from the Gonzales Justice Department that, oh, no, it has to be foreign, it has to be international, if there is not that element in it, then it doesn't really comply. And I said: But it doesn't say that with regard to clandestine intelligence activities. I mean, clandestine. So somebody peeping over a wall to see what they can see. I mean, technically, that could be considered clandestine, gathering intelligence. Look up the word ``intelligence.'' It is pretty all-encompassing, anything that gathers information. So it wouldn't take much to get an order granting virtually any information the Federal Government is seeking, even though there is no contact with a Federal agent, Federal Government, a foreign entity of any kind. It is not there, and it needs to be there. Unfortunately, when I raised this glaring hole, the people who negotiated this bill, my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, and I think Bobby Scott, they were a bit defensive. Gee, we have our deal, and so you can't--we can't allow an amendment even though it has got very wide and bipartisan support. If one goes back and looks at how the vote on my amendment went when it passed, it was very bipartisan. We had some folks that would be considered very liberal Democrats along with some of us who are considered very conservative. But the united concern that allowed my amendment to pass was about having terms ``clandestine intelligence activities'' that would allow the Federal Government basically to get an order to go snooping on fishing expeditions based on very little, and certainly nothing to do with terrorism. It opened the door to orders for information, even though they had no link whatsoever of any kind or in any way to terrorism, just if they want to do a fishing expedition. Although we were assured by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--a great Texan and a smart man--he assured us the National Security Letters were not being abused that allowed them to gather information, that there were no abuses here in the PATRIOT Act. An IG inspector's report indicated that there was widespread, massive abuse from Federal agents who were simply on fishing expeditions, just gathering information and gathering documents as they saw fit that had no link and no tie to any type of foreign terrorism. So I was hoping to get this fixed. It is a hole big enough in the PATRIOT Act that a truck could be driven through it by Federal agents coming to unload all kinds of private information that American citizens may have, even though such American citizens have no ties with terrorism, no ties with foreign agents, and no ties with foreign governments. They left a gaping hole in what is being called a fix to the PATRIOT Act abuses. Unfortunately, though my amendment passed to remedy this problem, though it passed in committee, a few amendments later, maybe one or two amendments later, we had votes we had to come to the floor for, and I had a conflict, and by the time I got back, they had already called a re-vote on my amendment, and without requiring a recorded vote, it was voice voted and the amendment was voted down. So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that people in America will get the message that this administration wants to protect its ability to get information on any American, whether they have any ties to terrorism, whether they have got any ties to foreign governments, any ties to foreign agents, any ties to anything that might give some of us concern--you don't have to have those. If they can assert that you may be gathering clandestine intelligence--intelligence meaning any information; you may call a Federal office and ask for information--they may decide, gee, that is a clandestine attempt to gather intelligence. Mr. Speaker, there used to be an old joke that is not so funny anymore about the guy that called the FBI office and said, here is my name, and I demand to know if you have got a Federal FBI file on me, and the answer was: ``We do now.'' That used to be a joke. ``We didn't have one until now.'' And that used to be cute. It is not so cute anymore because under the language that so-called negotiators drafted, that massive hole that allows the gathering of information on American citizens will remain in the bill, and will remain part of the PATRIOT Act unless it is fixed. I will have an amendment to this bill. The Rules Committee may or may not allow it to come to the floor. If the Speaker doesn't want it to come to the floor, it is not likely it will come to the floor. And if that is the case, I will have to vote against this so-called fix to the PATRIOT Act because it doesn't fix it. It just allows more cover for the Federal Government, with a massive hole for anybody that wants to gather information on anybody. We need to fix it. We don't need to have an act that allows Federal agents, whether it was the Bush administration, as they were doing, whether it is the Obama administration, as they have been doing, or a future administration--whether Republican or Democrat--we need to stop fishing expeditions. That should be bipartisan. It was bipartisan until the negotiators of the so-called fix got very protective and decided they were not accepting such an amendment that would close this gaping hole that allows abuse by the Federal Government. I hope it will be reconsidered, but unless there is a lot of push from the public, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that they are going to be any less protective of their negotiated work, and so it will allow this administration to continue spying and getting information on American citizens that I would contend is not appropriate at all. That terminology is used a number of other places in the PATRIOT Act. There is another place, 18 U.S.C., 1844, regarding pen registers, you know, phone logs, trap-and-trace devices to allow the Federal Government to trace calls and all, they use similar language. There, in that part of federal law, it authorizes the Attorney General or designated attorney for the government to get an order against anybody who is attempting to obtain foreign intelligence information as long as--it says this--it is not concerning a United States person, number one, or number two, to protect against international terrorism, or three, clandestine intelligence activities. And that is what I was concerned about 9 years ago in my freshman term. I said, wait a minute, clandestine intelligence activities, that doesn't protect American citizens. Oh, but look up there in the part before. It says, it has to be information not concerning a U.S. person. I said, yeah, but then it has the disjunctive word ``or.'' Yeah, but then in that next part it says, international terrorism, it has to be international. No, but after that, it has another disjunctive ``or,'' so any one of these can apply, or it can be for clandestine intelligence activities even if it is a United States person, even if it is not involving international terrorism, or someone who has had contact with a foreign agent. In another part, it references a certification by the applicant. Well, this is the exact wording: There must be a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person, or is relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. Again, that third part, even in this statute, leaves that gaping hole, ``clandestine intelligence activities.'' That is such a wide open phrase. It is such a hole. It doesn't limit it to foreign agents. It doesn't limit it to U.S. citizens who have contact with foreign terrorists, foreign agents. It doesn't have to be part of some kind of some international terrorism scheme. It allows Federal agents to gather information about--as it did under the Bush administration, as it has been allowing under the Obama administration, and as it would allow under future Republican or Democratic administrations--any American citizen that the Federal Government contends might be getting information about something that they consider private. ``Clandestine intelligence activities.'' A lovely triple term, triple-word term, that could be a gaping hole and is a gaping hole in federal law that needs to be fixed. But unless Members of both sides of the aisle come forward--as they initially did when I first proposed the amendment to fix this gaping hole--and vote in a bipartisan manner to close that gaping hole, then it is going to continue to be a problem with the Federal Government gathering information on U.S. citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism--nothing. There is no requirement that they have anything to do with terrorism; they can still be caught in this Federal web if they determine you have been picking up information somewhere. Maybe you visited a Federal Web site, and from the inquiry you made, they thought, hmm, that may be looking like they are trying to clandestinely gather information. Let's go get an order and see what all they have been doing lately. So that is the bad news. The law needs to be fixed. The PATRIOT Act needs to be fixed desperately. There is a bill apparently coming on Thursday that says it will be fixing the problem, but it doesn't fix the problem. It leaves the hole for the Federal Government. You might as well not have a bill even though there are some good things in it. So I hope that people will wake up. I know the bill's proponents don't want any amendments. They say it will mess up their ticklish deal that they negotiated, which is a bit of a problem. I am sure there will be people who come to the floor and say, this bill is a freedom act that has gone through the regular order. That means normally that it has gone through a subcommittee legislative hearing, subcommittee markup, full committee legislative hearing, full committee markup where we vote on amendments, and anybody can bring any amendments. But, Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit that when somebody negotiates a backroom deal and then they come to committee and convince the chair, the Speaker, that this deal is too ticklish, you can't allow any amendments to actually pass at committee, that is not regular order. Regular order is when you are allowed to bring amendments, you have full debate, and if you make your case, as I did, and the vote passes, the amendment becomes part. It does not mean that you come back because the proponents of the bill have convinced the chairman and a few others, gee, we have got to slip this amendment back up for another vote and vote it down because we don't want any amendments to the deal we negotiated. That is not regular order. That is not getting full and fair debate and vote at committee level when someone negotiates a backroom deal and then says that you can't ever amend it because we have got a special backroom deal here. It is time to wake up and fix the PATRIOT Act, and if it is not fixed, then we get rid of it. It is that simple. On the other hand, if you are a big fan of Big Brother, the all- seeing Orwellian eye watching everything that an American citizen is doing, then you will be encouraged because, under ObamaCare, the Federal Government is going to have everybody's health care records. If you see a psychiatrist, the Federal Government will have those records. Whoever you see, whatever it is for, no matter how personal and private it is, the Federal Government will have your records. Now, you might say: well, but the Federal Government has firewalls, they don't let people see records who are not supposed to. Well, tell that to the thousand or so people whose FBI records were found in the Clinton White House. Just possessing one FBI file inappropriately sent Chuck Colson to prison, yet the Clinton White House had a thousand of them. Fortunately for the Clinton administration, they had an Attorney General who was not about to prosecute their bosses at the White House; but as I understand it, a thousand FBI files could be 2,000 years in prison. It could be 4,000, but I think it is 2,000. I think it is two minimum per file that you have. If I recall correctly, I think Chuck Colson did about a year and a half for having one FBI file. So it is interesting. Some people we were told whose FBI files were located at the White House may have changed their position on legislation that was before the Congress. When you know the most secret--most intimate secrets about people in this country, it is just amazing what you can get them to do. The Federal Government, if they have all of your health care records, they know everything; and having listened to friends across the aisle stand down here and berate Republicans--we don't want the Federal Government in our bedroom--and yet, they turn around and vote for a bill without a single Republican vote that puts the Federal Government in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, dining room, it puts the Federal Government in every aspect of your life. Then we have this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who apparently has now determined, gee, they need people's credit card, debit card records, so they can protect them; they will service them. Back home, I grew up and heard cattlemen talk about taking the cow down the road to be serviced by a bull, and I can't help but wonder what kind of service it is that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving to the American citizen. They say: we want to gather up everybody's records so we can protect them. When the Federal Government has everybody's personal information, Americans are not protected. They are subjected to being subjects because the Federal Government can manipulate people as they wish. This is the very kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of, one of the many they were afraid of and thought that they had protected us from because they gave the Congress the power of the purse; and they really believed that, if an executive branch becomes too abusive, as with the Gonzales Justice Department--and I don't believe for a minute that Attorney General Gonzales had any idea that all of these thousands of letters were going out with the power of a subpoena to get people's most personal information, just a fishing expedition, I don't think he knew. But just like if someone is in charge of the VA for 5-and-a-half years and the VA has become abusive to the detriment and death of people they were supposed to be taking care of, it is time to get a new coach--somebody, whether they are a war hero or not, as the current head of the VA, somebody that will come in and clean house and demand accountability and get it. It is time. We have been hearing discussions also here in Washington for quite some time about how we have got to provide legal status, some kind of amnesty to young people who came into the United States without being adults, so they really didn't have a say; therefore, we need to give them some type of amnesty. As I have repeatedly contended and submit, we have got to stop talking about legal status amnesty, anything of that kind, until the border is secure. Anyone who says I have ever advocated for the border being sealed is a liar. I have advocated and continue to advocate for the border to be secure. I want immigration. We need immigration in the United States, but it needs to be legal. It needs to be people that are authorized to come into the United States. We also need immigration reform, but until we have a President--I would welcome it being this President--but until we have a President who will secure the border and make sure it is only people who legally come into the country, then there is no reason to pass an immigration reform bill because he will continue to ignore the law he doesn't like and only follow laws he does like, just as he has already done on immigration issues. We have heard from Chris Crane, as the union representative for the Border Patrol. I have talked to a number of border patrolmen. They say the same thing, that when people talk about legal status or amnesty here in Washington, it creates a magnet drawing people from foreign countries into this country because they think: gee, I have got to get there quickly before the border is secured because I am going to get amnesty if I can just get there. It hasn't been that many years ago when there were only a handful of children who came into the country illegally, that we knew of. The estimates were many, many, many times that. It was estimated this year that there will probably be 60,000 children come into this country by the end of this year. Now, we hear that we have had more than 60,000 come in already, and it is just May. The conservative bastion of newspapers, The New York Times--Mr. Speaker, I am prone to sarcasm--had an article dated May 16, ``U.S. Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone.'' This an article by Julia Preston that says the following: With border authorities in south Texas overwhelmed by a surge of young illegal migrants traveling by themselves, the Department of Homeland Security declared a crisis this week and moved to set up an emergency shelter for the youths at an Air Force base in San Antonio, officials said Friday. After seeing children packed in a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas, during a visit last Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Monday declared ``a level-four condition of readiness'' in the Rio Grande Valley. The alert was an official recognition that Federal agencies overseeing borders, immigration enforcement, and child welfare had been outstripped by a sudden increase in unaccompanied minors in recent weeks. Mr. Speaker, let me interject here. When I talk about the fact that we hear from border patrolmen that legal status and amnesty is talked about here in Washington, it becomes a magnet and draws people in, and for all of the children that are drawn in illegally, you know that some get sucked into sex slavery. Human trafficking becomes an even bigger business, and reporters wonder: Gee, what makes you think they are coming in greater numbers just because people are talking about amnesty here in the United States Congress? The proof is there for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. This New York Times article goes on: On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services officials will open a shelter for up to 1,000 minors at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, authorities said, and will begin transferring youths there by land and air. The level- four alert is the highest for agencies handling children crossing the border illegally and allows Homeland Security officials to call on emergency resources from other agencies, officials said. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Johnson said the influx of unaccompanied youths had ``zoomed to the top of my agenda'' after his encounters at the McAllen Border Patrol station with small children, one of whom was 3. The children are coming primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, making the perilous journey north through Mexico to Texas without parents or close adult relatives. Last weekend alone, more than 1,000 unaccompanied youths were being held at overflowing border stations in south Texas, officials said. The flow of child migrants has been building since 2011, when 4,059 unaccompanied youths were apprehended by border agents. Last year, more than 21,000 minors were caught, and Border Patrol officials said they were expecting more than 60,000 this year, but that projection has already been exceeded. By law, unaccompanied children caught crossing illegally from countries other than Mexico are treated differently from other migrants. After being apprehended by the Border Patrol, they must be turned over within 72 hours to a refugee resettlement office that is part of the Health Department. Health officials must try to find relatives or other adults in the United States who can care for them while their immigration cases move through the courts, a search that can take several weeks or more. The Health Department maintains shelters for the youths, most run by private contractors, in the border regions. Health officials had begun, several months ago, to add beds in the shelters, anticipating a seasonal increase. But the plans proved insufficient to handle a drastic increase of youths in recent weeks, a senior administration official said. Mr. Speaker, I spoke with someone with a church group that was called for help from the Department of Homeland Security saying: We have exceeded our capacity to protect these children. We are asking church groups that can help, please come help. This person said it was clear that some of the young children, females had been raped, and you can't help but wonder for the thousand that made it across last week in that one area in Texas, how many got lured into sex trafficking. Oh, sure, we will get you to the United States. As a young child, we will get you there, and once you are there, President Obama will make sure you are taken care of, and you just come with us. For heaven's sake, one of these was 3 years old, and we have people here in this building saying: Oh, no, children never come by themselves. They would never make that choice to come by themselves. The only people who would ever come illegally would be parents who bring the children without choices. Well, because of the talk of amnesty in this town and because we do not have a secured border, then this administration and this Congress also is complicit in helping lure people into sex trafficking, into horrible situations, even people trying to cross deserts who don't make it. That should not be. We owe Americans, we owe the world the obligation to keep our oath, to follow, to support the Constitution of the United States. That requires us to follow the laws, not pick and choose which Federal laws we care to ignore because we don't like them, as our Attorney General has advocated. That makes him a violator of his constitutional oath. We should be following in our oaths, not breaking them. When you hear about children being lured into this country by promises made by people in this town as to how good it is going to be-- oh, we are going to get amnesty through, and for any child that can get here before the border is secured so we only allow legally approved people in, just come on, however you can get here--we are luring people into horrible, horrible situations. It is time to start acting responsibly. That does not mean that we continue to send the message that is being signaled by this administration that, gee, if you can just get to the United States as a child, we will take care of you. If we can't find your parents who are illegally in the country, then we will find somebody to take care of you legally. We are going to allow you to overwhelm this country. We have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that is here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in. People that are working are already paying taxes, and we have an awful lot of people that are working who are not legally here, who are getting vast amounts of money for their child tax credit that allows them to get back more money than they put in. There can be no debate that young children who are not working, even if they are legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at all the tax money that the Federal coffers will be getting if we just legalize everybody here, that is a bogus argument. It is a strained argument by people who want more people coming in illegally. It is time we took our oath seriously, began enforcing our laws, not sealing the border, but securing the border. Once it is secured, as confirmed by border States, not by Homeland Security that can't be trusted, but by border States, unanimously telling us, okay, Federal Government, we can affirm, we can certify that the border to our State is secure, then we can move ahead with immigration reform. Until that time, we need to quit talking about it. Anybody that is tempted to continue talking about it needs to go down to the border and see a 3-year-old that got lured into this country because of that kind of talk: Just get here. Obviously, a 3-year-old had someone convince them that they needed to try to get here and helped to get them here. I wonder how many other 3- year-olds got talked into coming along for the ride and didn't make it? Maybe their parents or some loved one paid money to human traffickers thinking, gee, if I can get my really young child into the United States, then they get amnesty, then they can claim me as their parent so I can come in, and then I can take care of them even though I am not an American citizen, and that will allow them to draw more people in. So it is foreseeable that parents could send children. It is tough to ever give up a child. Moses' mother did it to try to secure a better life for him. How many parents have let their child go with human traffickers, hoping for a better life for their child, only to find out later their child never made it to America? Sending them from South America, from Central America, across country, clear across the length of Mexico has got to be a risky move. This story from The New York Times says: Mr. Johnson said the young migrants became a more ``vivid'' issue for him after he persuaded his wife to spend Mother's Day with him at the station in McAllen. He said he asked a 12-year-old girl where her mother was. She responded tearfully that she did not have a mother, and was hoping to find her father who was living somewhere in the United States, Mr. Johnson said. Mr. Johnson said he had spoken on Monday with the ambassadors from Mexico and the three central American countries to seek their cooperation, and had begun a publicity campaign to dissuade youths from embarking for the United States. ``We have to discourage parents from sending for their children to cross the southwest border because of the risks involved. A south Texas processing center is no place for a child,'' Mr. Johnson said. Officials said many youths are fleeing gang violence at home, while some are seeking to unite with parents in the United States. A majority of unaccompanied minors are not eligible to remain legally in the United States and are eventually returned home. Well, Secretary Johnson can say we need to dissuade more young people from trying to make the perilous trip across Latin America, Central America to try to get into the United States, but actions speak louder than words. When the actions are that, if you can just get to the United States, Mr. Johnson's Homeland Security will take care of you, will get you three hot meals, a bed to sleep in, if we can't find your parents illegally in the United States, then we will find you some other parents, people are being drawn in. They know if their child comes in and is given a legal place, a legal status, then they will be able to come in on the backs of their children's legal status so they can take care of them. It is time to stop the luring of young children across the border by the activities of this administration. It is time for Congress to stop luring people across the border by talk of amnesty. It is time to stop. And as if that wasn't bad enough, there was an article today, from Breitbart, by Caroline May. It says: The Department of Homeland Security has only requested that the State Department invoke visa sanctions against a country that refuses or delays accepting an immigrant facing deportation back to their country once, over a decade ago. The article says: A State Department official confirmed to Breitbart News Monday that the only time the State Department invoked visa sanctions at the request of DHS was in 2001 against Guyana. Last week the Center for Immigration Studies reported that an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document revealed that last year ICE released 36,007 criminal immigrants awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. According to ICE, many of the releases were mandatory, some as required by court cases--it mentions one--in which the Supreme Court held that the government cannot indefinitely detain an immigrant if there is ``no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.'' Over the weekend, CIS experts postulated that Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry bear partial blame for some of the 36,007 criminal immigrants released last year, estimating that 3,000 releases were ``mandatory''--due to the Supreme Court case--because of their apparent failure to invoke a statute requiring the DHS Secretary to request the Secretary of State to stop issuing visas to those countries that do not take back or delay taking their citizens back. There is a total breakdown in the protection of this country and our borders when it comes to enforcing the law. There are some areas where the law is being enforced. There are some areas where Border Patrol is doing absolutely everything they physically can to enforce the law. But because the President's commitment is to having navigators as being more important than having Border Patrol, then we have a leaking sieve at our borders. Because the Federal Government, this administration is more committed to having new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare, agents, navigators, bureaucrats that will never so much as put a Band-Aid on a hurt, this administration considers them more important for health care than doctors, nurses, people that actually do good. I have been hearing this last week in my district about doctors and nurses being laid off but bureaucrats being hired right and left by the Federal Government, health care bureaucrats. They are not going to save a life. They are going to create more paperwork. They are going to create more burden for people that actually do the healing and treating. They are currently making their lives miserable with paperwork and with computer work. Some doctors have already told me they were retired or retiring because they are just not going to be answering to bureaucrats that don't know about the treatment they provide. Yet this administration thinks more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more navigators--who, by the way, we hear reports are getting voter registration forms to people that they are signing up. So, gee, they may not be providing health care, they may be providing misinformation about health care, they may be telling people to get on Web sites that don't work, but they are getting them registered to vote. How about that? Mr. Speaker, look, it is time that the Federal Government, through the executive branch, started fulfilling their oaths to enforce the laws as they are. It is time that this Congress, like in the case of the PATRIOT Act and the so-called USA FREEDOM Act that is going to leave a gaping hole in the manner in which the Federal Government can continue to get personal information that has nothing to do with terrorism, it is time for all of us to step up to the plate and do our jobs and follow our oaths. Once that is accomplished, there will be more jobs for people because the economy will improve. There will be more health care for people because we get more doctors and nurses and fewer bureaucrats. It is time we started living up to our commitment to the American people. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Special Order given tonight by Mr. Horsford of Nevada.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. And I greatly appreciated being with you and Ms. Sanchez in Egypt. And my dear friend from California knows good and well, I am totally on board. Count me in. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the background of an incredible woman. We have different religious views because I am a Christian and she is apparently an atheist at this time, but what an extraordinary woman: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women's rights in Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made ``Submission,'' a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali researches the relationship between the West and Islam, women's rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe. Her background, as mentioned, she was a member of the parliament in the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, the Netherlands, 2003 to 2006. She was a researcher at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2001 to 2002. And she had been an interpreter and adviser in the Office of Intercultural Communication, Leiden, the Netherlands, 1995 to 2001. She has her master's from Leiden University, the Netherlands. So this extraordinary woman should be paid tribute. It was wonderful to see recently that Brandeis University was paying tribute to her. But we have had an interesting development in the United States of America from the time I was in college. I attended what was at the time a conservative university, Texas A&M University, and a majority there had very conservative views, but we loved to have liberal speakers come speak in my college, not because it was liberal but because we welcomed the exchange. There were always people coming to my university that students disagreed with. See, at that time, we thought universities were places at which you could have those debates and where you could have a liberal speaker come speak, even though you disagreed with him, but we have seen the rise of fascism in American universities. Back 30, 40 years ago, students could get involved and listen to liberal speakers, conservative speakers, moderate speakers, far right, far left speakers at universities and then make their own conclusions because, back then, that is kind of what we thought education was; but now, with this new intellectual fascism that has arisen in our universities, some of them--far too many of them, actually--say: if you disagree with our position, we don't want you here. We want you eliminated. We don't want you to have work. We want your family defiled. We just don't want you to succeed in any way whatsoever. In fact, we see these kinds of receptions for conservatives, for Judeo-Christian believers and followers, people eliminated from being on television because they hold the view espoused by Moses and by Jesus of marriage being between a man and a woman. It is as Moses said and as Jesus repeated, after He said a man will leave his mother and a woman will leave her home and the two will become one, what God has joined together, let no one pull apart. Now, we find out that there was a show yesterday that we were told was considered hateful because it believed what a majority of Americans does and what Moses believed and what Jesus believed, which is that marriage would be between a man and a woman. People like me are vilified--oh, you are hateful--but the people whose show was canceled made what sounded like a very Christian response of, look, we love homosexuals, we love all people, if you don't, then you are not following the teachings of Jesus, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that you have to support, embrace, encourage particular lifestyles that you believe are harmful to the individuals and harmful to society in general. So it is amazing that, in the name of liberality--in the name of being tolerant--this fascist intolerance has arisen. There are people who stand up and say: I agree with a majority of Americans--I agree with Moses and Jesus--that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, all of a sudden, people like me are considered haters-- hatemongers--evil, which really is exactly what we have seen throughout our history, going back to the days of the Nazi takeover in Europe. What did they do? First, they would call people haters and evil and would build up disdain for those people who held those opinions or religious views or religious heritages. Then next came: those people are so evil and hateful, so let's bring every book that they have written or has to do with them, and let's start burning the books because we can't tolerate their intolerance. As shrinks testified before me during my days as a judge, it was called projecting. It is those who have a characteristic and to divert condemnation on themselves, they project their characteristic on someone with whom they disagree--so the most intolerant in America. Then especially people like they who were going to be on the television show before it was canceled--people like me--yes, we can get upset. We can't stand to see our Nation torn apart. We can't stand to see our Judeo-Christian values, on which the Nation was founded, demeaned, depicted as somehow evil. We stand up for those things, but there is no hate for individuals, yet those who are the most hate-filled, who do not follow the teachings of Jesus, seek to impose or to project upon those of us who are Christians--and some orthodox Jews and even atheists or secularists, like Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali--their own hate, their own intolerance. We really need to understand what is going on. It is not tolerance that becomes intolerant and says a woman who was tortured--I don't know what else you would call some of the procedures that were done to her most private areas in the name of religion. It was not voluntary. She was ordered into a marriage she wanted no part of. She did not want to have to be covered up and stay in a back room and never own property and never drive. She kind of thought, like most of us do in America, except for the intolerant fascist liberals, that: gee, women ought to be able to own property, we ought to be able to marry whom we wish, we ought to be able to espouse our own views without being called hatemongers. Brandeis University chose to honor the intolerant and turn against someone who went through a living hell in Somalia. Because she has stood up for what she believes, including in the Netherlands, and put together a film with Mr. van Gogh, her partner was assassinated-- murdered; yet Brandeis University, in having some cowards in the administration, without one fraction of the courage of Ms. Hirsi Ali, says: we are going to back off and not honor this woman who has overcome so much. To honor someone doesn't necessarily mean that you embrace everything about his life. Like I say, I stand in tribute to a woman who has overcome so much, who has been fighting against the true war against women. I don't believe at all in her religious views as, apparently, an atheist, but I can recognize this is a woman of courage, that she is a woman who is brilliant, who has overcome so much. It is really heartbreaking that universities around this country, which were once beacons to debate and to disagreement, have now been taken over by so many liberal fascist cowards that, if you disagree with something they think or if you disagree with something somebody who is more violent than you thinks, then they are going to succumb to the fascist violence and say: oh, we don't want to snub you, really, but there is this other group over here that may get violent with us if we stand up for your rights and acknowledge your courage. So we are going to be cowards, and we are not going to acknowledge your amazing courage. We are going to snub you because we are afraid of these people who may become violent. You have to wonder if the State Department of the United States, under the leadership of Secretary Hillary Clinton, may not have succumbed to this same type of fear: gee, we don't want to make the terrorists mad, so let's don't stir them up. There was a time, for example, when Thomas Jefferson was President and radical Islamists in northern Africa were attacking American ships and taking crews hostage and selling them back to America if we came up with the price required, the extortion fee. Jefferson finally had had enough and had sent this group of--at that time--men, called Marines. They went to the shores of Tripoli, and they fought with everything they had against the radical Islamists. They fought hard enough and showed that we were not weaklings who would lay down in the face of Islamist terrorism, but that we would fight. Those Marines fought hard enough that the radical Islamists said, okay, all right, we will leave you alone--because that is all radical Islamists understand. We have this article from The Wall Street Journal, May 8, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is the same lady I was just speaking about. She knows something about radical Islam. She has had people she has cared about and loved killed by radical Islam. She, herself, was physically harmed by radical Islam. She knows a lot about it, and she also knows about intolerance, the type that was seen--and the lack of courage--at Brandeis University. Hopefully, someday, someone at Brandeis will recall the Jewish influence in the university that understood the threat of intolerance--like fascist intolerance--and, instead of succumbing to fascist intolerance, stand up and acknowledge courage and extraordinary human behavior. For those who may be tempted to say: Now, Louie, how in the world could you put radical Islam and fascism or the Nazis together? All one would have to do is look back at the history prior to and during World War II, and the connection was already made. The alliances were made. One type of intolerance, Nazi fascism, seemed to ally and work well and become allies of radical Islamist fascists. In this Wall Street Journal article, as Hirsi Ali says: Since the kidnapping of 276 school girls in Nigeria last month, the meaning of Boko Haram--the name used by the terrorist group that seized the girls--has become more widely known. The translation from the Hausa language is usually given in English language media as ``Western Education is Forbidden,'' though ``Non-Muslim Teaching is Forbidden'' might be more accurate. But little attention has been paid to the group's formal Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lidda'wa wal-Jihad. That roughly translates as ``The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War.'' That's a lot less catchy than Boko Haram, but is significantly more revealing about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in his goals and methods is, in fact, all too representative. The kidnapping of the schoolgirls throws into bold relief a central part of what the jihadists are about: the oppression of women. Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated. The terrorists' mission is no different from that of the Taliban assassin who shot and nearly killed 15-year-old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai--as she rode a schoolbus home in 2012--because she advocated girls' education. As I know from experience, nothing is more anathema to the jihadists than equal and educated women. How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as ``Islamophobes'' than to stand up for women's most basic rights. Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers? These girls' lives deserve more than a Twitter hashtag protest-- As we saw from former Secretary Hillary Clinton. Back to the article. It says: Organizations like Boko Haram do not arise in isolation. The men who establish Islamist groups, whether in Africa (Nigeria, Somalia, Mali), Southeast Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan), or even Europe (UK, Spain and the Netherlands) are members of long-established Muslim communities, most of whose members are happy to lead peaceful lives. To understand why the jihadists are flourishing, you need to understand the dynamics within those communities. I might insert parenthetically that the Muslims who wish to live in peace can be and are our friends. Though we disagree on our religious beliefs completely, we can be friends. I was with my dear friends Michele Bachmann and Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess, and I turned to see a very surprised look on their face when we made it through the midst of the Afghanistan capital. There were people holding rocket-propelled grenades as we turned down the alley to get to the Masood family compound. We pulled into the gate in the drive there within the inner part and I saw my Muslim friends coming out on the porch and down the stairs. So I jumped out. And I looked back and saw they looked a little surprise as I jumped out and these well-known Muslim Northern Alliance members spread their arms open wide, as I did, and we embraced strong, heartfelt embraces. Because I knew what they had been through in fighting radical Islam. I know that they do not want radical Islam taking back Afghanistan when we leave. I know that because this administration has turned its back on those Muslim non-extremists, we are putting their lives in danger as we leave them to the radical Islamist extremists poised and ready to take over in the vacuum that we leave. We owe our allies who fought and defeated the Taliban by early 2002 better than that. And my heart breaks as I think about the absolute horrors that will unfold in Afghanistan as our former allies have to defend themselves against radical Islam because they dare to be our friends and allies. That is no way to treat people who fought with you, for you, for themselves, because of that common desire not to be under the yoke and threat and hate of radical Islam. Back to Ms. Hirsi Ali's article. She says: So, imagine an angry young man in any Muslim community anywhere in the world. Imagine him trying to establish an association of men dedicated to the practice of Sunnah, (the tradition of guidance from the Prophet Muhammad). Much of the young man's preaching will address the place of women. He will recommend that girls and women be kept indoors and covered from head to toe if they are to venture outside. He will also condemn the permissiveness of Western society. What kind of response will he meet? In the U.S. and in Europe, some might quietly draw him to the attention of authorities. Women might voice concerns about the attacks on their freedom. But in other parts of the world, where law and order are lacking, such young men and their extremist messages thrive. Where governments are weak, corrupt or, nonexistent, the message of Boko Haram and it counterparts is especially compelling. Not implausibly, they can blame poverty on official corruption and offer as an antidote the pure principles of the Prophet. And in these countries, women are more vulnerable and their options are fewer. But why does our imaginary young zealot turn to violence? At first, he can count on some admiration for his fundamental message within the community where he starts out. He might encounter opposition from established Muslim leaders who feel threatened by him. But he perseveres because perseverance in the Sunnah is one of the most important keys to heaven. As he plods on from door to door, he gradually acquires a following. There comes a point when his following is as large as that of the Muslim community's established leaders. That's when the showdown happens--and the argument for ``holy war'' suddenly makes sense to him. The history of Boko Haram has followed precisely this script. The group was founded in 2002 by a young Islamist called Mohammed Yusuf, who started out preaching in a Muslim community in the Borno State of northern Nigeria. He set up an educational complex, including a mosque and an Islamic school. For 7 years, mostly poor families flocked to hear his message. But in 2009, the Nigerian government investigated Boko Haram and ultimately arrested several members, including Yusuf himself. The crackdown sparked violence that left about 700 dead. Yusuf soon died in prison--the government said he was killed while trying to escape--but the seeds had been planted. Under one of Yusuf's lieutenants, Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram turned to jihad. In 2011, Boko Haram launched its first terror attack in Borno. Four people were killed, and from then on violence became an integral part, if not the central part, of its mission. The recent kidnappings--11 more girls were abducted by Boko Haram on Sunday--join a litany of outrages, including multiple car bombings and the murder of 59 schoolboys in February. On Monday, as if to demonstrate its growing power, Boko Haram launched a 12-hour attack in the city of Gamboru Ngala, firing into the market crowds, setting houses aflame, and shooting down residents who ran from the burning buildings. Hundreds were killed. I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. This is Ms. Hirsi Ali saying this. She says: Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their mist who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war. Parenthetically here, Mr. Speaker, it should not have even required a FBI or CIA investigation into the older Tsarnaev brother to find out that he had been radicalized. It should not have required the Russians tipping our intelligence and the FBI that they were ignorant of how radicalized Tsarnaev had become. It shouldn't have required the FBI to go out to the mosque and make inquiry about Tsarnaev and what Muslim teachers he was drawn to, what Muslim books he was reading. It shouldn't have required that, but it did. Unfortunately, the FBI didn't do those things. Unfortunately, the FBI didn't even bother to notify the Boston police, as far as we can tell, that Tsarnaev had been radicalized--or, at least the Russians said he was--because I would be willing to bet if he had, the Boston police would have gotten to the bottom of it before the Boston marathon bombing occurred. Ms. Hirsi Ali says in her article: It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it. It should be also pointed out Ms. Hirsi Ali is a fellow of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is the founder of the AHA foundation. So I commend Harvard for having the courage to have someone to espouse the views that Ms. Hirsi Ali does. She has been there. She has courage. I hope and pray that universities across the United States, even though many of them are offered major Middle Eastern money if they will do this, and have a seminar on Islamaphobia and help eradicate anyone or any thought that radical Islam is a threat, and let's just suppress anything like that. I applaud universities that have the courage to do that. But too many don't. And they don't stand up as they should. And what is amazing is, we have people in this country and in this city and in the media who take the gutless position that they will try to portray Republicans or conservatives as hating women. Why? Because they know we are not going to kill them. We will disagree with them, we will debate them, we will say they are wrong, but we are not going to kill them because of what they believe. In Western society, in every State and Federal law it has always been true, except those that are allowing sharia law to creep in, but it has always been true that provoking words are never an offense to a physical assault. That is kind of 101 criminal law in most any law school, except, of course, if it is teaching sharia law. Under sharia law, provoking words, no matter how minor, can be the basis for capital punishment. You offend a radical Islamist, that is the basis for killing them. We have never believed that in Western society. As Judeo-Christian ideals have spread even among atheists, secularists, and other religious believers, that has been a good, sound doctrine. Provoking words--or a cartoon--may evoke anger and may provoke anger, but it should not provoke physical violence. It is time liberals rose up with enough courage to say: You know what? Wow, there is a war against women, and it is killing women. There are laws in some places of radical Islam that say: if you are a woman who is raped, if you don't have four men who are respected Muslims who can stand up and be eyewitnesses that you were raped, then we may need to stone you to death for allowing such to occur. That is not an American ideal. That is a war on women. I have prosecuted, and I have sentenced enough rapists that it is something that is very difficult for me to sit and listen to, and to think that so many of the cases for which I sentenced rapists to prison could never have been brought and the woman would have to live in fear and horror if we were living under the kind of law where there really is a cultural war on women and, sometimes, a physical war on women. In the United States, I know families where the parents are Christians and the children chose not to believe in Jesus as Lord, and it breaks the hearts of the parents; but the thought would never, ever cross their mind to engage in violence. I have been told about someone we are trying to help, whose family was Islamist, radical, in another part of the world. When he became a Christian, that made him worthy of the death penalty. It made his child worthy of the death penalty, in their opinion. He has been killed. Other family members that have tried to help, who were moderate Muslims and didn't believe someone who became a Christian should be murdered, have paid the price with their lives. These things are happening around the world, and it is time liberals fought a more courageous fight and stood--and instead of screaming about Islamophobia, stood and said, you know, there are Muslim friends and allies, but there is a radical Islamist part in this world, a sect in this world that wants to kill, destroy anything, including what we consider to be innocent children, women, men. Until we confront that fact, this country is going to continue to be subjected to threats against American lives here and abroad. It is easier to attack Americans abroad. Americans, including this body--I mean, we were outraged at what happened to those Nigerian children, boys killed, the girls threatened with being sold into what basically would be a slave-type marriage. It is outrageous. So you wonder why in the world the State Department would not have the courage to take a stand. There was an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy, and he incorporates much of a fantastic article from Josh Rogin, from the Daily Beast, and it is dated May 8. It says: ``We must stand up to terrorism,'' bleated Hillary Clinton a few days ago in a tweet expressing outrage against Boko Haram, the jihadist organization that has abducted hundreds of young girls in Nigeria. Yet, when she was actually in a position to stand up to Boko Haram's terrorism as Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton instead protected the group. Josh Rogin reports at the Daily Beast: The State Department under Hillary Clinton, fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for 2 years; and now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls. While Ms. Clinton now issues indignant tweets, Rogin elaborates on her failure to mention that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on its list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen. ``The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use, and nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy,'' said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ``The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.'' In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, General Carter Ham, the chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ``safe haven'' for al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group; and yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster. As Mr. Rogin further details, placing an organization on the terrorist list enables the government to use various investigative tools for law enforcement and intelligence- gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the conduct of business with it. After numerous Boko Haram atrocities, Republicans attempted to force Secretary Clinton to designate the group or explain why she refused to do so. The State Department heavily lobbied against the legislation. Only after John Kerry replaced Clinton and after a series of jihadist bombings against churches and other targets did the State Department finally relent and add Boko Haram to the terrorist list last November. The excuses now being offered in explanation for Clinton's dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton's State Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United States. Have a look, though, at the State Department's list here. Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist campaigns that do not threaten our country, the Basque ETA, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Real Irish Republican Army, et cetera. A significant reason for having the list is to promote international cooperation against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone, anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have only local grievances and may not directly imperil the U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from the list. Fox News has further reported about another rationale of Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko Haram's profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason, would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That is ridiculous. The main point of having the list and the sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation is to weaken the organization by depriving of it assets and material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law--much of which was put in place by the administration of Bill Clinton--does more harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that? What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic- supremacist organization. Ms. Clinton, like the Obama administration more broadly, believes that appeasing Islamists--avoiding actions that might give them offense, slamming Americans who provoke them--promotes peace and stability. See Egypt for a good example of how well this approach is working. Furthermore, if you are claiming to have ``decimated'' al Qaeda, as the Obama administration was claiming to have done in the runup to the 2012 election, the last thing you want to do is add jihadists to the terror list--or beef up security at diplomatic posts in jihadist hot spots or acknowledge that jihadists rioting in Cairo or jihadist attacks in Benghazi are something other than ``protests'' inspired by ``an Internet video.'' It is very simple. Most of us on the national-security right recognize that Islamic supremacism is an ideology rooted in Muslim scripture--a strict, literal, ancient interpretation of Muslim scripture, that is. Essentially, it advocates the adoption of shari'a, Islam's legal code and societal framework. It is not the only way of construing Muslim scripture. And I add, fortunately. He said: And we certainly hope that more benign constructions become dominant, but Islamic supremacism is far more mainstream than the West likes to admit, particularly in the Middle East and growing swaths of Africa. It is an ideology that endorses violent jihad, the treatment of women as chattel, sex slavery, child marriages, and the horrible stuff that outfits like Boko Haram are into. Even though these organizations-- quite naturally--terrorize locally, their aspirations are global, and they are a threat to us because their ideology unites them and regards the West as the enemy. The left, by contrast, seems to believe that ``Islamists''--which are adherents of Islamic supremacism-- are motivated not by an ideology derived from scriptural commands, but by American policies that promote national defense, pursue U.S. interests, and regard Israel as a key ally. Indeed, progressives like Ms. Clinton are anti- antiterrorists in the sense that they portray the national security right as a greater threat than Islamic supremacism. Ms. Clinton and her cohort do not deny that they are terrorists motivated by Islam, but they see terrorists and Islamists as separate categories, not united by single ideology. Anyway, the article goes on and makes very clear that there are too many in America who think they will just beat up on conservatives, beat up on Republicans, beat up on conservatives who have the same ideas about marriage that Barack Obama did during the campaign of 2008, that John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, people that were considered liberal did in prior years, to beat up on Americans who hold those same beliefs in the Bible. It is easier to beat up on conservatives because we are not going to kill you. We will argue with you. We will get frustrated with you. But real courage is found in people like Ms. Hirsi Ali who know that her life and their lives are at risk every day, every minute of every day because, to this supremacist ideology, provoking words are not only a defense, but they are a reason to kill people, to brutalize them unmercifully. And then we have this article from May 7 by Patrick Goodenough from CNSNews. A man displays copies of several local newspapers during a demonstration calling on the government to rescue the kidnapped schoolgirls outside defense headquarters in Abuja on Tuesday, May 6, 2014. Secretary of State John Kerry, on Wednesday, underlined the issue of the poverty as a recruitment tool for extremist groups like Boko Haram, although analysts and Nigerian officials have for months been reporting that the organization is forcibly conscripting civilians, including children, into its ranks. During his recent Africa trip, leaders had told him that much of the challenge in confronting violent extremist groups like Boko Haram lies in fighting poverty, Kerry said at a Council of the Americas conference in Washington. ``They all talked about poverty and the need to alleviate poverty, and that much of this challenge comes out of this poverty where young people are grabbed at an early stage, proffered a little bit of money,'' he said. ``Their minds are bended, and then the money doesn't matter anymore. They've got the minds, and they begin to direct them into these very extreme endeavors.'' The Islamist terrorist group has waged a violent campaign against Nigerian Christians and government targets since 2009, but shot to global prominence in recent weeks with its kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls in the country's northeastern Borno State. Its leader has described them as ``slaves'' and is threatening to sell them or ``marry'' them off. In a new attack this week, as many as 300 people were reportedly killed. But it is interesting. This follows the Obama administration's ideology campaign rhetoric: Gee, we are not at war with radical Islam. The real problem here is poverty. If we can eliminate poverty, then we can eliminate radical Islam. And that flies in the face of the facts. People that have looked under the surface at all are aware Osama bin Laden was wealthy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is credited with planning the 9/11, not tragedy, as might be said here, but murders of thousands of Americans and is proud of it, and he has said in his own pleadings that he, himself, prepared and that have been declassified: If our efforts on 9/11 caused you terror, then praise be to Allah. And he points out in his pleadings that it is Allah who has commanded them to be at war and kill people, such as Christians and Jews--Jews because they are vermin and, as Muslim Brothers have said, are descended from apes and pigs. But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his pleading, points out that also it is fine to kill Christians because they believe in a Holy Trinity. They believe and say that God had a Son, Jesus. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his pleading, points out the verse in the Koran that there is no authorization to combine anyone or anything with Allah; and, therefore, if you do that, as Christians do, believing in the Holy Trinity, believing that Jesus is the Son of God, then that justifies capital punishment, killing you, torturing, whatever they care to do, because, under their way of thinking, you are worthy of death. Well, because of the approach of Secretary Clinton's State Department and of this administration, when the Egyptian people went to the streets by the millions--the estimates, 33 million. Even 20 million would have been larger than any protest in the history of the world. Morsi only claimed to have gotten around 13 million votes to be President. There were many who believed with all their hearts and had evidence, they say, that he got the vote by fraud. But threats were made behind the scenes: If you contest this election, people will die, and we will burn this country down. Well, when the Egyptian people--the moderate Muslims, the Christians, the Jews, the secularists--had had enough of radical Islam, they rose up and demanded Morsi's removal, as he continued to usurp more and more power not given to him under the constitution. And since the constitution didn't allow for impeachment, the only thing the people could do was rise up before he got the kind of power Chavez had in Venezuela. Because when a dictator begins pulling power into himself, you have got to stop him early, or it will cost so many more lives. And that is why this was one of the banners that Egyptian protesters held up. On one half, an American flag with a green checkmark; on the other half, they had our great President's face with a red x. What they were saying and what they made clear in other banners and statements was that this administration is supporting the radical Islamists, and that we moderate Muslims, we Christians, Jews, secularists, we don't want the Muslim Brotherhood, these radicals that have been properly classified as a terrorist organization. And this administration has kowtowed repeatedly, just as Brandeis University did, to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, who were cited by a U.S. district judge and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as being a front organization. They had plenty of evidence to support that they were a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and were related and working with the Holy Land Foundation, as it supported terrorism. It is time Americans woke up. The Egyptians certainly woke up as they raised their hands and said: We don't want radical Islam. Now, I don't agree with this, but this is what the Egyptians were marching around Egypt with. And why would they say Obama supports terrorism? It is because the United States, under this administration, supported Morsi, supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptian people had had enough, and they decried anyone in the United States that was supporting these terrorists. And as some of us travel around the Middle East, moderate Muslim leaders say: Why are you not helping us in the war against terrorism anymore? You are helping the bad guys. You helped the al Qaeda-backed rebels in Libya. And as I speak, there are training camps in Libya, like there were in Afghanistan before we went in with less than 500 Americans. But we helped the Northern Alliance Muslims take out the radical Islamic Taliban. My friend is coming to the floor. He and I have traveled around those parts, and he had been engaged with many moderate Muslims in fighting the Russians, even, back before my predecessor Charlie Wilson was in Congress. I am very proud to consider him a friend. I am proud of the efforts we have made to reach out to our allies. It was my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who introduced me to Massoud and General Dostum and so many of the moderate Muslims that just want out from under the oppression that radical Islam brings. So, Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this week, I want to encourage those in Egypt who are standing up to radical Islam. I want to encourage universities to stand up against radical Islam and have the courage to recognize moderate Muslims who will stand up and have the courage to speak up against the real war on women in this world. And it is not by conservatives. It is by radical Islam.

Mr. GOHMERT. My time is about expired, but I will certainly yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I recognize and congratulate the Brook Hill Lady Guard on a stellar 2013- 2014 soccer season in which they once again captured the TAPPS Division III state championship. The Brook Hill Lady Guard triumphed over the Austin Veritas Lady Defenders with a final score of 1-0, and finished a magnificent season with a perfect 19-0 record. The defending champion Lady Guard boasted 17 consecutive shutouts, and the entire season only saw them giving up two goals. The Brook Hill Lady Guard's championship success is a tribute to the coach who brought his team back for another chance at victory, as well as a tribute to the players and all who assisted them along the way. This recognition of their accomplishment is extended to all of the athletic staff including the outstanding Head Coach David Collins, Assistant Coaches Jordan Roquemore and Neal McGowan, and Trainer Tristan Trevino, all under the outstanding leadership of Athletic Director Wally Dawkins, as well as the stellar school administration headed by Rod Fletcher. The team members responsible for bringing the second championship title home to east Texas include Hayden Langemeier, Kennedy Rose, Lily Cool, Katherine Stair, Tito Babatunde, Maria Moore, Ari Assad, Elise Hawkins, Danielle Adams, Janet Nwachukwu, Hope Cooper, Kendall Wells, Hayley Dumesnil, Li Ming, Morgan Moss, Penny End, Katie Smith, and Julia Troxell. The Brook Hill staff and the entire community of Bullard have devoted countless hours to support and encourage these young ladies in the pursuit of their dream. It is my most esteemed honor to congratulate everyone involved with this endeavor. May God continue to bless these young women, their families and friends, and all those individuals who call Bullard, Texas their home. Congratulations to the 2014 TAPPS Division III State Soccer Champions, the Brook Hill Lady Guard, as their back to back championship legacy is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to recognize an incredible, charming, superlative institution of higher learning located within the First Congressional District of Texas. The historically significant Wiley College was founded in 1873 and is located in Marshall, Texas. Wiley College first received national acclaim in 1935 when its debate team defeated the then reigning national forensics champion, the University of Southern California. The dramatic face off between these two universities was depicted in the movie ``The Great Debaters'' which helped reinvigorate the debate program at the college and began to erode the racial barrier that once plagued academia. It is with tremendous pride that I can say ``The Great Debaters'' have done it again by bringing home first place honors in the National Pi Kappa Delta Comprehensive National Tournament which was held in Indianapolis, Indiana. After an outstanding period of 373 successful debates and 60 awards, this victory marks the pinnacle of the team's superb season. The debate team which once again captured the enthusiasm and commitment of that 1935 team was comprised of only first and second year collegiate competitors: Austin Ashford, Dominick Taylor, Drake Pough, Eric Robinson, Farah Habad, Jhamiah Dixon, LaQuanda Streeter, Rachel Garnett, Autumn Locke, Autumnwind Spear, Mary Mitchell, Kayla Hall, Cameron Smith, Jesus Cardenas, Katori Mobley, Benjamin Turner, Marcus Rembert, Ernest Mack, Ki-Jana Hernandez, Aaron Tumbaga, Robert Hollar, Nathan Leal, and Lyle Kleinman. The students of the Melvin B. Tolson/Denzel Washington Forensics Society's debate team would not have been able to accomplish this meaningful achievement without the excellent instruction given by Coach Christopher Medina, Director of Forensics; Coach Sarah Spiker Rainey, Assistant Director of Forensics; and Interpretation Coach Sean Allen-- along with Forensics Specialists Coach Kris Stroup, Coach Jane Munksgaard, and Coach Todd Rainey. Special recognition must also be given to the President and CEO of Wiley College, Dr. Haywood Strickland; Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Glenda Carter; and Vice President of Student Affairs and Enrollment Services, Dr. Joseph Morale. Heartfelt congratulations are extended to all faculty, staff, students and alumni of Wiley College as well as the entire east Texas community of Marshall, Texas, as their legacy of distinction is now recorded in the Congressional Record that will endure as long as there is a United States of America.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments by the minority whip instructing us to check the Constitution. That really struck me, because I believe I recall him standing up and applauding in this Chamber when the President said: If Congress doesn't do its job, I will basically do it for them. So someone that would do that doesn't need to be giving lectures on the Constitution. We have powers under the Constitution that we have got to protect. When someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then attempts to take the Fifth Amendment right, it is not there. This is the next step. It will preserve the sanctity and the power of this body, whether it is Democrats or Republicans in charge or anyone who attempts to skirt justice and provide truth.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend and colleague, Ms. Frankel, for a wonderful presentation. I know, in having traveled with Congresswoman Frankel, that we share a great respect and admiration for the nation of Israel, and we should be the best friend Israel has in the world because they believe in the things we do, in the same values. Where else in the Middle East do people get to vote, whether you are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, except in Israel? If you are a woman, where are you respected and given the full rights that men have, except for in Israel? Where in the Middle East are homosexuals not persecuted and even killed? We ought to be Israel's best friend in the world; and I am very concerned that, at times, it feels like we may not be. So I join my friend in wanting to do everything we can to shore up that relationship with Israel, and I thank her for her dedication. I also believe firmly that it is true that those who bless Israel seem to end up being blessed. Go figure. So I am grateful for that presentation. Mr. Speaker, I did want to answer or attempt to answer a question that I have been asked many times about media reporting and presentations and why some stories get covered by the mainstream media, particularly by the three main networks for broadcast television and CNN and MSNBC as well. I saw a chart that was put together by a group, called the Minority Report, but I wasn't as interested in the group as I was in finding out if the relationships set forth in the chart were actually accurate, so I had my staff help me. Let's find out. Is this chart really accurate? I was really staggered by what was in the chart. This is not the entire chart, but it is most of it. Their chart was entitled, ``Keeping It in the Family,'' and it was very interesting. As you see the chart here, at CNN, the vice president and deputy bureau chief in Washington is Virginia Moseley, who is married to Tom Nides, who is the former Deputy Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State. You have Bianna Golodryga, married to Peter Orszag, who was the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Obama administration. You have Ben Sherwood, and he is the brother of Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is the former adviser to Joe Biden and also an adviser to the President. At ABC News, you have Ian Cameron, who is the former executive producer of ``This Week,'' and he is married to someone named Susan Rice, who, obviously, was the National Security Advisor to the President before she went to the U.N. You have Claire Shipman, who is married to someone named Jay Carney. Claire Shipman is a correspondent with ABC News. Then you have Matthew Jaffe, who is married to Katie Hogan. Katie Hogan was the Deputy Press Secretary for President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign; and she is the spokesperson for Organizing for Action, OFA, which is working hard, apparently, to turn Texas blue, as they say. Anyway, Matthew Jaffe is a reporter with ABC News. Then not to leave out NBC News, you have Robert Gibbs, the former White House Press Secretary for President Obama. You have him as a contributor to NBC News. You have the former senior adviser to the President, David Axelrod, who is known for the massive and important advice he has given to President Obama as a senior political analyst for MSNBC. Oh, we don't want to forget, over here, CBS News. You have the president of CBS News, who is David Rhodes. David Rhodes is akin to--is the brother of--Ben Rhodes, who is the person who coined the phrase ``kinetic military action,'' instead of using the word ``war.'' He coordinated the edits, apparently, of the Benghazi talking points, and of course, he had a great deal to do with what was done in Libya by this administration and the way that was discussed with the media. So it is not necessarily surprising that Sharyl Attkisson ran into the buzz saw she did at CBS News when the president of CBS News is the brother of someone who was helping pull the strings at the White House. In fact, some of the articles that were pulled to point out some of these relationships--an article by Ed Morrissey on April 29 of 2014 talked about the newly released White House email, which shows that the Rice talking points on Benghazi were politically motivated. It says, in part, in the article: The YouTube story was designed to distract from ``policy failures,'' according to Barack Obama's aide Ben Rhodes--or the brother to the president of CBS News. Then it goes on to set out part of Mr. Ben Rhode's email, and he says in the email, Ben Rhodes does--the brother of David Rhodes, the president of CBS News: To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy; to show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice and standing steadfast through these protests; to reinforce the President and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges. On the toplines, he says: Since we began to see protests in response to this Internet video, the President has directed the administration to take a number of steps. His top priority has been the safety and security of all Americans serving abroad. Indeed, that was exactly what people in the administration were saying. That was what the people at CBS News were parroting. Since that came from the brother of the CBS News president, that seems to have worked pretty effectively. There is another article here, ``Worldly at 35, and Shaping Obama's Voice.'' It was an article in The New York Times in March of 2013 by Mark Landler. It says: As President Obama prepares to visit Israel next week, he is turning, as he often does, to Benjamin J. Rhodes, a 35- year-old Deputy National Security Advisor with a soft voice, strong opinions, and a reputation around the White House as the man who channels Mr. Obama on foreign policy. Mr. Rhodes is drafting the address to the Israeli people the President plans to give in Jerusalem. But his influence extends beyond what either his title or speech-writing duties suggest. Drawing on personal ties and a philosophical kinship with Mr. Obama that go back to the 2008 campaign, Mr. Rhodes helped prod his boss to take a more activist policy toward Egypt and Libya when those countries erupted in 2011. On further in the article it points out: Two years ago, when protesters thronged Tahrir Square in Cairo, Mr. Rhodes urged Mr. Obama to withdraw three decades of American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. A few months later, Mr. Rhodes was among those agitating for the President to back a NATO military intervention in Libya to head off a slaughter by Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. Further down in the article it says: At the White House, Mr. Rhodes first came to prominence after he wrote Mr. Obama's landmark address to the Muslim world in Cairo in June, 2009. The speech was notable for Mr. Obama's assertion that governments should ``reflect the will of the people,'' prefiguring his policy in dealing with Mr. Mubarak and Colonel Qaddafi. Another article from March of 2011 by Rick Moran. It starts out with a reference to Alice in Wonderland, when Rick Moran says: A ``war'' is a war, is a ``war,'' right? Not if you live in the Rabbit Hole and have to answer to Alice-- talking about Alice in Wonderland-- as Commander in Chief. But Byron York is quoted--and I take it this was an article by Byron York inserted in Mr. Moran's piece--and says: In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? For military officers to White House spokesmen up to the President himself, the answer is ``no.'' But that leaves the question: What is it? In a briefing onboard Air Force One Wednesday, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes-- Again, this is 2011-- --took a crack at an answer. ``I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,'' Rhodes said. ``Obviously, that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.'' That came from Ben Rhodes. And then Mr. Moran's article says: What we are doing in Libya is making war, whether the Obama administration admits it or not. People aren't getting killed by ``kinetic'' anything. They are dying the old-fashioned way--they are getting blown up. This gives a whole new meaning to ``KIA.'' Another article from Patrick Howley from May 11, 2013, entitled, ``Top Obama Official's Brother is President of CBS News, May Drop Reporter Over Benghazi Coverage.'' It says: The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration's scandals too aggressively. Down further it says: That reporting revealed that President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes--brother of CBS News president David Rhodes--was instrumental in changing the talking points in September, 2012. The article further down says more about Mr. Rhodes being a 35-year- old New York native; David Rhodes, president of CBS news since 2011. So it is rather amazing, but it should be more clear to people. People wonder why the mainstream gives such favorable coverage to the Obama administration. Well, blood is thicker than water, is one saying. In the case of our mainstream media, they totally dropped the ball on Benghazi and continue to report on anything else they can besides Benghazi. I am very grateful that the mainstream media on the left and right back in the seventies did not drop the Watergate investigation. They stayed on it until the truth came out. Back in those days, the mainstream media was so important to protecting our freedom and protecting Americans from a President who had an enemies' list and protecting America from a President that seemed a bit paranoid at times. A man, a fellow Christian and an amazing man of faith after his conversion during the Watergate investigation, Chuck Colson, talked in his book, ``Born Again'' about how after the Kent State debacle and students were killed, it turned basically into a bunker at the White House. It was ``we'' against ``they,'' and if you were critical at all, you didn't deserve to be in the bunker. You were an enemy. We are very fortunate that when a President begins to have that kind of mentality and so afraid of anybody who is critical, we are fortunate he did not understand just how far a President, how far an administration could push the IRS into going after political enemies, as we have now seen that it has. Whether or not the IRS's weaponization was before the 2012 election, the President had a call to arms right here in front of the House and the Senate and the Cabinet members, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Supreme Court, sitting right here, when he mistakenly asserted what he believed were facts about the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, and it was so wrong, to the point that Justice Alito sat right here just feet away from where I am standing, shaking his head and saying, Not true, not true, not true. Nonetheless, people at the IRS heard the call. They paid attention. And they came to understand that maybe the Supreme Court says conservatives can run ads and get involved in political issues like union groups do, but maybe we can stop them. And they effectively did that by putting their investigations into their tax status on hold and refusing to give them any kind of decision until well after the 2012 election, thereby silencing those voices. I have had reporters who obviously don't understand the Tax Code and the power of the IRS say, Well, what difference does it make? Those groups probably shouldn't have been applying for tax status like they were anyway. Obviously, showing the ignorance of the reporters when they ask such questions. Because the way the Internal Revenue Code is set up, if someone in the general population just decides I want to get a bunch of friends together who have political beliefs like I do and we are going to pool our money together and then we are going to start spending it on issues to educate the American public, and somebody has got to account for all that money, you don't want the IRS coming after you as you accumulate money to spend on political education of America. So you have to go begging to the IRS for the proper designation so that you can go about gathering money without them coming against you as being a single individual raising money to spend on political issues. That also, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why we need to throw out the Internal Revenue Code. Just pass a bill that says as of a certain date the Internal Revenue Code will be totally void, and that gives us a deadline to shoot for. I like the idea of a flat tax. There are people that I love and respect that think a fair tax is a better way to go. But by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code, throwing it out on a date certain, then we would only have so long to get a new Tax Code figured out. We would be serving notice to people that that is when it would change. I have heard our President say so many times that people need to pay their fair share. Well, it doesn't look like that is ever going to happen until we have a flat tax, where if you make more, you pay more; you make less, you pay less. That is what we ought to be doing. Anyway, as a result, we have an IRS that became weaponized on behalf of one political party and one administration. And we do need a special prosecutor. I have been pointing that out for quite some time. There are criminals laws that may have been violated. That is why we need a special prosecutor, not the Justice Department. We have seen their kind of ``just us'' rather than ``justice.'' We need a special prosecutor that is not appointed by Eric Holder. We need to get to the bottom of who violated the law. Because it appears laws were broken. But some wonder why the mainstream media doesn't get into the IRS weaponization more. We see the familial relationships between the mainstream media--not that I am saying CNN and MSNBC on the extreme left are mainstream media, but they are part of the media who avoids reporting anything negative about this President. Well, you hate to report things negative on your own family. So that is understandable. So, Mr. Speaker, it explains a lot, once you begin to see all of the marriages and all of the sibling relationships between this administration and people in the media--siblings in the media--people calling the shots and giving the advice in our major news media. Mr. Speaker, we also sometimes are a little surprised as the mainstream media tries to desperately change the subject from the false reports and statements that were made about Benghazi and the coverup that we are now finding out about Benghazi. They are constantly trying to change the subject, in their desperation to protect their familial relationships in the administration. I had a call today wanting me to come on the news tomorrow and talk about climate change. It used to be called global warming until people realized, wow, it is not really warming anything very serious, so we better start calling it climate change. And as any real scientists know, when you come up with a scientific theory, then there are certain facts that will prove your theory or your assertion. But when we talk about climate change, people are not doing that. Whatever happens, if there are a lot of tornados, they say: see, it is climate change. If there are very few tornados, they say: see, it is climate change. If we have numerous hurricanes, they say: see, it is climate change. If there are not many hurricanes, they say: see, it is climate change. No matter what happens in the weather, we are told it is climate change. The truth is I believe in climate change. I not only believe in climate change, I know it is happening, usually, most places, four times a year. They are called seasons. Then we have climate changing--I will never forget, back in the midseventies, there was a cover of one of the main American magazines about how we were approaching--heading into a new ice age. I thought, well, that doesn't make sense. I do believe the Bible, and I don't believe the world is going to end in ice. That just doesn't seem right, yet we heard scientists telling us: oh, no, we are at the beginning of a new ice age in the mid-1970s. We are at the beginning of a new ice age. They were wanting to change everything we were doing. Oh, we have got to change everything we are doing about power, about fossil fuels, everything because we are at the beginning of a new ice age. About 10 years later, people saw: well, we may be slightly warming, so we had better quit talking about global cooling, and now, we are talking about global warming. There is an interesting article that came out today from Mario Lewis entitled, ``National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom.'' This article today says: Tuesday, the U.S. Government's Global Change Research Program released its latest ``National Assessment'' report on climate change impacts in the United States. As with previous editions, the new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates. Also in keeping with past practice, the latest report confuses climate risk with climate change risk. Droughts, storms, floods, and heat waves are all part of the natural climate. Our risk of exposure to such extremes has much more to do with where we happen to live than with any gradual climate changes associated with the 1.3 degree Fahrenheit to 1.9 degree Fahrenheit increase in average U.S. temperature since the 1880s. Since even immediate and total shutdown of all carbon dioxide-emitting vehicles, power plants, and factories in the U.S. would decrease global warming by only a hypothetical and undetectable two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100-- Eighty-five years, even if they got everything they wanted for 85 years, the article says: It is misleading to imply, as the report does, that the Obama administration's climate policies can provide any measurable protection from extreme weather events. The assessment is flatout wrong that climate change is increasing our vulnerability to heat stress. As hot weather has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted to it, and heat-related mortality in the U.S. has declined. Cities with the most frequent hot weather, such as Tampa; Florida; and Phoenix, Arizona, have practically zero heat- related mortality. That is the most probable future for most U.S. cities if global warming continues. The report also foolishly predicts that climate change ``intensify air pollution.'' As EPA's own data show, despite allegedly ``unprecedented'' warming, the U.S. air quality has improved decade by decade since 1970 as emissions declined. The report blames climate change for the Midwest drought of 2012, but the government's own analysis concluded otherwise: ``Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn-producing regions of central Great Plains.'' This assessment ignores substantial data and research, finding no long-term increase in the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones and no trend in extreme weather-related damages once losses are ``normalized'' or adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and consumer price index. For example, the report says trends in the frequency and intensity of tornadoes are ``uncertain,'' whereas, in fact, there is no trend, and a new study by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., finds ``with some certainty'' that ``the number of years with very large tornado losses has actually decreased'' during 1993-2013 compared to 1950-1970. Similarly, the U.S. is currently in the longest period on record with no major category 3-5 hurricane landfalls. This good news is not included in the report. The assessment gives short shrift to the warming ``pause,'' which it calls ``short-term.'' In the assessment, the ``pause'' is depicted as running from 1998 through 2012. That is 15 years. In fact, the pause is now 17 years and 8 months long. More tellingly, the assessment does not discuss the growing divergence between climate model predictions and observations. The divergence, now in its 34th year and accelerating due to the pause, raises questions about the climate sensitivity assumptions on which dire climate change scenarios depend. Climate sensitivity is an estimate of how much warming will eventually result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations relative to preindustrial levels. In its discussion of sensitivity, the assessment basically endorses the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 ``likely'' sensitivity range of 3.6 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit and ``best estimate'' of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. It neglects to mention that, partly due to the pause and model overshoot of observed temperatures, the IPCC's 2013 report lowered the bottom end of the likely range and declined to offer a ``best'' estimate. More importantly, the assessment presents the debate over climate sensitivity as a ``he said, she said,'' as if a single paper by John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth balances out some 16 recent papers indicating that the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are too hot. In other words, they are just wrong. The article says: So despite an occasional fig leaf to hide the nakedness of its alarm message, the report does acknowledge that climate change has lengthened growing seasons, helping to make food more abundant and affordable, the assessment is unrelenting gloom and doom. Its only hopeful message is that it's not too late to implement Kyoto-style climate policies. Sorry, that's not good enough even for government work. Mario Lewis is a Ph.D., a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise institute. And it really is important to real realize what is at stake here. It is something that shocked me back when we were trying, in my freshman term, to amend and reform the Endangered Species Act that has wreaked such havoc with our economy and continues to cause people to lose jobs. There was reported decline in the unemployment rate from 6.7 to 6.3, and you heard all of the mainstream media, in helping their family members in this administration, just all abuzz and aglow with how wonderful that four-tenths of a percent drop was, failing completely to mention that that was only a fraction of the 800,000 who got so tired of not finding work--800,000 people gave up and quit looking for work and are now considered, under statistics, to no longer be unemployed, even though they are unemployed. It doesn't account for all the people that are underemployed, that are out of college and can't find jobs; the historic high unemployment rate of our veterans coming back and looking for jobs, even as this administration not only wants to cut the military back to a fraction of its former self, back to pre-World War II levels, when we were not a superpower, and hatred and genocide began to reign supreme. That doesn't explain why the administration and some people here in the House, friends of mine here in the House, that are saying: You know what? Let's give the few jobs left in our military to people that are not lawfully in this country. If they will do that, even though it will displace one of the few military jobs left after we cut the military back so far and even though it will push them into an even-growing high unemployment rate for veterans, let's go ahead and give those few jobs left to people who are not lawfully in the country. It is not a good idea. After pushing for over a year and a half for a select committee to get to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi and after we still haven't gotten to the bottom of the Department of Justice's role in forcing guns, which we know they did, forced guns to be sold to criminals and people that should not have had guns, that ended up with drug cartels in Mexico, with reports of hundreds of Mexicans killed by the weapons we forced into improper and illegal criminal hands, we-- being the Justice Department of this administration--we haven't gotten answers to that. That is why, even today, as I stand here, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the land stands in contempt of Congress; although I was gratified to hear him say, in answer to a question of mine, that I am not supposed to ever presume that it wasn't a big deal to him. Unfortunately, he said, a year ago to ABC News that it wasn't any kind of big deal at all because, to be a big deal, he would have had to have respect for the people that voted for the contempt; and since he had no respect for the people that voted for the contempt, it wasn't a big deal to him. So a year ago, it wasn't a big deal; and this year, apparently, it is still a big deal, but I am not supposed to think that it is not a big deal to him, even though that is what he said, and the familial relationships in the mainstream media continue to give cover. As I have continued to complain about the inadequate investigation into the Tsarnaevs--the failure of this administration to properly investigate the Tsarnaevs, even after the Russians, who are not our friends, gave us, twice, a heads up. Look out. The older Tsarnaev has been radicalized. Now, you have got people in the mainstream media parroting what the Obama administration is saying. Well, those darned old Russians, they should have given us more information. They did us a favor giving us a heads up. We are not their friends. They gave us a heads up anyway. They don't even--they purged the FBI training material, so our agents don't know the proper questions to ask to find out if someone has been radicalized. They won't allow people that have spent their adult lives studying radical Islam--people like that, like Steve Coughlin--they are not allowed to even go give a briefing to people to explain what radical Islam is. And then we hear people like the Department of Homeland Security Secretary at the time, Janet Napolitano, who seemed to take the position that, gee, you know, we are just not able to connect the dots. But yet it appears that, under her watch, not only did she promote what Egyptian Muslim Brother publications said were top Muslim Brother people into top Homeland Security and Obama administration positions, but she gave a secret clearance--and there is no way it could have been given after proper vetting because proper vetting would have showed that he was a main speaker giving tribute to the man of vision, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who has a foundation called the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which is the same name as the Muslim Brother political party in Egypt who defended the convicted terrorist supporter of the head of the Holy Land Foundation, said there was nothing wrong with what he was doing. I am very proud of the Senator from Iowa. I want to do a shout-out, Mr. Speaker, down the hall and read a letter from Senator Grassley. I was just there in Iowa a few days ago, Senator Grassley's territory. The senior Senator from Iowa, Charles E. Grassley, wrote a letter to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, and he said: My office recently received copies of disturbing internal Department of Homeland Security, DHS, emails regarding the admittance of individuals into the United States with potential ties to terrorism. The May 2012 email chain between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, surrounds the question of whether to admit someone who had scheduled an upcoming flight into the U.S. Allegedly, the individual was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close associate of a supporter of ``Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic jihad.'' According to the same email, the individual had been in secondary inspection ``several dozen times of the past several years,'' but had not had a secondary inspection since 2010. One of the responses to the initial email states: ``The CBP National Targeting Center, NTC, watch commander advised that the subject has sued CBP twice in the past and that he's one of the several hands-off passengers nationwide. Apparently, his records were removed in December 2010, and the DHS Secretary was involved in the matter.'' The email continues: I'm puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial-- Which, parenthetically, was a trial in which people were convicted of supporting terrorism, providing financial support for terrorism, convicted, and this individual mentioned was a named coconspirator in the pleadings. The message and the email goes on: --be an associate of (redacted), say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that it is okay for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted. It doesn't appear that we'll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow, but maybe we could reevaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago. Senator Grassley's message to Secretary Johnson of DHS said: In order to understand the events described in these emails, please provide the committee with answers to the following questions: One, why was this individual removed from the watchlist in December 2010? Two, please describe the nature, extent, and reasons for the involvement of the DHS Secretary or her staff in the removal of the individual from the watchlist. Three, what is the current watchlist status of this individual? Four, how many people are on the hands-off list mentioned in the email? Five, what qualifies someone to receive the ``hands-off'' designation? Six, does filing a lawsuit result in being designated ``hands-off'' and, thus, avoiding secondary security screenings? Seven, who makes the determination that an individual should be considered ``hands-off''? Senator Grassley says: I would appreciate receiving answers to these questions by March 3, 2014. Should you have any questions regarding the letter--and he goes on, and he signs it, Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member. Then there is an attachment to his letter. And there is so much that is redacted here, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of gaps. But even so, it is easy to see how serious this is. This was from Thursday, May 10, 2012, not quite a year before the Boston bombing. But as was pointed out in the letter, this email was from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol protection. The body says: The NTC watch commander advised that the subject has sued CBP twice in the past and that he's one of several hands-off passengers nationwide. He said he checked if there was a copy of the lawsuits filed against CBP in the historical logs. Can you pass the lawsuits if they are at NTC? I assume the lawsuits were against the heads of DHS and presume it was a civil proceeding, but who knows where it was filed, since the subject lives outside the U.S. I didn't know that a Canadian citizen who lives in (blank) could sue DHS. Also not sure if the lawsuits were regarding him being stopped frequently or his admissibility/inadmissibility or both. If the lawsuits weren't about his admissibility/inadmissibility, we should proceed forward regarding that once the lawsuits are reviewed. If the lawsuits aren't readily accessible at CBP/NTC, I can check with someone at CBP headquarters to get them. Apparently his records were removed in December 2010, and the DHS Secretary was involved in the matter. I'm puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of (blank), say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that is okay for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de- watchlisted. It doesn't appear that we'll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow, but maybe we could reevaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago. Thanks. And then the name is blotted out. Anyway, other messages. One in response down the email chain: I spoke with CBP (blank) who is obviously very familiar with this traveler. I am of the opinion that (blank) meets the parameters for refusal based on the three INA 212(a)(3) terrorism charges and that when he enters the U.S. on a B1/B2 for lectures/speeches for organizations or for events where a registration fee is required or admission needs to be paid, he should probably be seeking an R-1 or an O-1 visa instead. Perhaps one of the reasons he has not applied for an O-1 visa or R-1 visa is because of the terrorist-related questions these forms ask that he would then be forced to answer. Does NTC have any background information or guidance it can share on the logs or former records this subject has had? Or if he has applied for any waivers of inadmissibility? Does NTC have any objections if CBP denies admission to (blank) under either terrorism grounds or improper nonimmigrant visa? Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think it is clear that he meets the definition of endorsing and inciting. If he'd like to enter the U.S. in the future, he can seek a waiver to overcome those inadmissibility grounds, but none has been sought to my knowledge. And the email prior to that said: Yesterday afternoon, we, HSI (blank) office, received a lead regarding (blank) AKA (blank), an Egyptian-born Canadian citizen who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and close associate of (blank), an individual residing in (blank) who supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic jihad. (Blank) has been looked at in secondary inspections several dozen times over the past several years. However, he has not been secondaried since (blank) 2010. (Blank) has a reservation to depart (blank) Canada at (blank) on this Friday morning for a flight to (blank) that stops in (blank) first. He is scheduled to speak at some conference, in some city, on some night--it is all blacked out. I am passing this right up to (blank) at HSI to forward to CBP regarding possible inadmissibility grounds related to INA 2012(a)(3) terrorism charges because (blank)'s potential inciting, endorsing, and association with terrorists. (Blank) has been looked at in the past, but hopefully this collection of 20 supporting open source articles will assist with making an informed inadmissibility determination. But anyway, apparently, despite all of those open inadmissibility issues, according to the later email, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security herself at the time, Janet Napolitano, had a hands-off list apparently including people like this member of the Muslim Brotherhood. When it comes to the Boston bombing, I have met some of the Boston Police. I was impressed. And I would bet if the City of Boston Police Department had been given a heads-up by either the FBI or CIA that the Russians say this Tsarnaev guy has been radicalized, is capable of murder, then it would have entirely changed the investigation by the Boston Police Department into people that were killed that were known to Tsarnaev. And I would bet you, since I am not aware of the Boston Police Department having had their training materials purged to exclude anything that might offend a radical Islamist, they may have been able to go out to the mosque and ask about Tsarnaev if they had known the allegation that he had been radicalized, and they may have been able to answer better questions about the type of Islamic leaders that the older Tsarnaev liked, that he read, that he endorsed, and they could have made a better decision than our own Justice Department did on whether or not he had been radicalized. That should have been shared with the Boston police. If they had had that information without having had their training materials purged, they may have done a better job of protecting those people at the Boston Marathon. Then you read emails going back and forth among our ICE agents, Customs and Border Patrol people who were shocked that a guy who is a Muslim Brother, who has incited people to hatred against the United States, who was a named coconspirator with people who were convicted of supporting terrorism, how it is the Secretary of Homeland Security could give him a pass, just as she did to a reported member of the Muslim Brotherhood--reported by an Egyptian magazine supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood--how she could just give him a secret security clearance. And even after I tell her about his downloading two documents from a classified source that she gave him access to and pointed out to her about a reporter saying he had tried to shop the two documents, she said she investigated, but I know they didn't because they never even talked to that one reporter that knew about the documents being shopped. They never checked. As far as I know, he is still giving advice at the top level of Homeland Security as a Muslim Brother, according to the Egyptians. He is given access to our classified documents, and then we see that same Homeland Security Secretary that gave him access to classified documents that he reportedly--and according to somebody I trust--he had shopped them and tried to get a national news media to publish them. They didn't even look into it. They didn't even investigate that properly. How safe can America be when Homeland Security is creating hands-off lists that put us at risk? With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my dear friend from California has seen this, but following up on his comments, this is part of the front page of the Army Times, April 28, and it says here: Thousands more will be forced out; staff sergeants now on hit list. It talks about the career killers, but because of the cuts to our military, we are forcing out thousands and thousands of patriots who wanted to make a career of the United States military. I, along with my friend from California, don't necessarily think it is a good idea to be saying: look, if you are illegally in the country, all you have to do is go displace yet another American patriot and take their job in the military, force them out into the civilian sector, where our United States military veterans have a much higher unemployment rate than the general population. That is not a good idea. It is not fair to our patriots, and it should not be something that this Congress passes, to once again not only run out patriots who wanted to make the United States military a career, but force them out with illegal immigrants using their job, taking their jobs, forcing them into an unemployment sector, where their unemployment rates are so very high. They shouldn't be high. People should be willing to hire veterans. They have phenomenal work ethics, or they wouldn't have been in the military, unless they got bumped out early for not working; but otherwise, from my 4 years in the Army, right after we turned to being a volunteer Army, it was a very difficult time. Our military was not appreciated. I went through officer basic at Fort Riley, Kansas, and it was a standing order not to wear your uniform off post because of hatred for the military, and if you got caught by yourself in uniform, there might be a gang that would beat you up. It happened, so it was a standing order. You couldn't wear your uniform off post because of potential violence upon our military by American citizens. It has blessed my heart to see America begin again to appreciate those who answer the call of their country, serve their country, and do so honorably and well in the United States military, which should result in our promises to our military and promises that, to some, helped induce them into the military of good health care, good veterans' care. Now, I was only in 4 years and don't have a disability. I have never been provided any VA assistance or health care, but for those who need it, deserve it, were promised it, we can't be having a socialized medicine system that ends up being like most socialized medicine systems become; and the way ObamaCare will eventually lead this country into being, with regard to health care, you get put on lists. Socialized medicine doesn't go broke because you get put on lists, and you die waiting for your procedure in sufficient numbers, at least we have people die who won't get the procedure, or perhaps they need a hip or a knee, pacemaker, or whatever it is, they don't get them because they are having to wait in line. We shouldn't do that to our Nation. We should repeal ObamaCare outright before it takes us there, but for the sake of this country, we can't continue betraying our veterans and not ensuring that they have the best health care that is available. If VA clinics or hospitals aren't doing the trick, let's give them a card that lets them walk into any health care facility in the Nation and get the best care we have got, and let's keep our promise to them that we will take care of that. My dear friend, Andrew C. McCarthy, has an article out in National Review Online today. He posted it at 4 a.m. I know Andy is up that time in the morning because, sometimes, we exchange emails at that time in the morning. He is a brilliant lawyer, constitutional scholar, historian, and a patriot himself, who was the lead prosecutor in ensuring that the planner, the one most responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, when President Bill Clinton was in office, he made sure he was convicted. If one actually looks at comments by the brother of that al Qaeda leader, you find references to his brother saying: hey, you know, there is violence, there is going to be a lot more violence against the U.S., but I will be glad to help negotiate this thing if we can get release of The Blind Sheikh. Morsi, who became president of Egypt, a Muslim brother, he made clear, before he was even elected, that he wanted to secure the release of The Blind Sheikh who plotted, planned, carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center, which we can be thankful that it didn't result in more death and more damage. We should have learned a lesson from that. We didn't learn it. We continued, under the Clinton administration, to treat that like it was some civilian crime, instead of what it actually was, an act of war. As an act of war, it should have stirred more of a response. So perhaps there was someone in the White House after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, who wondered out loud within the White House: well, what difference at this point does it make why they bombed the World Trade Center or what we might have done to provide more security? What difference at this point does it make? Because perhaps, if that kind of thinking were not in the White House during the 1990s, perhaps we could have looked more closely at the causes of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and looked more closely at the forces behind it and determined, wow, this is really a group that is at war with the United States, radical Islamists have been at war with the United States since 1979. We just didn't know it. There was a war going on, but it was one- sided because the other side, the United States, didn't know there was a war, so they weren't fighting a war. They just kept retreating. In 1979, an act of war occurred in an attack against our embassy. The man, the Ayatollah Khomeini, radical Islamist who became the head of Iran, that President Jimmy Carter welcomed as a man of peace, that one of the top advisers right now in our Homeland Security Department spoke up for as a featured speaker at the Ayatollah Khomeini man of vision ceremony that was held some years back in this country. Now, this featured speaker on behalf of the man of vision, the Ayatollah Khomeini, he is advising the Homeland Security Department; not only that, the FBI in 2011 gave him their highest civilian award. Some people do not understand there is still a war going on. Some in this administration and some in the Senate and some in the House may refuse to recognize it, but there is still a war going on. Mr. McCarthy writes: Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly, the Obama administration's ``Blame the Video'' story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later. Once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration's dereliction of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see, but let's begin with Jay Carney's performance in Wednesday's exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people. Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released emails which corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along: ``Blame the Video'' was an Obama administration crafted lie, through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the President's foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the President's reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success--and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being ``decimated,'' as the President repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries--indeed, they had been strengthened by the President's pro-Islamist policies. The explosive emails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long been obvious: Susan Rice, the President's confidant and ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle the administration's ``Blame the Video'' fairy tale to the American people in appearances on five different national television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was coached about what to say by other members of the President's inner circle. One of the emails refers expressly to a ``prep call'' that Ambassador Rice had with several administration officials on late Saturday afternoon right before her Sunday show appearances. The tangled web of deception spun by the administration has previously included an effort to distance the White House (i.e., the President) from Rice's mendacious TV performances. Thus, Carney was in the unenviable position Wednesday of trying to explain the ``prep call'' email, as well as other messages that illuminate the Obama White House's deep involvement in coaching Rice. The emails manifest that Rice's performances were campaign appearances, not the good-faith effort of a public official to inform the American people about an act of war against our country. Her instructions were ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,'' and ``to reinforce the President and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.'' Carney risibly claimed that the ``prep call'' was ``not about Benghazi.'' Instead, according to him, it was ``about the protests around the Muslim world.'' Two points must be made about this. The first involves the administration's blatant lying. Benghazi was the only reason Rice was on the Sunday shows. If the massacre had not happened, there would not have been an extraordinary administration offering of one top Obama official to five different television networks to address a calamity that had happened a few days before. Moreover, as is well known to anyone who has ever been involved in government presentations to the media, to Congress, to courts, and other fact-finding bodies, the official who will be doing the presentation is put through a ``murder board'' process. This is a freewheeling session in which the questions likely to be asked at the presentation are posed, and potential answers--especially to tough questions--are proposed, discussed, and massaged. The suggestion that Rice, less than 24 hours before being grilled by high-profile media figures, was being prepped on something totally separate and apart from the incident that was the sole reason for her appearance is so farfetched it is amazing that Carney thought he could make it fly. The second point brings us full circle to Egypt. Why would Carney claim, with a straight face, that Rice was being prepped ``about protests around the Muslim world?'' Because other than Benghazi, the ``protest around the Muslim world'' that Americans know about is the rioting, not protest, the rioting at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo a few hours before the Benghazi siege. When Benghazi comes up, the administration--President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al.--love to talk about the Cairo protests. Why? Because the media--and, thus, the public--have bought, hook, line, and sinker, the fraudulent claim that those ``protests'' were over the anti-Muslim video. Obama & Co. shrewdly calculate that if you buy ``Blame the Video'' as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will accept the ``Blame the Video'' as the explanation for Benghazi; or, at the very least, you will give Obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You see, the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud. If you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former. But the ``Blame the Video'' is every bit as much a deception when it comes to Cairo. Thanks to President Obama's policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic group, the terrorist organization that was led by The Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel- Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks. In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. In fact, The Blind Sheikh's son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy. Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for The Blind Sheikh's release from American prison, where he is serving a life sentence thanks to Andy McCarthy. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground, a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 ``protests.'' The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the 11th anniversary of al Qaeda's mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not decimated al Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro- Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al Qaeda's capacity to attack the United States in Egypt. The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for The Blind Sheikh's release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex. It is important here, Mr. Speaker, to note that the al Qaeda leader's brother, Zawahiri's brother, he was out there even after the attack on Benghazi's consulate, basically saying: Hey, there could be more rioting, more trouble, unless you work with me, and let's get The Blind Sheikh released and then we can avoid future violence. Amidst all that is what Andrew McCarthy is pointing out, claiming it was all about a video. In his article, McCarthy says: Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood-governed Egypt, the continuing demand for The Blind Sheikh's release (which underscored the jihadists' influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al Qaeda was anything but ``decimated''). The transparent purpose of the State Department's shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy--violent rioting minimized as mere ``protests''--were actually attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama's policies and patent failure to quell al Qaeda. Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media had abdicated their responsibility to promote the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion--a false notion--that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration's ``Blame the Video'' farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi. At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11--after they knew our Ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged--Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Hillary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud's Benghazi phase--the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn't the beginning of the fraud. Secretary Clinton's minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the President's Benghazi coverup. Today, our Oversight Committee was having a hearing to see a retired general on the verge of tears finally coming forward, who was with AFRICOM. He knew what was going on, he knew the truth, and he could not remain silent; and so he came forward and said: Yes, there was really much more we could have done. Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that all of those who were part of the AFRICOM intelligence community will find courage from the general coming forward--some I know that have left our intelligence service and gone on to good civilian jobs. He has broken the ice. They can come forward now. I hope, Mr. Speaker, they get the message. He has come forward, the ice is broken, you won't be the first should be the message. All of the hostility--I mean, when I have an intelligence officer, former intelligence officer, tell me--when I ask, ``Where have you been?''--``I have been scared.'' I said, ``You have never been scared of anything.'' ``I have been scared since 9/12.'' All of those who have been forced to remain silent, I hope they will come forward. A mom with a son in our country's service had told me after 9/12 about where her son was and what he was doing. So I called him, and it took a long time to get hold of him. He wasn't forthcoming. His mom told me yesterday, or this week, that he'll be out of the U.S. service before long and he wants to talk and come clean. I hope more will start coming clean on the strength of this retired general's courage. But in the remaining minutes, it should not be lost that today is the National Day of Prayer. For some that still are not convinced at what is at war here, we simply need to look at a statement from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind who is at Guantanamo. I am grateful to President Obama that he has kept him there. He is a threat to the world, and particularly the United States. He was the mastermind behind 9/11. In the pleading he prepared himself on page 4--this has been declassified so anybody can find it on the Internet--he says: We do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we fight you with the almighty God. So, if our act of jihad and our fighting with you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your trinity beliefs. In other parts of the pleading he makes clear that Jews should be destroyed. Here he makes clear, also, anyone who has a trinity belief believes that God had a son. Then he quotes from the Koran saying: Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; their place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers. So he bases his belief that anyone who believes in a holy trinity should go to the fire and burn forever on that part of the Koran. Others have different interpretations, but radical Islamists believe that. That is why I think it is immensely helpful to go back to after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was entered in Paris, France, between American diplomats and British diplomats. Britain was the strongest country in the world, and our American diplomats knew they had to come up with something that was so important that the strongest nation in the world would not quickly come back after the new United States. When I first saw this document, I was shocked at the first words, and then it made sense. The beginning of the treaty that forced Great Britain to acknowledge United States' independence starts with these words: ``in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' They believed in the Holy Trinity. They knew that Great Britain believed in the Holy Trinity. They wanted something under which the Brits would swear that would be so important that they would not dare break that oath. That is why it started, ``in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.'' That is where we got our start. That is why radical Islam is at war with us. I hope and pray on this National Day of Prayer that we will humble ourselves, admit our wrongdoing, turn back to the God who has protected us--and He will bless our land. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot going on in the world right now, and America seems to continue to lose credibility around the world when we travel abroad, and we have leaders from other countries, especially moderate Muslim allies and friends, who wonder why we are not helping in the war against terrorism, the war against radical Islam. Moderate Muslims realize what it is. It is radical Islam. It is exactly what the wonderful people of Egypt rose up and rebelled against by the millions. In fact, there were more millions of Egyptians that signed a petition in support of removing Morsi than even he ever claimed voted for him. The Muslim Brotherhood responded, and they have burned churches, and they have persecuted Christians and Jews. The Coptic Christian Pope has told us of his concern about his support for radical Islam because the United States and even a couple of Republican Senators down the hall had supported, seemed to support, went over and said: let's release Morsi. They seemed to want Muslim Brotherhood back in charge. So it was shocking for this administration to say we are not going to supply the military equipment to those who are against radical Islam that we had agreed to provide to those who represent radical Islam--the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, their party--their political party in Egypt is called the Freedom and Justice Party because, under their definition, freedom means the freedom to worship only Allah and justice means only justice that comes from shari'a law, so they have a little different definition of freedom and justice. In their less than 100-year history as an entity, the Muslim Brotherhood has killed so many innocent children, women, and men who had no grievance or gripe with Islam, but it should also be noted that one of the reasons that moderate Muslims are so supportive of our effort to stop radical Islam is because, whenever a moderate Muslim stands up to radical Islam, they immediately go to the front of the line to be killed or persecuted by radical Islamists, so we share that. That is why the enemy of our enemy can be somebody with whom we just may be able to cooperate. That is what happened in Afghanistan, when President Bush committed to go after the Taliban in October, November, December of 2001. We put in less than 500 Americans--special operations, Special Forces, intelligence--we gave them air support, we gave them some weapons, and we had to negotiate. The Bush administration did a phenomenal job of negotiating with Northern Alliance tribal leaders because they knew, to be successful about the Taliban, they were going to have to work together, so we were able to pull that off. There may have been some cash that actually was utilized to grease the skids to make it work, and it worked. Within 4 months or so, the Taliban was defeated. The legendary General Dostum that this administration wants to classify as a war criminal defeated the Taliban for us as the leader of the Northern Alliance tribes. In a meeting with him, along with Dana Rohrabacher, Steve King, and a few others were meeting with some of the Northern Alliance leaders, since we knew about that last final battle where the Northern Alliance went after the last stronghold of the Taliban elevated high up a hill or mountain, General Dostum, through an interpreter, explained he knew that, if they sent people on foot, they would never get there. There would be too many bullets and rocket-propelled grenades. They would never make it to the Taliban stronghold. They knew, if they could get there and rout them there, that that would be the end of the organized Taliban, at least for quite some time. So General Dostum realized the only way to really have a shot at getting there was for around 1,000 horsemen to go charging up that hill, up toward the stronghold with bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, all kinds of things coming at him, but he knew that if they would move quickly enough, they might get past those and be able to destroy the last stronghold of the Taliban. It worked. They did lose many of the Northern Alliance tribal soldiers, but they made it and totally routed the Taliban. What an incredible victory. General Dostum offered to take me next time I came to Afghanistan. He asked if I rode horses. I said: sure, I grew up riding horses. He said: oh, then you need to come up with me, I will take you up that famous ride that is so legendary all over Asia. After that, the interpreter advised me something I wasn't aware, that they don't have leather saddles in Afghanistan. I inquired: What kind of saddles do you have? And he said: they are made of wood. That changed greatly my desire to go riding uphill on a wooden saddle, but it still is amazing what they did. They did it with our encouragement, our support, our logistical support, our aerial support. There are other occasions when, with someone embedded with the Northern Alliance, the Northern Alliance leaders could say: Do you see over there on that ridge that little hump? That is a bunker that contains many, many Taliban. They get the coordinates, call it in, the bomb would be released. It would go to the target and take it out, and then the Northern Alliance soldiers would finish off those who made it through the bombing. Some in this administration think that means they are war criminals; whereas the fact is they fought the Taliban in their own country the way they have always fought and the way the Taliban fights, and they defeated them. Then we did an unfortunate thing. We helped them with a constitution that centralized the government. In a very regional federalist area, tribal area, we should have helped them have a more federalist country where the states, the regions, have the power. But apparently, our leaders at that time thought it would be easier to deal with one centralized government than potentially many hardheaded leaders of small countries or small states. But we should have let them have their small states and their tribal areas because as some of the northern leaders very intelligently had pointed out: if you would help us get an amendment to the constitution that you helped push on us, that allowed us to elect our own governors, our mayors, pick our own police chiefs, then we could control Afghanistan better and then the Taliban, when you leave, can't just knock off our President and take over the whole country. Then it would be harder for them to take over the whole country, they might get one region, and then the rest of the regions could rise up and take them out of that one. We can defeat them, but not with the structure that you gave us. There was no reason for us to lose the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of American military members under the command of Commander Barack Obama, but he had said it was the important war. The war was won by early 2002, and then we became occupiers. That was unnecessary. Let them run their own country. They defeated the Taliban with less than 500 Americans, and now, we have lost a number of times that original number that went in and were embedded. That has helped create an image of the United States around the world, as this administration has continued to allow the slaughter of American soldiers in Afghanistan, for what point, we don't know. At the same time, we were allowing our soldiers to be handcuffed with rules of engagement that restricted them or threatened them with court-martial if they were to defend themselves and it turned out somebody got hurt who is not a soldier. So the world saw the United States beg the Taliban to sit down and negotiate with us. This administration was sending out word: look, you don't even have to agree to anything. If you will just agree to sit down with us, heck, we will buy you a luxurious office complex in Qatar. We may even release some of your murdering thugs that we have confined. Heck, we will release some of them anyway, just to show our good faith. Heck, we will do whatever, if you will just sit down and talk with us. There is no radical Islamist in the world that respects that kind of talk from an American leader, from any leader. Oh, please, we beg you, please sit down and talk with us. They don't respect that. That projects weakness to them. There is one thing they respect, and that is power, when used appropriately. They may hate it, they may despise the way it is used, but they respect power when it is used effectively. This administration has not done that at all. Go back to Iraq. The Bush administration basically had set up a status of forces agreement by the end of 2008. Most of the terms were agreed to. The Bush administration, many of us believe, could have gone ahead and finished, had that signed before President Obama took office. But as I understand it, it was considered a generous outreach by George W. Bush and his administration to the incoming President. Why? Because not only is he not stupid and he is not crazy and he is witty, but he is a gracious man. That is why he had Ted Kennedy to the White House so many times, even though Kennedy would go out and bash him almost every time he had been over. He is a gracious man, and he thought it would be a gracious act, from what I understand, to allow the Obama administration to get the credit from finalizing the status of forces agreement with Iraq. But then the brazen attitude by the new administration not only didn't sign the status of forces agreement that the Bush administration had teed up, they didn't get any status of forces agreement. Mitt Romney was not very eloquent in the way he pointed it out, not very effective in the way he pointed it out, but he did bring it up in one of the debates--he couldn't even get a status of forces agreement done with Iraq. It is something that this administration should have been embarrassed about. After all, we had done for Iraq under this President, this administration, we just crept out of Iraq with nothing even in the way of a thank you agreement, a thank you note--in fact, rather left hard feelings when we left. After we left them the ability to elect their own leaders, their own government, this administration bungled the status of forces agreement to the point there was none. We lost further respect there. We have lost respect around Afghanistan. When talking with General Dostum and some of the Northern Alliance leaders, they talked about how the United States had lost respect around radical Islam. These are moderate Muslim friends of mine--and, yeah, they do fight ruthlessly, but that is their area--they talked about how the United States had lost respect among radical Islamists among the world. They see us as a toothless tiger, a paper tiger, someone to be laughed at, not to be concerned about or respected and certainly not feared. I have met with Baloch people from Pakistan, who are constantly terrorized by the Pakistani Army and by other military--brutalized, terrorized, kept in fear for their lives so many times. They happen to be in the area where Pakistan's best minerals are located. You would think that the Pakistani leaders would treat them better since they have such a big area of the country and they comprise such a big component of the country that has some of the most valuable land because of the minerals in the whole area. It is the same in Iran. There are Baloch people who are indigenous to south and southeast Iran, and they are mistreated terribly by the Iranians. But a thought came to mind. In having met with Baloch people previously, in knowing the geography of the area and in having heard American commanders and Northern Alliance individuals as well, all have indicated most of the supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan is coming through the Baloch area of Pakistan--not because of the Baloch. They don't want the Taliban helped. They certainly don't appreciate radical Islam. So I asked our Northern Alliance leader friends--former allies before this administration--what if we started suggesting, because of the mistreatment of the Baloch in Pakistan, that it is time to give the Baloch their own independent country? Let them be independent--to have their own area to which they are indigenous--because, if we did that, the Baloch in charge of southern Pakistan would, indeed, stop any supplying to the Taliban coming from Pakistan or anyone else who went through the Baloch area through which so much of the supplying of the Taliban has been going. Who would benefit? The world would benefit. Our American soldiers would have benefited. We could have done that years ago. Instead, the last time I looked, there were about twice as many people--American military individuals--who had died in Afghanistan compared to the number who died when Bush went to war in Afghanistan. So, under Bush, he was about 7 years in Afghanistan compared to the years of President Obama's. President Obama has had fewer years, yet more Americans have been killed. Why? Because, under this Commander in Chief, the rules of engagement have handicapped our own military. Many of them have been killed by the very people they were supposed to train and because there was just simply not enough respect for the United States under this administration-- because we saw what this administration would do. If radical Islamists reared up and killed Americans, we saw what this administration did. They apologized that Korans were burned. Now, how does apologizing to radical Islamists for burning Korans that their own people had desecrated and passed messages through-- prisoners who had been provided these free Korans had sent messages, had used them, and so they had to be destroyed. When they were found burning, the radical Islamists used the occasion to kill innocent Americans, and this administration apologized to the country responsible for the killings. In civilized countries like the United States has been--and still is in most places--the law has been and continues to be, unless they are under shari'a law, that provoking words are never a defense to a physical assault or a murder. No matter what anyone says to you, does to you--no matter what it is, no matter how vile--it does not justify a physical response no matter what is said. Under shari'a, it is different, but our Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land in this country, not shari'a law. Our fellow Texan, Mohamed Elibiary, is a man who was given FBI's high civilian award, a man who is described by the Muslim periodical in Egypt as being one of the six top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in this administration, a man who spoke as a featured speaker at the huge tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Man of Vision, a man who is given a secret security clearance without proper vetting, without proper investigation by Janet Napolitano, as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Even after he was found and known to have downloaded inappropriate material and tried to shop them, Homeland Security said: Oh, well. We never found any evidence that he tried to shop the documents from the classified sources he downloaded. They didn't even bother to talk to the reporter who stated in print that he talked to a well-known national publication to which Mr. Elibiary had shopped the documents. They didn't investigate that. Janet Napolitano lied about that. It was not properly investigated or they would have checked to try to find out with whom he was supposed to have shopped these documents. They didn't even check. But he sure has kept his secret security clearance. He is still proud of that FBI award. He still has a foundation called the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which is just like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the same name as the Muslim Brotherhood political party. Yet this administration continues to count on him as one of their top advisers. That is why Muslim leaders around the world, especially in the Middle East, have told some of us--and I talked to some other Congressmen who had been on a trip recently to the Middle East, and they encountered the same thing--why are you guys helping radical Islam now instead of helping us fight it? We are wondering which one of your allies you are going to throw away next. It is not hard to understand why world leaders who have been our allies would wonder such a thing when you see it with our best ally in the Middle East--the one that respects the rights of women, that doesn't kill homosexual, gay, individuals in their country, the one that allows Muslims to vote, to work and to provide them protection-- the one country that allows all of those things. That is our ally Israel. Yet we have the Secretary of State out there, previously some months back, talking about: Gee, it may look like they want a new intifada--another murdering spree--accusing Israel of wanting more murdering when they have done everything they can to try to protect themselves. Nobody in the media--not in this country--talks about the rockets that have never stopped flying into Israel from radical Islamist- controlled areas. Instead, you have liberals in this country--friends of this administration--who are out there, saying: Do you know what? We need to cut off anything we do with Israel. That kind of talk is supported by our own Secretary of State when he says: Gee, they are risking being guilty of apartheid. He tried to walk it back, but he has illustrated so much anti-Semitism that it is time for him to go. It is time for this administration to take a stand even though our mainstream media here in America doesn't like to hold him accountable. Heaven help those at one of the mainstream media sources if they want to get to the truth of something like Benghazi. Their jobs are going to be gone. First, they are going to be told to back off, and then they are probably going to lose their jobs. We can't expose the truth about the present administration because, if they were interested in exposing the truth, then it would be after the highest ranking Attorney General in this country said to me: You don't want to go there, buddy. I said: Are you talking about contempt? and he made it clear that he was. In fact, I want to look at exactly what the highest ranking Attorney General said to me in our hearing on April 8, 2014: You don't want to go there, buddy. You should not-- Then I said: Are you talking about contempt? You should not assume that this is not a big deal to me. I think it was inappropriate--he is talking about Congress holding him in contempt because he refused and continues to refuse to provide documents that he has, that he should have produced and that he continues to refuse to produce. He said: I think it was unjust, but never think that it was not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that. That is our highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country who was talking like that. So it was interesting. This is what he said on February 13 of 2013. Amazing. ABC News will call my office and say: What is your basis for that? Will they ever call the Attorney General and say: How do you reconcile what you said under penalty of perjury before Congress to what you told us in our interview? Oh, gosh. No. ABC News could never do that because they might hurt the guy who is in the White House, who they helped put there. So, in the interview with ABC News in February of 2013--it is not hard to find. If I can find it, surely ABC News or somebody should have been able to. He said to Gohmert to never think it wasn't a big deal to him. Obviously, he is saying now it was a big deal. This is what he said back over a year before: But I have to tell you that, for me to really be affected by what happened--he is talking about contempt of Congress-- I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in that way, and I didn't, so it didn't have that huge an impact on me. That was Attorney General Eric Holder to ABC News in February 2013. Now, I had in the back of my mind that it had not been a big deal to him. Why didn't ABC News remember this? Nobody at ABC News, even the one who interviewed him would have remembered: oh, you know, he told Gohmert, don't you ever think it wasn't a big deal? Nobody remembered this from a year before at ABC News. Now, I wouldn't use this line, but what my old practice court professor in law school used to say--Matt Dawson, a tremendously effective trial lawyer--but he used to have a line, if you were caught saying two different things, like our Attorney General has been--two different things about the same topic, Matt Dawson used to say: Well, were you lying then, or are you lying now? Like I say, I am not saying that. I am just reflecting back on what Matt Dawson would say if confronted with those two different quotes. What I, as a Member of Congress say, is this is really outrageous. It is time to have people in this administration that the world will respect, that the country will respect, that will be fair and evenhanded, will not come into Congress and mislead Congress, will not hold up, stonewall, prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how innocent people came to be killed with guns that this Justice Department forced to be sold to people who should never have been allowed to have them. They are entitled and we are entitled, as a Nation, to have a Secretary of State that is respected and does not say outrageous things and accuse allies of outrageous offenses when those allegations are so far from true. Yes, I know Secretary Kerry says he wishes he hadn't chosen the word ``apartheid.'' How about intifada, about accusing fellow Vietnam veterans of acting like Genghis Kahn? I always thought it was Genghis Kahn until I heard young Mr. Kerry talking about Genghis Kahn. It is time for us to regain some respect in the world, and it is time for us to stop radical Islam before there is another holocaust. I read a fantastic book written by Joel Rosenberg that came out this spring, ``The Auschwitz Escape.'' I didn't even know anyone had escaped from Auschwitz. It is a novel. When you read about the novel, you get interested and find out there were people that escaped from Auschwitz because they wanted to get the news out to the world about what was happening, that this wasn't just a prison work camp, that they were rounding up Jews by the hundreds of thousands and bringing them in and, at Auschwitz, putting them in showers and, instead of water coming out, poisonous gas did; and then their bodies were taken right across and burned in a giant crematorium. The people that were there always saw the smoke, always smelled the vile smell of Jews' bodies burning. Then you find out that, once people escaped, they got information out, it still took far too long for America or the Allies to do anything to stop it. We could have bombed the railroads that were taking Jews into these prison camps, like Auschwitz, where they were being killed in masses. Even after people escaped and got word out, we didn't, the Allies didn't, and the railroads continued running, and the cattle cars cramped with Jews being taken. Initially, they were taken to the prison camps, and a decision was made, as they walked up to an individual, you go here, which means you are going to work until you can't work, and then we will gas you, and then burn you; or you are not worth keeping, so you are going to go get killed immediately. In the end, the attempted genocide killed 6 million or so Jews. Because they were war criminals? No. Because they had committed a crime of any kind? No. Because they were Jews; that is a crime against humanity. The leaders of Iran have said they want to destroy the Great Satan, which is the United States, and they want to wipe the Little Satan, Israel, off the map. They want the Jewish vermin, as they sometimes call them, eradicated. There is some like the J Street Group, say: no, no, no, we can work with these people. And I have to point out to any Jew who wants to work with Iran and the current leadership of Iran, these people can't be trusted. When the history was written, it turned out there were some Jews that helped the Nazis by pointing out where other Jews lived, where they could be arrested, or where they were being hidden. There is a special place for them in eternity. People need to understand, the modern-day gas chambers are being constructed. They are too near completion in Iran. Right now, they are called nuclear weapons. For a number of years now, we have been hearing projections: Iran is this close to having nukes, this close to having nukes. Joel Rosenberg raised a good point in one of his prior novels. He does great research. In that novel, he had Iran constructing multiple--they waited until they had enough fissile material so they could construct several nuclear weapons, and I am sure that is their thought. Just as with the 9/11 hijackers, yeah, they were crazy, but they weren't stupid. They were very methodical as they plotted to kill what they hoped would be tens of thousands of Americans, innocent people. With glee, they thought about all the horror. With glee, some of those that helped plan, but were not actually part of the 19, that were joyful as they saw Americans deciding between being burned to death in the World Trade Centers or jumping a 1,000 feet to their death, and they rejoiced. These same people in Iran who were so thrilled to see Americans burning, being crushed in the World Trade Centers as they fell or even jumping to their deaths before they fell, they were so ecstatic about that, and these people are working on nuclear weapons. They cannot be trusted. Mr. Speaker, there is something this administration can do that will regain America's respect around the world, that should stop Vladimir Putin cold in his tracks, that will stop China from evermore aggressive overtaking and reach beyond their borders, to stop thugs around the world who seek to take over countries, something that would stop them because they would fear and respect America, would be the very thing that will protect America, will protect Israel, will protect Saudi Arabia, will protect UAE, will protect Jordan, will protect Egypt, and that is for the United States of America to have its Commander in Chief issue the order: Take out anything that Iran has that may be proliferating nuclear weapons. Take it out. If they scramble to save something, then let's go back and hit them again and again, not the people of Iran, unless these cruel leaders have buried nuclear facilities in civilian areas. If they had done that, then it would be the Iranian leaders that would be responsible for criminally harming civilians and putting them as cowards, putting them between the criminals and judgment day. We need to do that. Israel doesn't have our F-35s. They don't have all of our stealth yet. They don't have the capability to carry our best bunker busters into Iran and eliminate their nuclear weapons. We do. Maybe it takes more than one sortie, one group of planes going in. Maybe it takes more than one, two, three. We need to do it, take them out, whatever it takes, and that stops Iran in their development of the modern-day gas chambers, the modern- day holocaust that will occur in Israel and in America if we don't act. I read about a survivor from one of the death camps when the American soldiers arrived. They were so thrilled, they went running up, and the Jewish inmate was then free, spit in his face and asked basically: Where have you been? Six million people killed for nothing more than being of a particular race, and we could have stopped it far sooner. Who knows how many millions we could have saved if we had acted sooner? But now, we know. We know, without a doubt, Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, is trying to develop nuclear weapons, have said they want to wipe us out, have said they want to wipe out Israel. It is time to take them seriously; and by doing so, you gain respect from the thug Taliban because they realize, as Qadhafi did: wow, if he will do that to Iran, he would do it to us. And then we wouldn't even have to because they would fear us and respect us enough, respect our power--not us individually. They would respect the power, and the world could see more years of peace and could see an end in sight maybe for 100 years or so of radical Islam. Moderate Muslims could live in peace. Jews could live more in peace. Christians could live more in peace. There are Christians being persecuted around the world, probably in greater numbers than ever before, not in percentages, but in numbers. In countries like Iraq, where we gave them their freedom, they are persecuting Christians and Jews. In Afghanistan, where we gave them their freedom, they are persecuting Christians and Jews. They were persecuting Christians and Jews in Egypt until the people rose up and demonstrations--literally went arm in arm, a beautiful, incredible scene for world peace, as Muslims, Jews, Christians, secularists took to the streets to rebel and demand the ouster of a radical Islamist who was seizing power, and had they waited another year, they probably would not have been able to do it. For those who believe in the power of prayer, we need to continue to pray for Israel and we need to continue to pray for Egypt and the Egyptian leaders. I applaud the Obama administration. I was thrilled and am so pleased that this administration has announced they are going to go ahead and furnish Apache helicopters to the new government in Egypt. It is going to be tough for the Egyptians. They have got a tough economy. They have too many on welfare. They have got a lot of adjustments to make. But they want freedom. The masses of Egypt want freedom. They don't want radical Islam. They don't want radical Islam like that which rebelled and killed Qadhafi and took over Tunisia. They don't want that. We need to encourage them. We need to help them. We need to help them eliminate all the weaponization that Morsi encouraged and allowed, it turns out, in the Sinai, as Egypt stands up against radical Islam. So I really want to thank the Obama administration for following through in supplying the Apache helicopters that were supposed to be supplied. As General el-Sisi, who has stepped down as general of the military, and who will likely be elected President, said previously, Do you not understand we use the Apaches to keep the Suez Canal open? We are using the Apaches to clear out the radical Islamists in the Sinai. Why wouldn't you want to help us do that? Why would you rather help radical Islam? I know that in this body a majority would stand with our President and we would be proud of him if he would protect us and protect Israel, stop the nuclear proliferation in its tracks, not by promising to release murderers, not by talking Israel into releasing more murderers, and not giving Iran billions and billions of more money and not eliminating any more of the sanctions against Iran, but just take out the nuclear capability that has developed so far. Because otherwise, if we let them get nukes, they will be glad to supply them to terrorists. You don't have to have intercontinental ballistic missiles to get a nuke to America. You can put them on a boat and float them right up the Potomac, the Hudson, right up to Chicago, up to Houston, New Orleans, and take out 70 percent of our refining capacity. So they could put a nuclear weapon on even a sorry Scud missile that is so inexact and launch it from a boat or a barge into the interior airspace. It doesn't need to hit the ground, but there is a huge range that even a Scud missile could make, and explode a nuclear weapon, creating an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, that would fry most of the computer chips in the country, shut down most of our electrical capacity, shut down grocery stores, shut down stores relying on computers, shut down cars that have reliance on computer chips. They could do all that with one nuke and a lousy missile that is not very exact. They could do that. It is time we acted before they destroy America as we have known it, as it has come to be the greatest country in the history of the world. It has more individual freedom, but we see that waning. It has the greatest economy in history, but we have seen that wane. Now we are told in a very short time China will be the biggest economy, unless something happens. How about if the United States stops the modern-day gas chambers from being completed, stops the radical Islamist enemies of America, Israel, and of moderate Muslims? How about if we do moderate Islam a favor and take out the radicals for them as well? Let's get peace on track. And you don't do it with a Secretary of State that condemns our closest allies and accuses our allies of being criminals. You don't do it by releasing murderous thugs of countries that hate us and are planning to kill us at some point whenever they get the capability. You do it by self-preservation. In Texas, we are pretty proud of our self-defense laws. When somebody has told you they are going to kill you, and they are close to having the ability to do that, it is self-defense to stop them. It is time. 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. I appreciate so much my colleague from North Carolina. Having been a president of a university, she knows all about education. It is certainly one of the areas where we are failing American youth these days, and you would have thought that, if the Federal Government were the answer to everybody's problems, then when President Carter started the Department of Education, everything would have gotten instantly better; but over 35 years later, it turns out the Federal Government is not the answer to better education. I have talked with enough high school students who also say the Federal Government is not the answer to their food problems. I have met with cafeteria workers and leaders who say that kids are not eating the food. They are required to choose from lists of foods to put on the plates that they had heretofore not heard of before that students don't want, don't like. The football players were saying last fall: How in the world can we go to football practice and all we get is this piddly little bit of meat and other stuff we can't eat? So obviously, education, food has not been helped, certainly not according to my constituents in east Texas, the vast majority; and education itself does not seem to have made all that great or remarkable progress since the Carter administration started the Department of Education and Congress began putting strings on virtually everything they did in the way of educational support. The 10th Amendment had some real meaning and was really visionary. It was the last of those first 10 Bill of Rights and, in essence, said everything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of the Federal Government is reserved to the States and the people; that is because the genius of our Founders collectively was the best answers are found locally, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. I was shocked to go online years ago and see that one of my school districts was bragging that, gee, about half of their employees were actually teachers. I was shocked. I would have thought that, if we really cared about education, the big bulk of employees would be teachers. So I did further investigation and found out that before the national Department of Education was created under Jimmy Carter, there was between 70 and 80 percent of the Texas educational employees who were teachers. Naturally, when Washington gets involved, there are more requirements for the State agency--education agency in each State; then with more State education accountability and requirements to Washington, there became more bureaucrats there, which meant there had to be more bureaucrats in the local school districts. If we want to ever get back to having the best education that we can get for our dollar, we need to get back to observing the 10th Amendment. The best educational accountability comes not from some bureaucrat on his buttocks here in Washington, but from those who are there locally that see what is happening in the school. We have done enough damage. One of the disagreements I had with former President George W. Bush, who I like and admire--I think it unfortunate that people do not appreciate either his intelligence or his very, very clever wit. Unlike Mr. Gore, who seemed to have trouble being able to make good enough grades to stay in graduate programs, former President Bush didn't have any problem getting through and getting an MBA from Harvard; though obviously, Harvard is not what it used to be when it would embrace and allow debate from all sectors. Now, it is the liberal sector, or they don't really appreciate you. So, anyway, No Child Left Behind was a big mistake. When Governor George W. Bush pushed accountability at the State level, he was acting within the bounds of the Constitution. I had hopes that this administration would actually keep the promise that they would dismantle No Child Left Behind. It has been eased, but not nearly what should have happened. It turns out that the administration has been so busy with other aspects that, apparently, it has not had the time to devote to dismantling No Child Left Behind, as they might have hoped. We have this story from today, April 29, 2014, Washington, D.C., from Judicial Watch, ``Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points.'' The article says that--as a release from Judicial Watch, that they announced today that, on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi- related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relation officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to reinforce President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being ``rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy.'' Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an attack, a possible kidnap attempt. The documents were released Friday as a result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against the Department of State to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television--Sunday news programs--on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012. The Rhodes email was sent on Friday, September 14, at 8:09 p.m., with the subject line, ``Re: Prep call with Susan: Saturday at 4 p.m. ET.'' The documents show that the prep was for Ambassador Rice's Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack. The documents list as a goal, ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy.'' I might insert parenthetically here that, actually, this must be taken in context in 2012 because there was an election only weeks following this incident, and the big campaign line that Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive, al Qaeda is on the run, didn't look nearly as tantalizing if it turns out al Qaeda--al Qaeda may be on the run, but if they are, they are running toward American interests and killing an American Ambassador and other State Department personnel. This article goes on to say: Rhodes returns to the ``Internet video'' scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled ``Top- lines.'' And here is the quote: We have made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States Government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible, but there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence, and we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message. Mr. Speaker, it also should be noted here that it was not only sending Susan Rice out to mislead the American people before the election into believing that this was not a failure of policy by the Obama administration, which it clearly was, but actually, it was all about a video. To perpetuate this misleading, some might argue, fraudulent presentation of anything but facts included producing a commercial with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying the United States had nothing to do with that video, repeatedly making the point to add cover to their cover story that it was not a failure of policy by the Obama administration that caused and failed to suppress the attack at Benghazi, but it was some video by some lone person out in California who must be stopped. They spent tens of thousands of dollars running this commercial in foreign countries to help give cover to what were the true facts, the true facts being that this was nothing about a video; it was all about a planned concerted attack, which it turns out may have even utilized weapons that the United States provided to these rebels over many of our objections on this House floor, and with the President saying he really didn't need congressional support because he had Islamic countries and France wanting us to get in there and provide weapons and air cover to the al Qaeda-backed rebels. We knew there was al Qaeda involved. As we said on the floor back during those days, we just don't know how extensive it is. We think we ought to wait until we know how extensive the al Qaeda involvement is. But this administration wouldn't have that. They moved ahead. They furnished weapons. And it could very well turn out that there were people in our party that said, okay, all right, if that is what you want to do, but it certainly wasn't this congressional body that did that. The President got his will. They furnished weapons to rebels that included al Qaeda. This administration refused to provide the security that was requested by more than one person, but including Chris Stevens, himself. It refused to provide it. How bad would that look right before the election: A mere matter of weeks before early voting started, and it turns out that not only did they not provide security as requested, when it was requested, heck, they may have even provided the weapons to the rebels who killed our Ambassador. It was the first time an Ambassador had been killed since the Jimmy Carter administration, and here it was happening again. This administration knew exactly what would happen when America finds out that an administration is toothless, is ineffectual, and has actually brought assistance to radical Islamists becoming in charge of a country. Because, after all, it was the Carter administration that did as this administration did with Mubarak and Qadhafi in saying they have got to go, pushed an ally out. It was not a very nice one by any stretch, but an ally. And then President Carter welcomed the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace. So then for the first time in what was a long period, a radical Islamist got control of a major country. That opened the door to many thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans being killed in the decades ahead. That kind of ineffectual foreign policy that Jimmy Carter had saw the results at Benghazi. But this article goes on to point out that: Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe. The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to portray Obama as ``steady and statesmanlike'' throughout the crisis. Another of the ``goals'' of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is ``to reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.'' He later includes as a PR ``top- line'' talking point: ``I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.'' The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former deputy spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 p.m. said: ``Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.'' In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred ``spontaneously'' in response to the ``hateful video.'' And it is worth noting, there were people that used those words, ``steady'' and ``statesmanlike.'' And certainly this would have appeared to be a real problem for the administration that someone speaking soon after the attack and the murder, the assassination of Chris Stevens and three American patriots, Ms. Nuland, not knowing that she was supposed to use talking points and mislead the American public and the world, spoke the truth because she hadn't gotten the email, the talking points to mislead Americans and the world. So she spoke the truth. It was very clear, as it was to those in Libya, that this was a complicated attack. It was well planned, well coordinated, and it had nothing to do with the video. This article goes on: On Sunday, September 16, Rice told CBS's ``Face the Nation": ``But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our Embassy sparked by this hateful video.'' The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on ``Face the Nation'' and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16 had been heavily edited by then- CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell. According to one email: ``The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our Embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan, and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.'' The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an ``attack.'' Just as State Department number two person in Libya said Chris Stevens described it: We are under attack. There was nothing about a video. The American people were duped right before the election, as was the intent. Back to the article: September 11, 2012, 6:41 p.m., Senior Adviser Eric Pelofsky to Susan Rice: ``As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the `annex' colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed--IMO Sean Smith. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him.'' Further down, it notes how much material is blacked out in so many of the emails. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: ``Now we know the Obama White House's chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good.'' ``And these documents undermine the Obama administration's narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to Federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.'' Well, that has led to this printing that I did of another Judicial Watch FOIA request. This is an article from here in D.C.: Judicial Watch announced today that on March 25, 2014, it filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking agency records related to the awarding of the Louis E. Peters Award in 2011 to Mohamed Elibiary, a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. Elibiary is alleged to have close ties to radical Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood. And I will insert parenthetically here that, actually, when a Muslim Brother, Morsi, was President of Egypt, a periodical there was bragging about six top Obama officials who were Muslim Brothers, and one of them was Mr. Elibiary from Texas. This points out here: Judicial Watch seeks the following documents in its June 24, 2013, FOIA request: Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the awarding of the Louis E. Peters Memorial Award to Mr. Mohamed Elibiary on September 8, 2011. Further down, it says: Elibiary, who in his role as Homeland Security adviser has regular access to classified information, most recently came under fire in November 2013 for tweeting out the message that America is an ``Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.'' In its December 2013 ``Special Report: U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed `Offensive' to Muslims,'' Judicial Watch identified Elibiary as one of nearly a half dozen ``Islamist influence operators'' within the Obama administration ``seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system.'' Of course, that was December of 2013 when actually it was December of 2012 when the Egyptian Muslim Brother-controlled government had a periodical that talked about, a year before this, the six Muslim Brothers who had such powerful influence and roles in this administration. This goes on to talk about Mr. Elibiary and his role in the Homeland Security Department. Personally, I had an opportunity to question Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security more than once about Mr. Elibiary. And actually, on the night before one of our hearings, I had talked to the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Steve McCraw, a great man, a great patriot, a former FBI agent. He understands what is going on in this country. And he was alerted that Mr. Elibiary had downloaded two documents from a classified database that Mr. Elibiary only got access to because Janet Napolitano, to the best we can find out, just unilaterally gave him a security clearance so he could go into these Web sites. And he did it from his own computer, and he did it at his home. They could tell all of this by the intelligence they were able to gather, and it was clear he had downloaded two documents. What was in an article and published was that the article writer said that he had talked to someone in the national media who said that Elibiary had shopped those two documents to this national media source, and they didn't accept it. They were concerned about accepting classified documents and printing them, and so they didn't. The next day at our hearing I brought this up to Secretary Napolitano. She said she didn't know what I was talking about, basically, and she would look into it. What she didn't know is that I knew when she made those false statements that her chief of staff the night before, her chief of staff had talked to Steve McCraw and had told him, look, I know you are concerned--basically that is what he said: I know you are concerned, but I have given a full briefing of what happened to the Secretary herself. She knows what is going on. She is fully briefed on the matter. So either Secretary Napolitano lied to me and the Congress in our hearing under penalty of perjury, or her chief of staff just completely made up that he had just briefed the Secretary on this troubling security breach. I would like to think that if the Secretary, as here, had unilaterally put what Egypt considered a member of the Muslim Brotherhood into our very tight inner circle and given him a secret security clearance without going through the normal vetting that is supposed to be required, and if that person that she unilaterally got that position had breached the protocol and downloaded documents from a classified setting, that somebody, for Heaven's sake, would have alerted the Secretary of Homeland Security. But she sat right there and told me that, no, she didn't know anything about it. The next time I asked her about it, however, she said she had looked into it and there was nothing to it. Unfortunately for her, and unfortunately for our country and its own security, no one had bothered to properly look into the matter because the reporter who published the article that he had talked to, a national media source, said Elibiary tried to get him to publish the classified documents. Nobody called that reporter. Nobody talked to that reporter. He probably wouldn't have disclosed his source, but nobody bothered to even talk to the reporter that knew Mr. Elibiary had shopped those documents. If homeland security could be so poorly run at the highest level, over its own security, is the rest of America really very safe? The FBI in 2011 gave their highest civilian award, or one of the highest awards, to this same person who was a featured speaker at the tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact, the tribute was entitled, ``A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary, Ayatollah Khomeini.'' Well, there were no cameras allowed in that big tribute, so we don't know exactly what Mr. Elibiary had to say in tribute to this great Islamic visionary, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was responsible for kick- starting this radical Islamic effort against the Great Satan, the United States, from their way of thinking. So he is entitled to the FBI's great tribute to civilians? It kind of gives you a little insight, Mr. Speaker, into how in the world the FBI, after the United States got two heads-ups from a foreign government that was not necessarily our friend, that Mr. Tsarnaev had been radicalized. They talked to Tsarnaev. The best we could get from the hearings that we had when we questioned Director Mueller, the FBI Director at the time--apparently they talked to Mr. Tsarnaev, and he didn't confess to them that he had become radical. They talked to his mother, and she didn't confess that he had become radical. And when I said that you didn't even go out to the Muslim temples there in Boston where the Tsarnaevs attended to ask questions--you can ask questions if you had proper training. Oh, yes, that is right, because CAIR and ISNA were identified by a United States District Court, that was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that CAIR and ISNA are front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes. CAIR and ISNA, they regularly complain. They give instructions. They give insights to this administration. And CAIR, particularly, had complained about things that radical Islamists might find offensive in the FBI training material, so they were purged. A couple of us went through these documents that were purged, but we were told the setting and the information was classified so I can't go into it. But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you it was shocking that some of that stuff was purged. Some of it was stupid. It didn't have to be there. But when, as one of our intelligence officers told me, we blind ourselves to our ability to see our enemy, then when you go investigate someone that you have been given a heads up is radicalized and is a threat to kill Americans, you don't know what to ask. Because if you knew what to ask, you would go to the mosque and say, who knew Tsarnaev? Have you ever heard him talk about ``Qutb's Milestones,'' that publication he wrote, you know, the one that Osama bin Laden said helped to radicalize him? If you know about radical Islam, you would know the questions to ask. But our FBI, our intelligence, they are not allowed to get that information anymore because it might offend a radical Islamist. Thank God for the moderate Muslims around the world who do not want radical Islamists in charge of their country. And our friends that originally helped to defeat the Taliban, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, are in trouble because we have abandoned them, and this administration now won't have anything to do with them. They fought the Taliban. They defeated the Taliban, and the last great fight consisted of Northern Alliance leader, General Dostum, a legend, riding with about 2,000 Northern Alliance tribesmen on horseback. Dostum said they had to go on horseback because they knew soldiers on foot would never make it up the hill, that mountain, to get to the Taliban stronghold. Their only chance to get through the rocket-propelled grenades and the bullets was to ride on horseback. And they knew many of them wouldn't make it, but they really believed enough of them would that they could defeat the Taliban. That is the kind of courage--and, yeah, they fight the Taliban the way the Taliban fights. They are pretty tough folks. But they are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. So this administration doesn't really want to have anything to do with the Northern Alliance that were our allies. Instead, they keep wanting to cut some kind of a deal with the Taliban. And all the Northern Alliance said was, Look, you know, you helped force this constitution upon Afghanistan that centralizes the government when we are really more tribal, we are more regional. But you gave us a government where the president gets to appoint every governor, every mayor, every police chief, most of the higher level teachers, a slate of many of the legislators that has some powers of the purse. All they ask is let us elect our own governors, mayors, and pick our own police chiefs, and that way the Taliban just can't knock off the president or co-op the president and take back over Afghanistan, which is what is about to happen the way this administration has so poorly handled our foreign policy. They said that if you could at least push through an amendment that let us elect our governors, mayors, and get our own police chiefs, then we could be regionally strong. So maybe the Taliban gets one region, but the rest of us could rise up and put him out of business again. Mr. Speaker, why wouldn't that be a good strategy? We don't even need Americans to carry that out. We don't need Americans sitting and hoping, as John Kerry once said about Vietnam, that they are not the last one to die leaving Afghanistan. I have been to too many funerals of people who gave the last full measure for this country in Afghanistan. We owe it to them not to let it fall immediately back into Taliban hands, and we could prevent that without any more American blood being shed. We prop up financially the Afghan Government to the point that if we put enough pressure on--and I know this administration always puts pressure on the wrong people. Instead of the Palestinian terrorists, we put pressure on Israel to keep giving away their security and safety. In Afghanistan, we pressure the people of Afghanistan to give up their security and safety because we want to cut a deal with the Taliban. The thing to do is to empower the enemy of our enemy, and they will keep our enemies at bay. That is what needs to be done in Afghanistan. That is why it is so important lest anyone is attempted to ask the question about Benghazi, what difference, at this point, does it make how our four Americans were killed? Well, it makes a difference because if we had learned the specific breakdowns and causes during the Clinton years of two Embassies being attacked and Americans dying, then perhaps we would have been better prepared at Benghazi. But since we didn't learn the lesson under the Clinton administration because people in that administration apparently were wondering what difference does it make how or why these people died and let's just move on, and so Americans died in the future. If we are going to stop that in the future from here, we need to know at this point what happened in Benghazi. Now, not only is this administration continuing to thwart efforts to get to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi, it also sends our Secretary of State to insult the Israelis yet again. This time, as this article from the Daily Beast, 4/27, points out: The Secretary of State, that is John Kerry, said that if Israel doesn't make peace soon, it could become 'an apartheid state,' like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison. If there is no two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state,' Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday. Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term 'apartheid' in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry's use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America--and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well. It wasn't the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share blame for the current impasse in the talks. Yeah, let's figure that out, Mr. Speaker. Israel and Palestinians share the blame for the breakdown of Palestinian peace talks because Israel says you just have to recognize we have a right to exist as a Jewish state so we don't suffer another Holocaust. And the Palestinians say: you are the little Satan, America is the great Satan, we intend to wipe you off the map. At no time will we be willing to recognize your right to exist. So no, we are not going to agree to allow you to exist, so the only agreement we will enter is if you agree that we have to still plan on wiping you off the map. And this is the kind of agreement that Kerry thinks should be made. According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the crime of apartheid is defined as: Inhuman acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994. So let's see, in Israel, Palestinians get the best jobs anywhere between their Palestinian area and Israeli area, and they are allowed to hold those jobs, make the money, and go back into the Palestinian area; and let's see, why does Israel want to protect itself? Oh, yes, before they put up a fence, it made it too easy for Palestinian suicide bombers to just walk into a school yard, walk into an area where innocent children, women, and men are occupying or having a good time and blow them up. Finally, as a matter of their own self-security, they said: no, we are going to have to have fences, so you can't just walk in and blow up innocent people. How have the Palestinians taken to that? Well, they have taken to it by continuing to have, in their textbooks, references to Jewish people as rats or vermin and other such references. They elicit hatred from the little schoolchildren against Jews. They name holidays and landmarks and monuments and streets after people who have been able to kill innocent people in Israel. You know, that is one thing about the United States, we don't normally name holidays and streets and landmarks and monuments for people who kill innocent other people. We name holidays and streets for people like Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Christian minister who said, by his life, you don't use violence to kill innocent people. Those are the kind of people we respect here in America. Those are the kind of people we name holidays and streets for, but not in Palestine. Oh, no. Oh, no. And this Secretary of State blames Israel. He does say there is some blame to share, but as the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said standing at that podium right there: If the Palestinians lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no Israel. After World War II, when it was learned the extent of the Holocaust, of killing 6 million or so Jewish people simply because of their race, simply because of who they were, the world reacted so strongly and appropriately, they said: we can't allow this to happen again, we need to create the nation of Israel where Jews can go and be protected in a Jewish state, the only Jewish country in the world. Amazingly, people that had no concept of what the Bible were actually carried out prophesies from the Old Testament, to the letter, by what they did. Maybe there is something to that Old Testament and its prophesies. For those in this administration, perhaps they are hoping that is not the case because this Secretary of State has, in essence, cursed Israel more than once and that Old Testament that prophesied Israel would be reborn, as it has been exactly, it says those who curse Israel will be cursed and those who bless Israel will be blessed. You only have to go back a year before or just last year, November 13, 2013. Here is another article about our Secretary of State from Haifa, Israel: America's Ambassador to Israel has been in damage-control mode after his boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, wondered rhetorically if Jewish opposition to peace negotiations with Palestinians was driven by a desire for a third intifada. Intifada is an Arabic word for uprising and was the term given to intensified Israeli-Palestinian violence from 1987- 1993 and from 2000-2005. Our Secretary of State is saying out loud in a foreign country that, gee, he is wondering if the Israelis want an intifada again in which hundreds and hundreds of Israeli citizens will be senselessly killed again. You know, there was a reason--and I was talking to one of my Democratic colleagues yesterday about Secretary Kerry's remarks. There was a reason the majority of the United States said: you know what, we are concerned about some aspect of John Kerry. We don't want him to be the spokesman around the world for the United States of America. So it could be credited to President Obama, we will give him another chance. We will let him speak for America, I will appoint him Secretary of State. And he has shown yet again, you know what, there really was a reason that the American people did not want him to be the international spokesman for America. It is time, I believe, he came home and ceased being Secretary of State. Here is an article from yesterday by Ben Shapiro. He is a Jew. He is brilliant. He is a friend. He wrote yesterday an article titled, ``The Anti-Semitism of the Obama administration.'' He talks about Kerry's comment about the apartheid state. Ben says in his article: This is pure anti-Semitism. Blaming Israel for its incapacity to make peace with people whose stated goal is to murder Jews cannot be construed as anything other than Jew hatred. Likening the Jewish state to South Africa, despite the fact that there are well over a million Arab citizens with full voting rights and despite the fact that the Palestinian territories are completely Judenrein, is more of the same. Upon tape of his remarks hitting the press, Kerry immediately backtracked, stating, ``I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes.'' He then disclaimed that he ever said Israel was an apartheid state and said, ``If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two people is through a two-state solution.'' Sadly, Kerry is simply not believable at this point. The Obama administration has demonstrated a consistent pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric--even aside from their practical undermining of any Israeli attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear program with repeated national security leaks. It peppers the top ranks of the Obama White House. And then the article goes on to point out some of the leaks that were done to hurt Israel. But Secretary Kerry should be encouraged. Here is an article, ``Far Left J-Street Defends Kerry's Apartheid Accusations Against Israel,'' posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, April 29: J-Street calls itself the organization that ``gives political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel,'' but it is far from a pro- Israel group. In 2010, it was revealed that radical far left billionaire George Soros donated $245,000 to the leftist organization in 2008 and another $500,000 in subsequent years. Cofounder Daniel Levy was caught on tape telling an audience that the creation of Israel was ``an act that was wrong.'' Wow. Yesterday, this far left anti-Israel group defended John Kerry. Pro-Israel groups blasted J-Street today after the far left Jewish group supported John Kerry's apartheid accusation against Israel. The Zionist Organization of America responded to J-Street's comments: J-Street has again demonstrated that it is an extremist group, hostile to Israel, by supporting Secretary of State John Kerry's ``apartheid'' accusation against Israel. This is the administration that condemns, cajoles our friend Israel, supports and coddles terrorists, radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Palestine, that went rushing into Libya when many of us were saying: look, this isn't a good idea. We know al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. Let's wait and see how much of these rebels are al Qaeda. But he helped them anyway, and now, we find out, here is an article from today from The Blaze titled, ``The Massive Amount of Weapons Meant for Libyan Rebels That Actually Ended Up in Terrorists' Hands.'' It is a good article from Sara Carter. The trouble is these weapons were actually intended for the terrorists because we knew--we had information there were al Qaeda terrorists that were part of the rebels against Qadhafi. I know I just have a couple more minutes, but let me mention, as some of the leadership in the Senate and even some on the Republican side here in the House is being encouraged and encouraging others, let's have some kind of legal status, amnesty-type bill for certain people. Or how about in the NDAA that we are going to take up, why don't we put in there, if you are in this country illegally and you are willing to go into the service, then we will claim you are legal? Recent veterans are struggling to find jobs, and information indicates our military members are being released from the military right and left because of the dramatic cuts to the military, far more than should ever have been allowed by this body, and they are having trouble finding jobs. The unemployment rate for our veterans ought to be much lower than for anybody, and it is much higher than for the American population, and this administration now and some of our own leadership wants to encourage people illegally here to go take those jobs away from those being bounced out of the military and let them compete and bring down the level of wages for the middle class in America. It should not be allowed. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my dear friend, Dr. Virginia Foxx.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, today Secretary of State Kerry accused the Jewish people of Israel of risking guilt for the crime of apartheid. He said that about Israeli Jews whom the U.N. unanimously provided a nation after the worst genocide in history. Secretary Kerry is both ignorant of history and of the offense of apartheid. Our Secretary of State has effectively cursed Israel. It is not Israel who sent suicide bombers against Palestinians, nor denied the right of Palestinians to work in Israel, nor advocated for completely wiping them off the map, nor taught their children in their textbooks to hate others like vermin or rats, nor named landmarks and holidays for murderers with suicide bombs, nor launched rockets every day, hoping to terrorize and kill innocent people. It is Israel that has fought against such racism and hatred. Secretary Kerry stands for those who support the destruction of Israel. He should not be speaking for this Nation. He needs to stand down before he brings judgment upon us all.

Mr. GOHMERT

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

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues. I am extremely pleased with the sensitivity that is expressed for the people of Washington, D.C., because that is what we should have here. This is an amendment to the bill regarding the height of Washington, D.C., buildings that passed in 1910, as changing the height restrictions that were put in place in 1899; and as my colleague from the District of Columbia had pointed out, this really hasn't been discussed in detail in over 100 years. I recently had someone here in Washington tell me that: Gee, as property gets so valuable here in Washington, you are going to see, at first, exceptions made to the height restrictions, then soon followed by a lifting of those restrictions because the money will be just too much for either party to turn down. I am so grateful that the height is not being changed, as the chairman said, by one inch; but I am very concerned about beginning to make these exceptions for residence levels, even though ``residence'' is the change, basically, in essence, and I have looked at the change. I have reviewed the prior law. But, Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this is the camel's nose going under the tent. You are beginning to put residences above the height that was previously allowed. It may dress some up, it may change some in ways that we are not crazy about, but I am just concerned about changing the height restrictions, even with these exceptions, after 114 years of being in existence. So as a result, I thank the chairman and my friend from the District of Columbia, like I say, for their sensitivity, but I like the height restriction because of the emphasis that continues to be pushed.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from California. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about beginning the exceptions that may move in a direction that we don't wish to have. The chairman mentioned that no one is granting that kind of authority, and nobody is seeking it, yet; and I want us to stop it before we have to get to that ``yet.''

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. It is amazing some of the efforts made to rewrite history and cast things in a light that doesn't exist. So as some people in the administration step up the continued trashing of conservatives in America--we have already seen the assault on conservative groups by the IRS, that does need a special prosecutor, clearly--the assault on people with whom some in the administration disagree, they can't answer questions, and so they make personal attacks. Then our Attorney General makes a speech yesterday in which, because he was busy helping, perhaps, terrorists or Marc Rich or things like that he didn't notice, because I am sure he wouldn't be untruthful or tell a lie, but he doesn't even know how bad it gets in Washington if you are a conservative, if you are George W. Bush, if you are John Ashcroft, if you are Alberto Gonzales. It got pretty brutal here, a lot worse than anything our current Attorney General has seen, and that is even without having to go back and recall the treatment that John Mitchell got. I would say, deservedly so, John Mitchell got the treatment he got. But for any Attorney General to be so ignorant of what has happened in very recent years of the maltreatment and malignment and basically slander of Republicans and a Republican President and Republican Attorneys General is a bit breathtaking. There is a Web site that is Boycott Liberalism. It has a lot of quotes from people. Senator Harry Reid said: President Bush is a liar. I don't recall anyone saying that at our hearings with our current Attorney General. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said: Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. I don't recall anyone saying anything of that magnitude of our current Attorney General or President, not in any of our hearings. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, said: We have a culture of corruption. We have cronyism. We have incompetence. This actually raises a question about pots and kettles calling each other names. Other quotes. John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential nominee: I would say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind. Senator Al Franken said: I think the President highjacked 9/11 and used it to go to war with Iraq in a way that was very divisive. The late Ted Kennedy, as Senator, said: No President in American history has done more damage to our country and our security than George W. Bush. Amazingly, I am not aware of any U.S. President in one party reaching out more to a Senator in the other party than did George W. Bush with Senator Ted Kennedy, and these are the kind of comments he got in response. Senator Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, said: I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country. We are just talking about there has never been an Attorney General or President treated as have been the current ones. Senator Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, said: There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent on consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda. She also said: I have been absolutely amazed, even shocked, at the combination of arrogance and incompetence that marks this particular administration. We are just helping those who have short memories or maybe were busy helping terrorists or others get pardons and didn't notice these kind of statements being made. Former Senator and former Vice President Al Gore said: While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that, in the presence of his large financial contributors, he is a moral coward. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said: Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he is not a leader. He is a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon. Quotes go on and on, pages of quotes. But Democratic Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, said, ``He's''--talking about Osama Bin Laden--``been out in these countries for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building daycare facilities, building health care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.'' Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said, ``I believe that the President's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq''--talking about President Bush--``demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers.'' She also made this statement, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, talking about President Bush: ``I believe that the President's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers,'' basically the same thing again. But, there are some of us that could care less about someone's party or someone's race or someone's gender, someone's age. We don't care. We care about whether you are helping or hurting our country if you are in a position to do one or the other. I would also direct my friends who would care to do research and get the truth before they go accusing, ignorantly, someone who has the gall to question refusal to turn over documents that were provided by the Justice Department to terrorists, convicted terrorists. People who financed terrorism, which made them a part of the terrorist act, convicted of over 100 counts, they were given, their lawyers were given thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of documents. Lawyers were given 9,600 or so transcripts or summaries of transcripts. And Members of Congress are told, as I was in a letter this year in response to my years of trying to get these documents that the Justice Department provided to terrorists, I get a response, basically, saying, hey, here is a Web site, you can look up some exhibits that were admitted in evidence. And here is a public access Web site. I have been asking for 3 years, just give us the documents Justice gave to the terrorists. If somebody wants to try to make something of that, that is their problem. But the Constitution provides that Congress has oversight because that is the only way we know what to fund and what not to fund. That is part of article I, section 8 of the Constitution. So, to be denied documents for 3 years, as I have been, with little coy, useless answers, and then allegations of ulterior motivations, when I want to protect America--and I travel around the world, and I hear moderate Muslim friends, leaders in other countries say, why are you not helping us against radical Islam anymore? You are helping the bad guys. I want to find out what the documentation was and is that the Justice Department has. And they know how to reduce it to disk and provide it to others. I am told they have done that to others in the Justice Department, so do that for Congress. At one point I was told, well, there are classification issues. You gave them to terrorists, your Department did, so it shouldn't be a real classification problem to give them to Members of Congress. So for those who wonder about the treatment of an Attorney General coming for an oversight hearing, we have already seen that the Justice Department repeatedly refused to provide the documentation of what happened in Fast and Furious. And if someone wants to talk about unprecedented treatment, let's look at the facts, just the little ones we know that haven't been covered up by this administration, that haven't been kept secreted by this administration. Thank God, one of the gun store owners who was being pressured by the Justice Department to sell to the people he knew he should not sell to, he recorded some of the conversations. If he had not, you can't help but believe they would have turned on him bigger than they did, because once they found out he had tapes of the conversations, they knew they couldn't completely blame him, because he was saying, in essence, I shouldn't be selling to these people. But he was coerced into selling. People were coerced into selling weapons to people that should not have had them, morally or legally, because the Justice Department wanted to get them to drug cartels in Mexico, where they did, and we know, we have heard that at least a couple of hundred or so Mexicans, each one of them a life worth saving, those lives were taken by guns that this Justice Department forced into the hands of criminals, people that should not have had them. So we would like to know more information about how this all came about. And it is not good enough to say, hey, the Bush Justice Department had a scheme where they had devices, they had guns that they were going to track, just like in drug sales, where you have a controlled sale so you can try to arrest the bad guys and, because of a problem, they got away from them. That is a different thing entirely, of intentionally letting guns get away to criminals who killed hundreds of Mexicans, and at least one American, Brian Terry, and perhaps more. It would be nice if we could get to the bottom of that. Wherever there are big problems in our government, we need to know what they are so we can defund them, or at least bring about accountability, just as my Democratic friends in the Senate repeatedly said, except not so kindly, about the Bush administration and John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. And there were some things I agreed with Senator Schumer on in the Gonzales Justice Department. It was outrageous that they allowed so many National Security Letters to go out without proper basis. I was outraged about that. In fact, if someone cares to check the Record, they can see the way I went after the Bush FBI Director, because I believed then and still believe he did some serious damage to the FBI during the Bush administration. The only difference is, I never heard him run out and give a speech whining about how he was mistreated as he came before me for questioning. He didn't do that. And he actually tried to take actions to correct the problems that I got all over him about. Another difference is, he was a Republican President's FBI Director. But I didn't care what his party was. I didn't care who he was. I thought he was hurting the FBI, and I sounded off. And I was shocked that I did not have more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle join me in going after the Republican-appointed FBI Director. And of course, once he held over and became the FBI Director for this administration, the other side of the aisle got even more kind in its questioning. But one of us--I certainly stayed consistent. But there are many problems in this Justice Department that are very clear. There is an article from 2011, August 26, by Christian Adams, a guy that should know. He was in the Justice Department and had a case ready for judgment against the New Black Panthers who were intimidating voters at a voting place, until the Holder political appointee stepped in and stopped it. Yes, they got one judgment, but basically of no effect. They can go intimidate others at other polling places, and there were no legal actions that were really pursued to provide any teeth. But Christian Adams has an article entitled ``The Politicized Hiring of Eric Holder's Compliance Section.'' He says every single new attorney hired has a history thick with left-wing activism. And then he goes through and talks about it in a very long article, very well-documented. My friend across the building, Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz, invoked Watergate in blasting DOJ's probe of the IRS scandal. This was March 20, this year, this article from The Blaze by Fred Lucas. Senator Cruz said the investigator is a partisan Democrat who has donated over $6,000 to President Obama and Democratic causes. Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS' political targeting of President Obama's enemies. But he makes a good point. John Mitchell deserved the criticism he got, but no Attorney General since John Mitchell has the truthful history in their favor to stand up and say, no Attorney General has ever been treated worse than I have. You just have to go back to Alberto Gonzales. Again, I think he deserved some of the criticism he got, especially on the National Security Letter issue, and I am right there thinking it was a disaster, and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen, and that people needed to be held accountable, which is why I called the White House after it came to light that a report had been on the Attorney General's desk before he testified before the Senate that there were no known abuses of the National Security Letters. I told the White House, this is indefensible. This isn't right. We can't defend this. And I wish colleagues across the aisle, when they found similar abuses, problems, fault, would not let party politics or other divisive issues stand in the way of doing what is right. There are transcripts of Senators going after Attorney General Gonzales, Attorney General Ashcroft, or even going back to John Mitchell. This Attorney General, compared to them, doesn't have a lot to complain about. And one thing is interesting. You know, when I was a freshman, the Bush administration was in power. We had a lot of trouble getting documents from the Bush administration. The difference between that one and this one: they would eventually get us the documents. The difference here is they have been there 5 years and they still will not produce documents that should be of critical concern to every American. Some would say, look, there is no other issue than and concern for America when, in May of 2013, as this article points out from Breitbart: On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the recent scandals plaguing the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the committee and America did not learn very much because Holder apparently does not know much about what happens in Washington, D.C. The AP claims the Department of Justice violated their constitutional rights when they obtained 2 months of phone records of reporters. When asked about the scandal, Holder claimed ignorance and that he was not part of the decisionmaking process. He did defend the effort to subvert the press, saying the DOJ wanted to find who leaked information to the AP about a CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bombing plot around the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death. On Tuesday, Holder recused himself from the investigation into the AP scandal and told the committee it was because he had the leaked information. He could not give the exact date he recused himself, and he never put it in writing. It took quite awhile for him to receive confirmation it was Deputy Attorney General James Cole who signed the subpoena for the AP phone records. There are all kinds of reasons to be concerned about what is going on. There are plenty of stories out there. Oh, gee, how about the speech that my friend across the, aisle Keith Ellison of Minnesota, gave where, as reported here from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mr. Ellison said, talking about comparing September 11: It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it, and it put the leader of that country-- Hitler--in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I am not saying September 11 was a U.S. plan or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nutball box or dismiss you. But he went on, basically comparing September 11 to Hitler's Reichstag fire, which was set and then blamed on the communists. From CNN, a report on this, Keith Oppenheimer had stated: Well, first of all, Wolf, some of the themes that Keith Ellison is talking about are themes that he has been sounding off for a while. And then Oppenheimer said: The Minneapolis Star Tribune, quoting Ellison at the forum, is saying this about the Vice President: ``It is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any question from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and dictatorship.'' In response to a question as to whether Ellison supports a new investigation of the causes of September 11, Ellison made a comparison to the Reichstag fire in Berlin that Adolf Hitler used to consolidate power. And then he quoted my friend across the aisle, with what I just mentioned. So anyway, there are all kinds of accusations. I thought both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush should have done more to defend themselves against the outlandish claims; but one thing George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush never did--no matter what race, creed, color, national religion, gender, age, whenever anybody attacked them--he never resorted to name-calling and, in fact, would often try to point out, actually, they have the right to their opinion. Nowadays, it is a different matter. If someone is concerned that your department or their department would provide discovery documents to convicted terrorists that they are refusing to provide to Congress, that is not an issue of anything other than just not doing what the law requires in the way of oversight. There is so much going on in this country that needs our attention, and one of them is the Department of Justice. Is it the Department of Justice? Is it the Department of ``just us''? There is an article from Red State by Candice Lanier, June 26, 2013, where she entitles the article, ``Sixteen Scandals: The Legacy of Eric Holder,'' and then she goes through and cites 16 reasons we should be very concerned about this Justice Department. One of them quotes Discover the Networks. She says: Holder also took a leadership role with the Student Afro- American Society, which at one point demanded that the school's abandoned ROTC office be renamed the ``Malcolm X Lounge''--``in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood. In 1970, Holder was a participant in a 5-day occupation of that office. And, according to some accounts, the occupiers were armed. In addition, Holder and SAAS also occupied the office of Henry Coleman, Dean of Freshmen, until their demands were met. It would appear the SAAS was an advocate of the Black Panthers because, in March 1970, the SAAS released a statement supporting the Black Panthers who were charged with plotting to blow up a police station, department stores, railroad tracks, and the New York Botanical Gardens. It references the discriminatory hiring practices in the Department of Justice. This article points out: In June 2008, Holder admitted to the American Constitution Society, an organization started as a liberal counterweight to the Federalist Society, that the Justice Department was ``going to be looking for people who share our values.'' Then it references Fort Hood and the fact that: Following the Fort Hood attack on November 5, 2009, not one of the postattack reports issued by the Department of Justice mentioned Nidal Hasan's Islamist ideology. It talks further about that, and then it talks about the AP surveillance, the way it went after the Associated Press and cowed them. Number four, the Department of Justice secretly targets Fox News reporter James Rosen. There were issues of credibility in comparing our Attorney General's testimony, saying he didn't know of anyone ever being prosecuted, in essence, and then his signing off on the pursuit of James Rosen. Five is the Marc Rich pardon and that Eric Holder played an important role in what was arguably the most infamous of President Clinton's 176 pardons. He was the billionaire financier and fugitive oil broker who illegally bought oil from Iran. Anyway, President Clinton signed the pardon, later crediting Holden's recommendation as one of the factors that had convinced him to issue the pardon. Number six was the Weather Underground pardon. Holder, as Deputy Attorney General, ``was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.'' Two of the recipients of Holder's pardons were former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans. Number seven--and I am not reading off all the information about these--but seven was: Holder's DOJ threatens free speech. The American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee sponsored an event on June 4, called ``Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society.'' The main speakers for the event were DOJ official Bill Killian, who is the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and FBI Special Agent of the Knoxville Division, Kenneth Moore. What is troubling about the event is that Killian addressed how social media posts and documents deemed inflammatory toward Muslims can be considered a violation of civil rights laws. He went on and he quoted the law, talking about how anybody critical of Islam could be violating the law. He quotes the law: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Talk about a chilling effect. Number eight, hostility towards conservatives. At an American Constitution Society gathering in 2004, Holder made the following comments--and these are all quotes: Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities. Conservatives have ``made a mockery of the rule of law.'' Conservatives are ``breathtaking'' in their ``arrogance,'' which manifests itself in such things as ``attacks on abortion rights,'' ``energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective,'' and ``tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation.'' The hallmarks of the ``conservative agenda'' include ``social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.'' Anyway, he has got quite a few quotes like that. But number nine, opposition to Second Amendment rights: In 2008, Eric Holder claimed that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but only applied to government militias. Number 10 was the treatment of terrorists as criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants, as the laws that were passed should have indicated. Number 11 was the Arizona immigration law, how he went after that and he had not even read it. Filed pleadings--his department filed pleadings, and he made statements about how bad the law was, and he had not even read it. I thought my friend from Texas, Ted Poe, a former judge, had asked one of the stupidest questions I had ever heard in our Judiciary Committee hearing when he asked: Had you read that law before you filed that suit? And the answer was no. I couldn't believe that no lawyer would file a suit declaring a law unconstitutional and he hadn't even read it. Twelve, New Black Panther intimidation. Thirteen, opposition to voter ID laws--and by the way, we have evidence--you have places where photo IDs have been required, and there was actually an increase in minority voting. Fourteen, Fast and Furious, that we can't get to the bottom of because they continue to secrete information about the department's involvement and what they did. Fifteen, purges references to radical Islam, and we know about the purging of FBI training documents so that we don't offend people that want to destroy our way of life and us. Sixteen, about the Islamic outreach, when I was grilling FBI Director Mueller about not even pursuing adequately the information about Tsarnaev being radicalized, I said: you didn't even go to the Muslim mosque in Boston to ask about their radicalization. He said: oh, yes, we did go to the mosque--and then muttered ``in the outreach program.'' They never went to talk to anybody that might know whether Tsarnaev had been radicalized. Then The New York Times has a story blaming the Russians. The Russians and our own intelligence community know anytime you give a heads-up to another country about information that may be helpful to them, you may end up giving away how intelligence is obtained. So it was wonderful that, twice, Russia gave us a heads-up, and instead, we go to the mosque that Tsarnaev attends, with our outreach program from the FBI, instead of to investigate how radicalized this young man had become and the damage and the death and mayhem he was about to cause. If someone wants to say there is another motive for being critical, well, they are living in their own little world. If somebody wants to bring up race, Mr. Speaker, for the record, let me just say, there is one African American I am still furious with. His name is Fred McClure. He was the president of the State of Texas Future Farmers of America. He was the student body president at Texas A&M University, where I attended. He was a good friend. I went to Baylor Law School before him. People say: wow, you really did well, you know, you won an award for a law review article, won best brief award, won moot court. Fred came in behind me and set the place on fire, figuratively speaking, with how well he did and the things he accomplished. But he went to work for President George H. W. Bush, and in 1990, in December, I begged Fred to come back to east Texas where he grew up in San Augustine and that there were a lot of us that loved him and would get him elected to Congress so we could come back up here to Washington and set things right. And the thing I am still furious at Fred about is, if Fred had taken the encouragement to heart and come back and run for Congress, we could have gotten him elected. And if we had done that, I could have been about a normal life and not had to be here in Congress. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, 113th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Colorado. In fact, when I heard that such an outrage was being suggested, I said to my staff, we have got to do something. I was told, and I should have suspected, my friend Doug Lamborn from Colorado was already out there, he already has a bill, H.R. 4357. I was brought a Dear Colleague letter accompanying that, and I said we have got to help our friend do what is right for America. I was pleased that Ted Cruz was able to get that pushed through in the Senate. Frankly, it shows there is still hope for the Senate. That is encouraging. You look for hope where you can get it. But I remember so well 1979-1980. I was in the Army at Fort Benning. This attack occurred and we were outraged. There was nobody I knew in the Army who was dying to go to Iran. But really everybody I knew at Fort Benning and other posts, we expected to go because it was an act of war. Our embassy was attacked in Tehran, it was an act of war, and nothing really happened for 444 days. There was a failed rescue attempt. I still, Mr. Speaker, have asked from the floor before, and I wish somebody could verify for sure, but I had a friend from Fort Benning who had told me that the original plan for the rescue required that 12 helicopters would go 500 or so miles inland into Iran to a staging area there. At the time they knew where the hostages were. There was still good intel. They knew where they were. So this was going to be an effort to rescue them. This was the original Delta Force. Our friend General Jerry Boykin, now at the Family Research Council, was one of the original Delta Force. I have talked to him about that time out there in the desert. They were to rendezvous with some aircraft that would have supplies, things they needed. In order to make the trip, as General Boykin confirms, they knew they had to have six helicopters there make it that far inland. What I would like to get substantiation on or just prove, that originally the military proposed, the joint military group proposed 12 helicopters to go in. Their reasoning, as a friend from Fort Benning pointed out--this is back when I was in the Army this was being told-- the reasoning was when you go across hundreds of miles of sand, desert, with turbine engines, that you run the risk of having a high loss rate of your helicopters. So they asked for 12, thinking since six was absolutely essential to have at the staging area inside Iran, that they should allow for 50 percent loss of the helicopters. What I still want to find out, is it true that the 12 helicopters were proposed, but that the White House said: No, 12 would look like an invasion, so let's scale that back to eight. I was told the dialogue went: Well, if we have eight and we have four losses, then we only get there with four and there is no mission; if we don't do it now, we may not know where they move them. We really should go with 12. But I was told the White House said: No, we can't go with 12. We don't want to make it look like an invasion, scale it back to eight. General Boykin confirmed that there were eight helicopters that made the trip. But when they got to the staging area, when it was clear that only five helicopters were going to make it, he said there was an automatic abort at that point. Unfortunately, as we know from the news of what happened, one of the choppers as it attempted to rise up, the pilot must have had vertigo--it is very easy to happen in the desert sand as the sand swirls around you--but whatever the reasoning, the helicopter slightly turned, the rotors went through the C-130, and we lost American lives out there on the desert floor at the staging area in Iran. I don't fault anyone who was part of the Delta Force. They were some of the most heroic people America has produced. They were willing to risk it all, and some did give all in the effort to go after our hostages. But whether the proposal was originally 12 and it was scaled back to eight, or whether the administration, the Commander in Chief, just said go with eight, either way the error was where the buck stops, at the top with the Commander in Chief. Because just like President Kennedy admitted after he withdrew the full air support that he had promised during the Bay of Pigs invasion, as he said afterwards: We should have gone ahead. We would have been better off doing a full-scale invasion instead of having something as embarrassing and humiliating as this--or words to that effect, is what I had read. If you are going to rescue American lives, you commit whatever it takes. The military is always ready to commit whatever it takes. Our problem comes in the chain of command usually at the very top. That is why it has been so tragic in Afghanistan that in a period of half the time of President George W. Bush being Commander in Chief, President Obama as Commander in Chief had around twice or so the fatalities and even more of injuries, debilitating serious injuries. The rules of engagement are critical in a battle like that. Whether it is going to rescue hostages, whether it is going to provide a peacekeeping mission, it is absolutely imperative that our military have the full authority to protect themselves, win whatever battle may be confronted, and come home. The lesson that all too often is not learned from Vietnam is not that we should never get involved in foreign battles. The lesson is and should be, the one that has not been learned is this: if we are going to commit American men and women to combat, then give them authority to win and bring them home. That should be the lesson of Vietnam. It should be the lesson of Iraq. It should be the lesson of Afghanistan, and yet, we still have people in Afghanistan who don't really understand why they are there, but don't want to be the last American to die in Afghanistan. As we see surveys around the world indicating that the United States has lost tremendous respect--and in areas where our President, along with many of the rest of us thought, okay, we have a President who did a lot of growing and learning in an Islamic country as he has indicated. So surely, he will help our relationships with and in Muslim countries; and yet, as you look at surveys in Muslim countries around the world, we are less respected now than we were under President and Commander in Chief George W. Bush, especially when you are dealing with radical Islamic leaders. There are so many people in Iran. I have met some of them in surrounding countries, refugees from Iran, who verify that there are so many Iranian people--they love Americans, but clearly, their leadership does not. It is a slap in the face for the Iranian leadership to think that they could get away--to think that we have such a weak Commander in Chief that they could send over someone who is a participant in an act of war, an international crime against humanity, attacking an embassy and taking hostages and mistreating those hostages; yet they thought they could get away with it. If you look at what has been happening around the world, perhaps it is not that difficult to understand why Iran thought they could get away with something so heinous as to send a participant of the original international crime, an act of war of attacking our Embassy and holding hostages. Well, some may say: this guy, we don't know that he was there when the Embassy was actually attacked. But as I know from my judge days and prosecutor days--the Federal law, State laws I am aware of, and in the international circles--anyone who aids, encourages, and abets is considered a principal of the crime. So that is what we have here, an arrogant, condescending slap in the face of the United States President, Congress, everyone who has any leadership in this country, a show of no respect to send someone who is well-known to have participated, despite the efforts to minimize roles he may have had. So why would they think they could do that? You look, gee, the Russians and the Chinese have taken the measure of our President. They know he is the Commander in Chief. They know how our government functions. Iran has done the same thing. Syria has done the same thing. Others around the world have looked, and they saw, and I have even had some world leaders say: look, Mubarak--none of us really liked him--but he was your ally, and he gave you a longer period of peace on the Israeli border with Egypt than any other time; so we couldn't believe when you turned on your ally, you have written agreements with Mubarak. We don't understand how you could just toss aside an ally who has helped you so much. People in other countries have said: we couldn't believe Qadhafi had blood on his hands; and yet, after 2003, he had some kind of conversion experience after he saw the U.S. go into Iraq. He said: look, I am giving up my nukes, you can take them, you can come in and inspect whatever you want, and I will be your best friend in fighting terrorism. As some other moderate Muslim leaders in the Middle East have said: he was your friend. As other leaders in the Middle East have said: he provided you more help and more information on terrorists than any other country but Israel. So what did we do? We came after Qadhafi. We bombed his forces, and it seems pretty clear, without the United States' assistance, Qadhafi would have stayed in power. We would still be getting information on terrorism in the Middle East from Qadhafi and his people. We would have four people that didn't die in Benghazi, and terrorism wouldn't be so profoundly manifesting itself in north Africa and the Middle East, but this administration turned on someone who had turned into a friend to the United States, an enemy of terrorism. We have moderate Muslim friends in Afghanistan who actually defeated the Taliban for us. My heart breaks for my friend Masood and others who risked their lives to fight the Taliban, who defeated the Taliban under the leadership of General Dostum, who some now in this administration call a war criminal. He fought the Taliban like the Taliban fights. He defeated them. He did us a great favor. The Taliban was acknowledged to have been in disarray and completely defeated, and then we decide to nation-build. I know this is not the fault of President Obama, it was done before he came in, but we decided to nation-build. We sent tens of thousands of troops into Iran, whereas we had only had less than 500 there at the time that the Taliban was routed. How could we do that? Well, we provided them weapons, we gave them air cover, we gave them intel. We had embedded special ops and intelligence, and we let them do the fighting, and we whipped the Taliban by letting the enemy of our enemy defeat our enemy. Now, this administration refers to them as war criminals? They were our allies, they were our friends. They defeated the Taliban. So we mistreat our friends who risked their lives fighting our enemy for us-- and for themselves, make no mistake. Then this administration is constantly reaching out to the Taliban: we want to talk, we want to sit down with you--and offered at one time to buy them luxurious offices, international offices--if you will just sit down, you don't even have to agree to reach an agreement, just to sit down with us and talk; we may let a lot of your people who have murdered Americans go free if you just sit down and talk with us. Then the Chinese have seen how we have turned on allies and reached out to our enemies. They have had their eyes on certain places near China, South China Sea, other places surrounding China, they have had their eye on places, just like Russia has. Now, they see the United States turning on allies, embracing enemies. They ask the same questions. They are bound to ask the same questions some of our allies have expressed: Are you still fighting against terror? Because they are still fighting you and we can't tell that you are helping in the fight anymore. So China starts making moves they never would have made 5 years ago because they wouldn't have wanted to risk a U.S. response; and Russia wouldn't have made the move 5 years ago, but they have counted the cost, they have measured the leader of the United States of America, just like Khrushchev did in the early 1960s. They have figured: we can move on Crimea, and the United States will do nothing. That is why they laughed when the President announced that he was going to put sanctions on some of the Russian leaders. They were shocked. That is all you are going to do? That is it? Wow. Let's move some more troops to Ukrainian border. Maybe we can grab some more of Ukraine, and the U.S. will continue to do nothing. Weakness is provocative. It has always been; it will always be. I knew I owed 4 years to the Army, and I would do that before I did anything else, so I majored in what I loved, history. There are so many lessons repeated over and over in history. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it was shocking to hear an educated Secretary of State that knew that you pronounced Genghis Khan as ``Genghis Khan'' actually make the statement that the Russians were making a 19th century move on Crimea, when history dictates that what the Russians did in moving on Crimea, an area they have had their eyes on and wanted to take is--yes, it is 19th century, it is 20th century, it is 21st century, it will be 22nd century if the Lord tarries. It was 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13. It has been in every century. You go back to the Dark Ages, whether you say that is 500 to a 1000 A.D. or whether you say it is specifically 476 to 800 A.D., whatever you call the Dark Ages, these were the kind of moves that were made then. People made moves--assaultive moves on other people, places, and things because there is evil in this world. Mr. Speaker, there is the good that our Founders acknowledged, that God put there. It is why they said we are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights because they knew there was a Creator, that they knew there was evil in the world, and they set up as many obstacles to power grabs in this country as they could. They felt pretty comfortable that Congress would never allow either the Supreme Court or the President to usurp legislative power without reining them in. It is time that we did that. My dear friend, Doug Lamborn, produced H.R. 4357. It says this: The purpose is to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has engaged in espionage activities against the United States, poses a threat to the United States, and other purposes. It goes on to say: A bill to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has engaged in espionage activities against the United States, poses a threat to United States national security interests, or has engaged in a terrorist activity against the United States. Then it goes on in detail, as far as changing section 407(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, in order to make it possible where we could deny entrance to Iran's proposed U.N. Ambassador. It is time we did that. There was a story from Fox News, dated March 31, that is entitled, ``One-time hostage of Iranian militants urges denial of visa to new Iran envoy involved in siege.'' This was written by Eric Shawn. It says: Hostages captured after the 1979 siege on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran are seen in this undated file photo. Former American hostage Barry Rosen, held by student extremists at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than a year, said Monday it would be an ``outrage'' and ``disgrace'' if Washington gave a visa to one of the militants recently named by Iran as its new U.N. Ambassador. ``It may be a precedent, but if the President and the Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering for 444 days at the hands of Iran was for nothing,'' Rosen said. ``He can never set foot on American soil.'' This is a quote from Rosen. He also said: It's a disgrace if the United States Government accepts Aboutalebi's visa as Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. Rosen was the Embassy's press attache who was blindfolded and held at gunpoint, along with 51 fellow Americans taken hostage. In a statement to FOX News, Rosen demanded that the Obama administration deny a visa to Aboutalebi to prevent him from taking up Tehran's U.N. post. We need to take action. We hold the purse strings. We need to cut off any funding for any effort that might be undertaken to grant this international terrorist a visa so that he can come on American soil and have diplomatic immunity. So I am quite proud of my friend from Colorado. Mr. Lamborn and I have traveled to Israel together. I have seen him conduct himself in international settings in ways that should make Colorado proud of him, as well as the United States. My friend Ted Cruz got a bill through the Senate that passed 100-0. As reported by the AP April 7: The Senate approved a bill Monday to bar a man with ties to the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis who's been tapped to be Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations from entering the United States. By voice vote, Republicans and Democrats united behind the legislation sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, that reflected congressional animosity toward Tehran and its selection of Hamid Aboutalebi. Iran's envoy's choice was a member of a Muslim student group that held 52 American hostages for 444 days in the 1979 seizure of the Embassy in Tehran. The ``nomination is a deliberate and unambiguous insult to the United States,'' Cruz said in remarks on the Senate floor in which he describes Iran's anti-Americanism since 1979, and added, ``This is not the moment for diplomatic niceties.'' I am very proud of my friend Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas. This is the way we need to respond to Iran's slap in the face of the United States. Again, if you look at the way this administration has reached out to Iran, they have laughed openly and said yes, they were negotiating, and yes, they reached a preliminary agreement with this White House, but they are not stopping anything in the way of developing nuclear weapons. They made that clear. They are not abandoning their nukes. So what have we done? We gave them a free space in which to keep developing nukes. We don't know what they have been doing behind the scenes because there have not even been inspections in all the facilities that we know of, and they brag that they are not abandoning anything. And what else did the administration do? The administration eased up and allowed them billions of dollars in relief from the sanctions which, no doubt, would help them pursue nuclear weapons as they move forward. It is just tragic why and how this administration is giving the impression to nations like Iran that we will not stand up to them. But, again, look at what we did as a nation. We reelected President Obama, knowing that before the election he had turned to the leader from Russia and basically said: Tell Vladimir Putin that I will have a lot more flexibility after the election. People elected the President, knowing that he had telegraphed to the Russians that he would show a lot more weakness and would be able to give the Russians a lot more of what they wanted after the election in 2012. If you look at this administration's activities after the election in 2008, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent over with a goofy- looking button that they thought had, in Russian, ``reset,'' when, actually, I don't know what that says. She thought it said ``reset.'' It didn't say that. And we embarrassed ourselves. But the message was very clear because the Russians, and Putin in particular, knew that the reason that relationships have been strained was that, toward the end of the Bush administration, the Russians moved on Georgia, and the reaction was swift from President Bush. He didn't do as much as I might have thought should be done, but he was embarrassed. He was bound to have been embarrassed because he said he looked to this man and knew that he was a man of peace, or words to that effect, and it had to feel like a bit of a betrayal to President Bush when he moved on Georgia. The Russian activities of moving on Georgia, totally abandoning and betraying the outreach by the Bush administration, put a significant chill on U.S.-Russian relations. That is why they were chilled. That is why diplomatic relations were so stiff at the time that this administration took over. So when you know that it was the Russian invasion and move on Georgia that caused a strain in relations, to the Russians, when this administration says, Hey, we are really sorry for the way we acted in the past; we want a new relationship; we want to hit a reset button or whatever we put in Russian on this thing, we want to start over, the message was clear to Vladimir Putin: we're sorry that we were offended when you broke your word to us and invaded Georgia; we're sorry that you were an aggressor, you attacked and invaded and went into a neighboring country. This administration was apologizing for the Russians being that aggressive, and the message was clear that we are not the country we once were. And the message was sent to go ahead and take what you think you can, and he has. Countries around the world are looking at us. We know we still have the greatest military. Despite all the cuts, it is still the greatest military in the world. And yet, if you don't have leaders willing to show strength, then people will take advantage. It is not a 19th century historical action; it is a 21st and every century since man has been on this planet. Some have asked, gee, if these inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really are inalienable, why do all people around the world not have them? And the answer, I think, is because yes, they were an inheritance bequeathed to us by our Creator; but just as any inheritance, if the heir does not claim that inheritance and have a willingness to protect it and fight for it and maintain it, then you won't keep it. Thus, when Ben Franklin was purportedly asked, ``What have you given us?'' he replied, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' Muslim moderates are concerned because they see the United States trying to embrace radicals. Again, I am so proud of the moderate Muslims in Egypt in joining, literally and figuratively, arm in arm, hand in hand with Christians and secularists in Egypt and coming to the street in millions and millions and millions and demanding a leader who would not usurp power that was not his in the constitution, demanding his removal, demanding a constitution that would allow them to impeach a leader like Morsi had become as a Muslim Brother. They made clear: we don't want radical Islamist leaders or people in our government because they have one goal, and that is taking overall power, subjugating everyone else, including moderate Muslims and Christians. That is why it was so ironic to hear one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, in effect, saying just pay the tax and then you have got your religious beliefs, because that is a shari'a law belief. And I know she is not aware of that. But actually, under shari'a law, if you are a Christian, you can pay a tax and subjugate yourself humbly before the Muslim government and they will allow you to practice your religion so long as you remain subjugated to shari'a and to the Muslim leaders. But in this Nation, you are not supposed to have to pay a tax or a fine in order to practice your religious beliefs. In Egypt--God bless those people--they didn't want to do that either, so they got rid of the Muslim Brother leaders. What else did they do, Mr. Speaker? They declared the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. And if one reads the opinion from the Dallas Federal court and also from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, it seems pretty clear the evidence is there that Muslim Brotherhood should be accepted as a terrorist organization. And groups like CAIR, who have such a powerful influence in this administration, who can call and have an intelligence briefing shut down at Langley, as they have, who can call and complain that the training materials at the FBI offend them and have them purged so those FBI training materials no longer offend a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, as found by the Dallas court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now there is a story from England. The BBC news reports ``David Cameron Orders Review of Muslim Brotherhood'': Prime Minister David Cameron has commissioned a review of the Muslim Brotherhood's UK activity, No. 10 says. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement which has been declared a terrorist group by Egypt's government. Recent press reports have suggested members have moved to London to escape a crackdown in Cairo, where the group backs ousted President Mohammed Morsi. Well, they had that in common with at least one or two of our U.S. Senators who went over there to back Morsi. In any event, the article goes on: Number 10 said the review would examine the group's philosophy and activities, and the government's policy toward it. According to the Times, it was prompted by evidence received by the government that Muslim Brotherhood leaders met in London last year to plan their response to events in Egypt. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that the ``main conclusions'' of the review, which is due to be completed by the summer, would be made public. Asked what had triggered the review, he said the government had received a succession of reports from its Embassies in the region, building up a picture which the Prime Minister believed should be examined. But No. 10 does not provide any details on which bodies are to be involved in the review. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, but now operates in many states and has influenced other Islamic movements around the world with its model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work. While the Brotherhood--and it has the Arabic name--says it supports democratic principles, one of its stated aims is to create a state ruled by Islamic law or shari'a. Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is ``Islam is the solution.'' The organization's backing installed Mr. Morsi as Egypt's first civilian president in 2012, but he was ousted--and this is the same mistake that CNN and this administration makes; they called it a military coup last year--after widespread street protests. As the millions and millions and millions of people in Egypt made clear, millions more than even Morsi claimed voted for him, it was not a military coup. This was an uprising by the people of Egypt demanding the Constitution be followed, and the ouster of a president who was grabbing power at scary speed, and many knew if they didn't move at the time they did, a year later would be too late. He would be like dictators often are, elected, then seize all power, and you can't ever get rid of them. In any event, this article says: In December, the new Egyptian government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group after blaming it for an attack on a police station that killed 16 people. A Downing Street spokesman said in a statement: ``The Prime Minister has commissioned an internal government review into the philosophy and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and the government's policy toward the organization.'' So, anyway, it is interesting, Egypt has declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, and they should know better than any nation in the world. I thank God for the Egyptians that rose up. Estimates are a third of the population went to the streets to demand removal. And I didn't know till I was over there last fall, they didn't have any provision in their Constitution for impeachment, so they needed a constitution where they could impeach a president who usurps power that is not his under the Constitution. Now, England is taking a look to see if they shouldn't declare them terrorist organizations. The reason we can anticipate that, in the near future, this administration will not declare the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization is because they get advice from two front organizations, as the courts have said, of the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, and I can see them, their building from my window, so they have got a good spot to keep watch over Capitol Hill, and also, ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America. And its leader is Imam Magid, who, as far as I know, is frequently giving advice, continued advice to the State Department, the White House on anything to do with Islam. We know that the Egyptian paper had reported in December of 2012, when the Muslim Brotherhood was running the government, that six Muslim Brothers were in very key and top positions of power and advice within the Obama administration. They heralded that as a great thing for the Muslim Brothers to have that much influence in Washington. So there shouldn't be a great deal of wonder at why this administration, with one of those individuals, reported an Egyptian paper, being a top adviser in homeland security, charged with keeping us safe, that we have, according to the Egyptian paper, a Muslim Brother, Mr. Elibiary, who was given a secret clearance by Janet Napolitano, and given access to confidential material or secret material. And we, apparently, get advice from this man, whose business started a foundation, or he started a foundation called the Freedom and Justice Foundation. Most of us would say freedom and justice? That is great. He believes in freedom and justice. Until you look up the meaning of freedom and justice. Under shari'a law, freedom and justice means freedom to worship Allah only, and justice only under shari'a law. And so it is no big surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood political party in Egypt called itself the Freedom and Justice Party. But if there are enough leaders here in the United States that know what is good for us, we will see what Egypt has done, what England is doing. And even Russia has noticed that radical Islam is an enemy. They have even tried to warn us, but found we don't take warnings well. We should declare the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. Thoughts On The Causation of the Fort Hood Shootings Now, that brings me to another point about the first Fort Hood shooting that was clearly an act of terrorism by an enemy combatant. Even though this administration calls it workplace violence, it was an act of war by a warrior for radical Islam. And he was able to kill the 13 people, Nadal Hasan, for more than one reason. One was, political correctness kept superior commissioned officers from calling it like they saw it because they didn't want to be called some racist or Islamaphobe, the term that the OIC, the Islamic council, had put together to try to intimidate people from recognizing the danger that radical Islam was. They didn't want to be called Islamaphobe, and they knew, going all the way up the chain of command, that they might be looked upon badly if they reported this man for what they saw, not a moderate Muslim, but a man that was a potential problem, a person who was being radicalized. Another problem was that the people we entrust with rocket-propelled grenades, with tanks, with all kinds of weapons, with helicopters that can fire blistering rounds thousands of meters away and kill hundreds and thousands of people, they have that much authority, that much ability, that much power, we trust them with these tremendous weapons that kill people, and yet, we tell them, but we don't trust you to have a pistol with you on a military installation. So just as when a killer walked into a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, that adjoins Fort Hood years ago, he knew no one would have a gun there, and so he killed a lot of people, including a woman's parents. She had put her gun in her glove compartment, and knew she could have saved her parents if she had been able to keep her weapon. So she fought for and obtained passage, as a new State representative, for a concealed-carry permit. So we now have concealed- carry because of that first shooting incident in Killeen. But this administration didn't learn anything when they called that shooting workplace violence, didn't learn anything about reporting potential threats, and so more people died at Fort Hood. I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we said, you know what? Military Members, men and women who are putting your lives at risk for us, with whom we have entrusted weapons of mass destruction, we are going to trust you with a firearm. So if you will get a permit, and they show they are qualified--I know my 4 years in the Army, every year we had to go qualify--make sure they are qualified with the firearm they have, and let them carry firearms. I started to put it in the bill that I drafted, that they would be concealed, but I think we should leave that to the commanders. So we, just as I was coming over here, got the draft from legislative counsel and will be filing it this week. It is a bill to authorize qualified members of the Armed Forces to carry firearms on military bases and installations, and for other purposes. And this act may be cited as the Save Our Soldiers Act, or the SOS Act. It does apply, would apply to all soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guard. It applies to all of our uniformed military. And it says, in general, any qualified member of the Armed Forces may carry a firearm on a military base or installation. Then it goes through to set forth how you go about applying for the permit to do that. If we can trust them with weapons of mass destruction, we ought to be able to trust them with a pistol, with a firearm. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this gets legs and that we will get this passed through the House with widespread bipartisan support. Especially in this election year, people seem to be more acutely attentive to what their constituents think, so that is why I know it would be a bipartisanly-passed bill if we will bring it up this year and then send it to the Senate. Our friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, may not want to bring it up; but then if he won't bring it up, then the only other alternative would be for voters to turn out members of Mr. Reid's party, so he wouldn't be the Majority Leader. Then we could get someone who would bring that bill to the floor, so that we don't have another attack at Fort Hood or another Navy Yard or somewhere else and have to go: Gee, what could we have done? Some of the rest of us would repeat, for the umpteenth time: you should let people who are qualified to carry firearms carry firearms. We have seen, over and over, killers go to where they know firearms are prohibited, like the Colorado shooter going to a theater farther away than one close because those that were closer allowed firearms to be carried inside. It would be terrific if we could do that for our military, and I know there are some commanders who take the nod from our Commander in Chief and say: oh, we don't think that is a good idea. But it is a good idea. It is something we should do, and it is time we moved in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I am immensely grateful to my friend Rob Woodall. Madam Speaker, it was back in the 1990s when I heard what apparently was a loveable, old fuzzball who turned out to be Rush Limbaugh. He was talking about the absurdity of the United States Government doing something that no person, no family, no business, no charity in all of America could do. With due respect to my friend who just spoke, Mr. Van Hollen says businesses would go out of business. I would challenge anybody in this room to show me a business, to show me a family, to show me an individual, to show me a charity that has an automatic increase in every year's budget, because America can't do that. I was shocked that this was going on. I mean, in the Army, I helped with the budget. In the private sector, I prepared budgets. As a district judge, I prepared a budget. It had to be approved. We never got an automatic increase. You had to justify any change in anything. If you needed an increase, you had to show why that was important. I got to Congress, never dreaming that that would not have been taken care of when Republicans took the majority, but in my freshman term in 2005 and 2006, the Republican chair of the Budget Committee said we have to do the automatic increases. I said, Why? He said, Because it is the law. I was shocked. We make the law. We can change the law. Then, of course, our friends across the aisle took the majority, and for 4 years, there was no chance of eliminating the automatic increase in every Federal department's budget, but then we got the majority back. For all of the disagreements I have had with the Speaker, Speaker Boehner agreed that if Paul Ryan passed a zero-baseline budget--ending the automatic increases--out of committee, then he would bring it to the floor. It meant we would have to have the right guy marshaling this bill. Some tweaking was done, and I will be forever grateful to my friend Rob Woodall, who is as brilliant as his predecessor, a dear friend, John Linder. He took this bill, and he marshaled it through. Paul Ryan kept his word, and I will be forever grateful for that. It came to the floor, and we voted it through, and the Senate wouldn't take it up. For those who want to talk about the children, I am not hearing a lot of that talk today because, when I talk to college students, high school students, junior high students, they are wondering why they are going to have to pay the debts that we were not responsible enough to pay ourselves. There is not a good answer. It is absolutely immoral and negligent--it is self-indulgent--to say that one generation like ours is so much more important that we have to spend future generations' money. Yes, if there is inflation, let's deal with it that year, but I have heard enough stories from people who are talking about, gee, this department is apparently out there, saying, Spend all your money. Don't leave any because, if you don't, you won't get as much next year. Of course, they get automatic increases every year, so they have got to spend their money. That is no way to run a country. It is not right. There are some issues I have with the budget, but I know the heart of the man who was behind that, and I know he wants future generations not to be burdened with our negligent handling of our money. So it is time that we end the automatic increases in every Federal budget. When my friend across the aisle was talking about, gee, you could end up with half an aircraft carrier--good grief--we have lost aircraft carriers because of those automatic increases every year for decades now. There are aircraft carriers that won't be there because we couldn't control ourselves as we had to automatically increase everything we spent. Madam Speaker, it is time we did the responsible thing and ended the automatic increase in every single Federal budget for next year, and I will be continuing in my gratitude to my friend Rob Woodall.