with the of work national guard for eight years. his role in the house meant a lot to him. after he left he always, whenever i'd run into him, mr. speaker, he asked, what's happening? because he cared passionately what happened to our country and the state of west virginia. afterwards, after leaving office, he served as the chief political advisor for the united states chamber of commerce. he continued his mission to try to get the message across, how we can be a better nation, stronger, more vibrant. he cared very much. as you heard, he's left behind his wife, lynn, and two children, two adult kids, david mick staton and his daughter, cynthia. mr. speaker, we, again, we've lost a friend. i would ask that we have just a moment of silence on behalf of he family.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, almost two weeks ago, the administration announced gentleman another delay in approving the keystone x.l. pipeline. i think they have it all wrong. further delays in constructing this pipeline will mean we'll miss out on tens of thousands of jobs and continue to import oil from hostile countries. the pipeline will bring in thousands of barrels of oil a day from our neighbor, canada, that could replace the 900,000 we have to get every day from

venezuela, a country we cannot count on. the pipeline will have no net negative environmental impacts. you can see why there's broad bipartisan support for the pipeline. the oil will be extracted, refined and used by someone, the only question is who will be -- who will get the jobs and who will be first in line to use it. i urge the administration to end the holdup. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. april is national sexual awareness and prevention month, april 25 was national d.n.a. day. it commemorates the discovery of d.n.a.'s double helix. it's changed the criminal justice system. since its inception in 1994, the

national d.n.a. database system has solved more than 200,000 previously unsolved crimes and provides closure to victims of violent crimes. it assists prosecutors in taking violent offenders off the street and helped clear more than 300 wrongfully convicted. katy was a 22-year-old nuferte of new mexico graduate student in august of 2003, she was raped strangled to death and burned and abandoned a at -- at a dump site. she was a fight we are full d.n.a. profiles under her nails. through d.n.a. we were able to find her attacker. the bill, katy's law was sign into law last year helping states with d.n.a. collection. the discovery of advancements in d.n.a. have done wonders for vote. closure has transformed our justice system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: last night it was my honor to be in the audience as lincoln high school from portland, oregon, won the national constitution competition. this is a terrific program that we -- a terrific program. the we the people program has been going on since 1987. it's involved almost 28 million youngster, nearly 100,000 coaches and teachers, where young people do a deep dive into constitutional underpinnings. these students were no different. i'm pleased that this is the third year in a row that portland, oregon, has won. lincoln two years ago, grant high school, lincoln again this year. these are outstanding young men and women. it's been my privilege to work with them in their prepation and i'm continually impressed with their insight and their

commitment. there's a lot of concern about the state of civic education in the united states today and rightly sigh. but these -- and rightly so. but these young trailblazers are sewing -- showing the ability of young people to master the subject and they are sowing the seeds for productive careers for years to come. i hope someday this congress will see fit to once again support the civic education program which we had done until two years ago. it's time to reconsider and see f we can be a partner as well. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one mp and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you -- mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. every individual has the right to live this a free society.

championship ckey will take place in belarus. this sporting event champions fairness. belarus should do the same and show its citizens and the international community that it can play by the rules. i call on the belarusian officialers in immediate and unconditional release of all including isoners, three amnesty international regards as prison noferse conscience, imprisoned solely for their beliefs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to highlight the challenges facing our coastal communities. last week i was honored to be

a hearing that talked about tribal communities. with federal agent sis and stake holders we were able to make progress in recognizing the need for active and sustained engagement on economic and environmental issues. secretary jewel rightly pointed out we have a moral obligation to act in the face of rising sea levels, ocean acidify case and severe weather patterns claused by -- causedly climate change. in my district alone, three tribes are in the process of relocation due to the threat of floods. mr. kilmer: let's help identify infrastructure needs and make sure we're protecting coastal communities and heritage sites, maintaining livelihoods and living up to our treaty and trust obligations. let's also work to develop cleaner energy sources, cut global emissions and lead a

global effort to combat the real threat of climate change. i yelled%. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence for mr. richmond of louisiana from april 28 through april 29. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from washington, mr. heck is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the export-impart bank but to begin the discussion i would like to yield my time to the gentleman my friend, and a passionate advocate on bhf of the

export-import bank, congressman cardenas. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. cardenas: thank you, mr. speaker. it's rare that you'll see any government on the planet that has a program they support that tway puts money back to the taxpayers rather than costing the taxpayers. i say that's rare anywhere in the world, it's certainly rare here. but this export-import bank in the united states is in fact that kind of organization. for example, last year the bank supported 205,000 american jobs. i did not say exported jobs, i said supported 205,000 american jobs. that's what those loans did for american companies. in addition to that, it should be noted that the loans that are being given are actually filling the gap that private banks will not or choose not to support but

our american companies need that kind of support, especially when they're competing in our global economy. the export-import intank exactly that mechanism that should exist. what i would like to ask all americans is to go ahead and go online and start tweeting export-import bank and find out what your congressman or congresswoman thinks about the re-authorization of the export-import bank. if you care about jobs if you care about the person who lives next to you or town the street and they're unemployed, the export-import bank is an answer to solving some of the problems in our economy in this country. yes, there are too many americans out of work but not re-authorizing the export-import bank will just contribute even more to companies in the united states, not being able to compete but also possibly closing their doors. in addition to that, i'd like to point out that every developed country in the world actually has their version of an export-import bank and some of those countries, like china and

india, are actually ten-fold, maybe 100 times the support that we're giving to our domestic companies here, they're giving to their companies so they can compete or perhaps overcompete around the world. i think it's important for all of us as americans to understand that there is something good about the export-import bank and that is that it exists for creating american jobs. and that's exactly what it's doing and if you're concerned abthe american tax dollar, you would -- about the american tax dollar, you would support the re-authorization of the export-import bank because all id does is create more jobs and -- it does is create more jobs and more taxes in the coffers and doesn't take anything away from the taxes of the american public. with that, i'd like to yield back my time to congressman heck. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from the 18th congressional district of florida, another passionate advocate on paff of re-authorization of the export-import bank, congressman

patrick murphy. mr. murphy: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from washington for his advocacy and passion for this critical issue for our country and for american jobs. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out on the urgent need for congress to re-authorize the export-import bank, boosting job growth at home and the export of american made products abroad. coming from the private sector, one of the first things i did after being elected was embark on a jobs tour which included over 7 -- 70 meetings, round tables and company visits within the first year. i've taken ideas and suggestions from all these conversations and have put them into a plan to grow jobs in the palm beach treasure coast district i'm proud to represent this plan consists of commonsense pro-growth policy this is a allow new bies to gain a solid foothold in a tough economy and for existing businesses to expand and prosper. one of the major focuses of this plan is on how the government can provide stability and certainty, resources, keep jobs

at home by investing in our manufacturing sector and promoting exports of american made goods abroad. re-authorization of the export-import bank is one pillar for how we can do this as my voting record shows, i have strong feelings about government overspending. as a former small business owner myself, i know that government does not create jobs. but government does have the responsibility to create an environment conducive to job growth and that's exactly what the ex-im does at zero cost to taxpayers. it's an unfortunate reality that the united states buys much more than it sells. in 2013 alone we imported over $400 billion, about 25% of g.d.p., more than we exported. we need to reverse this trend by boosting u.s. manufacturing and exports. now the world knows we have the best equipment and the most highly trained work forest and our products are sought after around the world for their high

quality and skilled workmanship. we must better leverage these strengths and provide greater opportunity to export goods made in america. one of the best ways to do this is by re-authorizing the export-import bank before its current charter expires on september 30. just a few months ago terk we celebrated the 80th anniversary of the ex-im bank. ex-congresswomen north -- ex-im supported over 200,000 jobs in 2013 alen and generated billions in revenue in 2012. with my district being hem to a growing manufacturing sector, export sales are a major economic issue for our community. contributing tens of millions of dollars to our local economy every year. the ex-im bank is especially beneficial to small businesses which are the backbone of our economy. creating 2/3 of all new jobs nationwide. more than 85% of ex-im's

transactions benefit u.s. small and medium sized businesses helping these entrepreneurs compete globally. in my district, the majority of exporters are also small businesses. i recently met with one such business in my jobs tour, locus tracks worldwide. they were recognized with an export achievement award by the u.s. department of commerce for their successful entry into the international marketplace. i also must commend our local export assistance center fer the great war work they do with local businesses helping them utilize ex-im bank to promote the sell og of goods made in america to markets overseas. it makes a real difference to our economy at the local, state and national level. it was a highly effective and completely self-sustaining mechanism that businesses of all sizes use to finance exports, even at times of intense

partisanship, we should all be able to agree on the value of the ex-im bank provides to our economy. . it would be detrimental to allow its charter to expire. we must work together to build a brighter future for our nation, strengthen our work force, grow our economy and reduce our deficit. to do that we must come together to continue to support successful programs like the ex-im bank that helps small businesses prosper, support american jobs and boost our exports. now we have our differences. but the -- at the end of the day we have to do what is in the best interest of america. and to do that we have to work together. it shouldn't matter who gets the credit, as long as america and americans succeed. for 80 years the ex-im bank has been make sure that we succeed -- making sure that we succeed. i strongly urge my colleagues to join in calling for the commonsense re-authorization of the ex-im bank so that we may

continue to support american businesses across to global markets and increase our nale nation's international competitiveness -- our nation's international competitiveness. thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank the gentleman from washington for his leadership. i yield back the balance of my ime. mr. heck: when someone in america builds a better mousetrap or improves upon the design of an existing product, the world takes notice. companies and governments and industries and countries from south africa to turkey and in between are potential customers for well-crafted american-made products. but in the modern day globalized economy, credit is necessary for complex transactions. buyers and sellers need assurance that the deals are legitimate. and without that they are

forced to imitate products, violate intellectual property rights and standards and american companies lose out on market share. for 0 years our economy -- 80 years our economy has expanded and you grown beyond our borders and into the developed and developing world in part because of the export-import bank of the united states. and today, with u.s. trade deficits growing as exports fall, we need now more than ever to be able to support increases in exports. exports accelerate our economic growth. the export-import bank is a key part in encouraging just that activity. increased exports translate into more jobs in america and studies have shown that export-related jobs pay on average 15% to 18% more than the overall average. they're better paying. finally, with 95% of the potential customers of u.s. goods and services living

outside our borders, exporting provides vast potential for american businesses, large and small. look, 95% of the world lives outside our borders. and the rest of the world is growing a middle class. so think of it this way. if we want to keep and grow our middle class, we better be selling into the rest of the world's growing middle class. this is not and never has been about picking winners and losers. the export-import bank simply serves to bridge the gap between those who want american goods and services and americans that have goods and services to sell. it's about leveling the playingfield so that small operators have access to a global market of customers, equal to that of large corporations. for example, the bank's export credit insurance policy provides payment coverage for commercial risk such as buyer

default and political risk from war or unrest. the insurance also insures that businesses no longer have to forego sales because they cannot match the credit terms offered by global competitors. this is what we are talking about when we say it levels the playingfield. there is no other private lender currently offering what the export-import bank provides american businesses. for example, 90% -- well, 89%, to be specific, 89% of the bank's transit actions directly benefit u.s. small businesses. and that doesn't even include the small businesses that make up the supply chain of the larger companies whose goods are purchased from foreign entities. if you want more information on this, the very best place to get it is at the export-import bank's own website, www.

exim.gov. look up the businesses in your area that have benefited from the export-import bank. as was mentioned earlier, lo and behold we actually even make money off the export-import bank. last year alone over $1 billion transferred to the u.s. treasury off the profits of the export-import bank. as a matter of fact, in the 80 years of its existence, quite literally not one penny of american taxpayer dollars has ever been used in support of the ex-im. not one red penny. it lowers the deficit and does not use taxpayer dollars. as i mentioned, it is small companies. take a company like pexco which is located in the 1th congressional district of washington -- 10th congressional district of washington. they produce traffic control products you see on the road when repairs are being made. you know traffic cones,

reflective signs, barricades indicating where the road is blocked off. they're used all over the world. in fact, just recently a distributor from denmark worth of - $125,000 pexco products which was financed by the export-import bank. no commercial bank would have touched that transaction but it guaranteed the products would reach denmark. they were done reliably because of the export-import bank. in fact, in this individual company's instance, which is not atypical of their sales, and they're a small company, 200 employees, over half is sold internationally. 10% of total sales are financed by the export-import bank. so what's the result? the residents of that town are put to work, producing their popular product and traffic safety all over the world. now, i mentioned -- i didn't, i should have, that it was f.d.r.

that actually created the export-import bank. 80 yearsa. and although it was -- years ago. and although it was actually initiated and created by a democratic initialia -- administration, the support of it has always been strongly bipartisan. republican presidents such as dwight eisenhower and ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, george w. bush, supported the mission of the ex-im bank, as did bill clinton. all these presidents were staunch supporters of capitalism and the ex-im bank. listen to what president reagan said when he signed re-authorization, a bill that was re-authorized almost unanimously in 1986. quote, this sends an important signal to both our exporting community and foreign suppliers, that american exporters will continue to be able to compete vigorously for business throughout the world. perhaps an even more conservative voice, former vice president cheney said, in 1997,

some of my fellow conservatives on the hill may have a philosophical problem about the fact that the bank -- with the -- problem with the fact that the bank is a government agency. but if they consider the success of its lending programs, it would be difficult for them to object on budgetary grounds. for every $1 put into the ex-im, there's been a $20 return to the u.s. economy. and further, again, same speech, vice president cheney, ex-im bank is remarkably effective at helping create jobs, opportunities for trade, stable democracies and vibrant economies throughout the world. the bank has made a tremendous contribution as a rapid response-oriented agency designed to meet the export financing needs of american businesses. dind, the baverpbing has been -- indeed, the bank has been re-authorized a number of times throughout its history. almost always unanimously until

as of late. each time making it more effective for the economic climate of the time. let's have a conversation about how to make it better. let's have a conversation on how to get the word out to businesses that they have yet to tap into their potential global markets. let's talk about how to get our economy running and get ahead of our global competitors and let's remember, as congressman alluded to, every single developed entity in the world has an ex-im bank-like entity and if we do not re-authorize the ex-im bank, it is the equivalent and it is tantamount to unilateral disarmament in a global economy. one in which global trade is increased five fold just since 19 0. what -- 1980. what is the export-import bank about? it's about jobs, jobs, jobs. yes, 200,000 last year, but over a million in the last four years. every month swe spend debating the measure -- we spend debating the merits of the bank

instead of encouraging companies to explore the world market, the economy loses billions of dollars in potential export opportunities. the jobs especially in manufacturing stagnate. people remain unemployed. when they want to work. as a member of the house financial services committee, i am encouraging, i am urging, i am besieging, i am pleading with the chair to hold hearings as soon as possible on re-authorization of the export-import bank. we've been waiting 15 months for something to happen. and it is time to move forward. let us be clear-eyed and cold-blooded about what the cost is of not doing anything. that at a recent round table of -- at a recent round table of businesses that had been involved with the export-import bank, there was a gentleman present from a company in california, i believe the company was named firm green. and literally, literally in the

course of the conversation he raised his hand and he said, i just lost a multimillion-dollar order of sales and i am told the reason i lost it is that our competitor manufacturer, which was in another country, persuaded the purchaser that the cloud hanging over the re-authorization of the export-import bank may mean it will not be there when you need it. we lost millions in sales because congress dithered. ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, this is the most straightforward imaginable proposition. this is about shoring up -- shoring up, strengthening, supporting the manufacturing sector of the american economy and creating jobs, good-paying jobs. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield such time as she may , dr. to my dear friend oxx. ms. foxx: thank you, congressman gohmert. my classmate and friend. i appreciate very much your yielding time. mr. speaker, last week i had the opportunity to visit a

remarkable public school in curtisville, north carolina. in addition to preparing students academically for college, the north carolina leadership academy is publicly committed to giving their 400 students, quote, the opportunity to develop true leadership qualities and become creative thinkers and problem-solvers while retaining a sense of responsibility for their families, their community and their country, end quote. ncla has an ambitious mission and it is executing it so well that last year this charter school had over 700 applicants for 95 openings. the wait list has over 600 names and is growing. it was a privilege to spend time with the remarkable students and faculty of ncla.

i was truly impressed by their commitment to scholarship, by the leadership skills of the students and by the remarkable academic progress thave on display. all -- that was on display. all ncla students in grades seven through 12 participate in several air patrol, a program established by congress in 1946 that uses military-style uniforms, customs, courtesies, ceremonies and drills in order to improve student leadership skills, fitness and character. . this program is working. they place a strong emphasis on family involvement and the level of commitment demonstrated by parents, families and the piedmont community at large was impressive. community engagement is a key to success for any school and the community support for ncla is a good reminder that decisions about the education of our youth

should remain local. i have been a strong proponent of charter schools for my entire legislative career. in the north carolina state senate i supported charters as one of the best hopes to genuinely reform our school system. in congress, those of us who support charter schools should express that support by ensuring that federal policy encourages states to adopt expansive charter las. further, we need to ensure that washington does not put up bureaucratic roadblocks that would keep states -- keep state, city, and count ji governments from experimenting with new ideas and establishing effective charter school programs. mr. speaker,ky not say enough about how impressed i was -- it was to spend with the educators of the north carolina leadership

academy. individuals who seek daily to impress upon the students the values encapsulated in the hool motto of scholarship, leadership, citizenship. i expect many good things from the remarkable young scholar leaders currently bling educated by this wonderful school. the community will reap the benefits of having this school in its midst for years to come. and with that, i yield back to my colleague from texas, 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, and 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 and i've talked with enough high school students who also say the federal government is not the answer to their food programs. i've met with cafeteria workers and leaders who say kids are not eating the food. they are required to choose from lists of foods to put on their plates that they had heretofore not heard of before, the students don't want, don't like and 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? -- bviously education d 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 of 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. in essence, it said, everything that is not specifically

enumerated as a power to the federal government is reserved to the states and people. that's 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 o and see that one of my school districts was bragging that, gee, about half of those in favor say aye employees were actually teachers. i was shocked. i would have thought 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 there was between

70% and 80% of the texas educational employees who were teachers. but naturally, when washington gets involved, there are more requirements for the state agency, education agencies in each state. then with more state education accountability and requirements to washington there became more bureaucrat there is 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 become to observing the 10th amendment. the best educational accountability comes not from buttocks ucrat on his here in washington but from

those who are there locally that see what's happening in the school. we've done enough damage. one of the big disagreements i had with former president george w. bush who i like and admire and think it unfortunate that people do not appreciate either his intelligence or his very, , and 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 hru and getting an m.b.a. from harvard, though obviously harvard is not what it used to be back when it would embrace and allow debate from all sectors. now it's 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 hope this is a this administration -- i had hopes that this administration would keep the poms to dismantle no child left behind. it's been eased but not nearly what should have happened. and 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 the 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 the release

from judicial watch, that they announced today that on april , 2014, it obtained 41 new benghazi-related state department documents that include a newly declassified email showing then-white house deputy strategic communicator -- communications advisor ben rhodes and other obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to reenforce president obama to and portray the benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being, quote, rooted in an internet video and not a failure of policy, unquote. 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 20 12. judicial watch had been seeking these documents since october 18, 2012. the rhodes email was sent on friday, september 14, at 8:09 m. with the subject line re: prep call with susan saturday at 4:00 p.m. e.t. 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, quote, to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy. might insert parenthetically here that actually, 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, g.m.'s alive, al qaeda is on the run didn't look nearly as tantalizing if it turns out al qaeda may be on the run but if they are they're running toward american interests and killing 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's the quote, we 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's 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. now 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, that actually it was all bout a video and to perpetuate this misleading, some might argue fraudulent, presentation , included but facts 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 in the 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 bawd he had islamic

countries and france wanting taos 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, ok, all right, if that's what you want to do, but it certainly wasn't this con gregal body that did that. the president got his will they furnished weapons to rebel this is a included al qaeda. is administration refused to provide the security that was requested by more than one

person, but including chris stevens himself, refused to provide it. how bad would that look before the election? a 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 .illed our ambassador first time an ambassador had been killed since the jimmy carter administration. and here it was happening again. this administration knew exactly what happened when america finds out that an administration is toothless, is ineeffectual, and is actually -- 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 gaddafi, said, they've got to go. pushed an ally out. not a very nice one by any stretch, but an ally. and then president carter welcomed the ayatollah could he meny as a man of -- khomeini as a man of peace and then for the first time in what was a long islamist got al ontrol 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 results on aw the - at benghazi.

but this article goes on to point out that among the top administration p.r. personnel who received the memo were white house press secretary jay carney, deputy press secretary joshua ernest, then white house communications director dan pfeiffer, then white house deputy communications director jennifer palmari, then national security council director of communications erin peloton, special assistant to the press secretary, and then white house senior advisor and political trategist. the communication strategy email also instructs recipients to portray obama as, quote, steady and statesmanlike, unquote, throughout the crisis. another of the goals of the p.r. offensive is, quote, to

reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges, unquote. he later includes, as a p.r. top line topic in point, quote, i think the people have come to trust that president obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. they're always going -- 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 the u.s. mission to the u.n., to susan rice noting that at a press briefing earlier that day , state department spokesman victoria newland explicitly stated that the attack on the cons late had been well planned -- consulate had been well

planned. 5:45 ail sent writes at prime minister, responding to a question about whether it was an organized terrorist attack, victoria said she couldn't speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack. in the days following the email, rice appeared on abc, cbs, nbc, fox news, espn, saying the attacks were in response to the hateful video. and it was worth noting those are people who used those words, steady and statesmanlike. and certainly this would have appeared to be a real problem for the administration shah thank someone speaking soon after the -- that someone speaking soon after the attack and the murder, the assassination of chris stevens and three american pate rots,

-- pate rots -- patriots. ms. newland, not knowing 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 in 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, had oordinated, it othing to do with the video. this article goes on. on sunday, september 16, rice told cbs' "face the nation," quote, 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 our embassy sparked by this hateful video. to the judicial watch documents -- that's unquote. the judicial watch documents confirm that c.i.a. 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 c.i.a. deputy director, according to one email. quote, the first draft apparently seemed unsuitable because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the c.i.a. had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. on the sbts he 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 within deputy chief of staff to hillary clinton jake sullivan and rhodes, ben rhodes, that is, to develop appropriate talking points, unquote. the documents obtained by jirnl watch also contained -- judicial watch also contained numerous emails sent on the assault of the benghazi facility. the dramatic emails described the assault as an attack. just as state department number two person in libya said, chris stevens described it, we're under attack. there was nothing about a video . the american people were duped right before the election, as as the intent. september 11, back to the article, september 11, 2012, 6:41 p.m., senior advisor to

susan rice, quote, as reported the benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the annex colleagues to secure it. one of our colleagues was killed. ambassador chris stevens who was visiting benghazi this week is missing. they're looking for him. further down, it notes how much material is blacked out in so . ny of the emails judicial watch president said, quote, 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's no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the state department. well, that's led to this printing that i did of another judicial watch for your request. this article from here in d.c., judicial watch announced today that on march 25, 2014, it filed a people are of information act lawsuit against the federal bureau of investigations seeking agency records related to the awarding of the luis e. peters award in 2011 to muhammad albie ari, a member of the department of homeland security advisory council. al barry is alleged to have close ties to radical islamic organizations including the muslim brotherhood.

and i'll insert paraphernalia thetically here that -- partner thetically here that actually morsi, uslim brother, as president of egypt, a periodical there was bragging obama officials who were muslim brothers and albiarri was mr. from texas. this points out here, judicial watch seeks the following documents in its june 24, 2013, for your request. any and all reporteds concerning, related to the awarding of the award to mr. muhammad on september , 2011. -- september 8, 2011. further down it says, in his

role as homeland security advisor has regular access to classified information. most recently came under fire in november, 2013, for tweeting out the mental that america is, quote, -- message that america is, quote, an islamic country with islamically compliant constitution, unquote. in its december, 2013, quote, special report, u.s. government purchase of law enforcement training material deemed offensive to muslims, unquote, judicial watch identified him as one of nearly a half dozen islamist-influenced operators within the obama administration. seeking to advance an ideological agenda, completely at odds with our constitutional system. of course that was november -- or december, 2013, when actually it was december of 012 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. is goes on to talk about muhammad's role in the homeland security department. personally i had an opportunity to question janet napolitano as secretary of homeland security more than once about him. and actually on the night before one of our hearings, i talked to the head of texas department of public safety, steve mccraw, a great man, a great patriot, former f.b.i. agent. he understands what's going on in this country. nd he was alerted that

muhammad had downloaded two documents from a classified tabase, that he only got access to because janet napolitano, as best we can find out, just unilaterally gave him a security clearance so he could go into these websites and he did it from his own computer and he did it at his home. they can tell all of this by the intelligence they were able to gather and it was clear he had downloaded two documents. at was in an article and published was that the article writer said he had talked to someone in the national media who said that muhammad had shopped those two documents to this national medium, 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 eve mccraw and had told him, look, i know you're concerned, basically this is what he said, i know you're concern bud i have given a full briefing of what happened to the secretary herself. she knows what's going on, she's 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 with a like to think -- i would like to think that the cretary had unilaterally put what egypt considered a member of the muslim brotherhood into her 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, no, she didn't know anything about it. the next time i asked her about it, however, she said she looked into it and there was nothing to it. unfortunately for her and unfortunately for our country no one wn security, had bothered to properly look into the matter because the reporter who published the article that -- said he talked to a national security source saying that he told him to publish the 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. those had got

documents. if homeland security could be so poorly run at the highest , is over its own security the rest of america really very afe? if the f.b.i. in 2011 would give the highest civilian award or one of the highest awards to he same person who was a featured speaker at the tribute o the ayatollah khomeini -- in fact, the tribute was entitled "a tribute to the great islamic visionary, ayatollah khomeini." well, there was no cameras in there so we don't know exactly what mr. elibiary had to say of

the great islamic visionary, ayatollah khomeini, who kick-started this radical islamic effort against the great us -- united states from their way of thinking. o he's entitled to the f.b.i.'s great tribute to civilians? it kind of gives you a little insight, mr. speaker, into how the world the f.b.i., after the united states got two heads up from a foreign government that was not necessarily our friend that mr. sarn jeff had tsarnaev lized -- had been radicalized,

apparently they talked to mr. tsarnaev and hadn't confessed to them he had become radical and they talked to her mother and she hadn't confessed that he had become radical and i said, you didn't even go out to the muslim temples in boston ask the tsarnaevs went questions. f you -- care and isna who were identified by a united states district court that was upheld by the u.s. fifth circuit of appeals, care and isna is front organizations for the muslim brotherhood, yes, care and isna, they regularly complain. they give instructions. they give insights to this administration. and they care, particularly, had complained about things that radical islamists might find offensive in the f.b.i. training material, so they were purged.

and a couple of us went through these documents that were purged. but they were -- 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. didn't have to be there. but when, as one of our intelligence officers told me, we blind ourselves through our ability to see our enemy, then when you go investigate someone who you've 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'd go to the mosque and say, who knew tsarnaev? did he talk about the publication he wrote? you know, the one that osama bin laden said help radicalize him. if you know about radical

islam, you would know the questions to ask, but our f.b.i., our intelligence, they're 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 help defeat the taliban, the northern alliance, in afghanistan is in trouble because we've abandoned them and this administration now won't have anything to do with them. they fought the taliban. they defeated the taliban, and consisted at fight of northern alliance leader eneral dustum, a legend,

riding with about 1,000 northern alliance tribesmen on and general dostum said that they wouldn't get up the hill, the mountain to get to the taliban strong hold. their only chance to get through the rocket-propeled 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, they could defeat the taliban. and the kind of courage yeah they fight the way the taliban fight. they're pretty tough folk. but they're the enemy of our enemy, the taliban. so this administration doesn't really want anything to do with the northern alliance, our ally. instead, they want to cut some

kind of deal with the taliban. and all the northern alliance said, look, you helped force this constitution upon afghanistan that centralizes the government when we're really more tribal, we're 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 has some powers of the purse. all they ask is, let us elect our own governors, mayors, pick our own police chiefs and that way the taliban just can't nock off the president or -- and take back over afghanistan which is about to happen the way this administration is so poorly handled our foreign policy. they said, if you could at

least push through an amendment that let us elect our governors, mayors, 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 them 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, hopes, as john kerry once said about vietnam, that they're not the last one to die leaving afghanistan. i've been to too many funerals of people who gave the last country ure for this in afghanistan. not to let it em

fall immediately back into taliban hands, and we can prevent that without any more american blood being shed. the p up financially afghan government to the point that if we put enough pressure on -- and i know this administration always puts ressure on the wrong people. instead of the palestinian terrorists, we put pressure on israel. 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. empower the enemy of our enemy and they will keep our enemies at bay. that's what needs to be done in afghanistan. that's why it is so important,

les anyone is attempted to -- lest anyone is attempted to ask the question of 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 sson under the clinton administration because people under that clinlton administration was wondering what makes a difference how or why these people die, let's move on, so americans died in the future. if we are going to stop that in the future, we need to know at this point what happened at enghazi.

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 veilis yet again -- the israelis yet again. this article from "the daily beast" 4.27, points out, secretary of state -- that's john kerry -- said if israel doesn't make peace soon it can e, quote, an apar thide state, un-- apartheid state, like the old south africa. if there is no resolution soon, israel risks being 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 word 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 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 he said both of them should be blamed 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're 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're not going to agree to allow you to exist. so the only agreement we'll enter is if you agree that we have to still plan on wiping you off the map. and this is the type of agreement kerry thinks should be made. according to the 1998 rome statute, the crime of apartheid

is inhuman acts committed in the context of a regime of domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. e term is used in the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed south africa. so, let's see, in israel, palestinians get the best jobs ywhere 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 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 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. and finally, as a matter of their own self-security, they said, we are going to have fences so you just can't walk in and blow up innocent people. and how have the palestinians taken to that? well, they have taken to it by continuing to have in their textbooks references to jewish vermon or ats or other such references. they elicit hatred from the school children against jews. they name holidays and landmarks and monday youments and -- monuments and streets after people who have been able to kill innocent, totally innocent

people in israel. that's one thing about the united states. we don't normally name holidays and streets and landmarks for other who kill innocent, people. forame holidays and streets people like martin luther king junior, an ordained christian minister, who said by his life, you don't use violence to kill innocent people. that's the kind of people we respect here in america. that's the kind of people we name holidays and streets for. but not in palestine. oh, no. oh, no. and this, secretary of state kerry, blames israel. he does say there is some blame to share, but as the prime

minister of israel, 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 six million or so jewish people simply because of their race, simply ecause 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. and amazingly, people that had no concept of what the bible were, actually carried out prophecies from the old testament to the letter by what they did. maybe there's something to that old testament and its prophecies. but for those in this administration, perhaps they're hoping that's not the case, ecause this secretary of state has, in essence, cursed israel more than once and that old testament that said israel would be reborn again, it says those who curse israel will be cursed and those who bless israel will be blessed. and you only have to go back a year before or just last year,

november 13, 2013, another article about our secretary of israel. m hiffa, has been in damage control mode after its boss, secretary of state john kerry wondered if squeish opposition to peace negotiations with palestinians was driven by a desire for a interfada. in israel and is an arabic word for uprising and was given to intensify palestinian violence from 1987 to 1993. our secretary of state is saying out loud in a foreign country that gee, he's wondering if the sraelis want it 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're concerned about some aspect of john kerry. e 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'll give him another chance and let him speak for america. i'll 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's time, i believe, he came home. and ceased being secretary of state. there's an article from yesterday by ben shapiro. he is a jew. he is brilliant. he is a friend. he wrote yesterday, the anti-semitism of the obama administration and 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 there are over one million

citizens with rights and the palestinian territories are completely -- is more of the same. upon tape of his remarks hitting the press, kerry backtracked saying i will not allow my commitment to be questioned by anyone particularly for political purposes. and he didn't say i said it was an apartheid state and i would have chosen a different word hat the only way to is through a two-state solution. sadly, kerry is not believable at this point. the obama administration has demonstrated a consistent pattern of anti-semitic rhetoric even from their 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 goes on to point out some of the leaks that ere done to hurt israel. but, secretary kerry should be encouraged -- here's an article, far left j street defends kerry's apartheid accusations, tuesday, april 29. j street calls itself the organization that gives political voice to the mainstream american jews and other supporters of israel, union quote, but it is far from a pro-israel group. radical billionaire soros donated in 2008 and $500,000 in subsequent years. levy was caught on tape telling the audience that the creation

of israel was an act that was wrong, unquote. yesterday, this far left anti--israel group defended kerry. they blasted j street after the far left groups supported kerry's remarks. the organization of america responded to j street's comments. jmp street has demonstrated that it is an extremist group hostile to israel by supporting secretary of state kerry's apartheid's accusation against israel. is is the station that ndemns, cajoles our friend radical pports and

islamists in palestine. that went rushing into libya when many of us were saying look, it's not a good idea. we know al qaeda is supporting the rebels. this isn't a good idea. let's wait and see how much of these rebels are al qaeda. and now we find out -- here's an article today from "the blaze." . the massive amount of weapons meant for libyan rebels that ended up in terrorist hands. good article from sarah carter. the trouble is these weapons were intended for the terrorists, because we knew -- we had information. there were al qaeda terrorists that were part of the rebels against gaddafi. very quickly, i know i 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 deal for certain people or how about in the n.d.a.a. we are going to take up, put in there, hey, if you are in this country illegally and willing to go into the service, then we'll claim your legal. recent veterans are struggling to find jobs. 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 have ever been allowed by this body. and they're having trouble finding jobs. the unemployment rate for our veterans ought to be much lower than for anybody and it's much

higher than for the american population. and this administration 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. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker -- >> my subject matter for this minute is the national day of prayer and i would like to add to his comments.

we should pray for israel. recognition of the observance of the national day of prayer will be thursday, may 1. our nation has a rich heritage that began with our first settlers to the new world and strengthened to the first national call to prayer invoked by the second continental congress in 1775. our forefathers, prayer has had profound influence not only on the lives of the leaders and the content of the declaration of independence and other founding documents. in his address, president washington warned about the nation that excludes religion from the public arena and declared the importance of religion and proclaimed that reason and experience forbid us to exclude in religious principle. prayer remains important in our daily lives not only to our society but to each of us

individually as well and calls to mind and helps us in our daily task. ensure that god remains involved in the affairs of leaders of this great nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and announces to the house her pproval thereof. the chair recognizes mr. perry for 30 minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd stand before you today, mr. speaker, to discuss the comments made recently by secretary kerry regarding israel and apartheid. now, i'm not going to be one of the people -- the many people that are calling for secretary kerry's resignation in that regard. i, too, work in the arena of public policy and i understand that sometimes you make mistakes the things you say. you say things you didn't necessarily intend to say, but

i think it's very instructive to talk about it for a few moments here. israel first fought the war of independence in 1948 and 1949. then fought again in approximate 1967. correction. 1967 on the six-day war and hen again in 19 -- in 1973 with the yom kippur war. during those periods of time they were attacked, unilaterally attacked by their neighbors. people say, we need to go back to those pre-1967 borders. ask anybody who's been attacked, who's been in an tack that was sucker punched, why is it incumbent that israel return to the spoils of the war? people attacked them, they fought and they won and they want to secure their population. but because of that some people

think somehow israel is the oppressor for defending -- they reacted to an act of aggression. now, i just want to also read statements from president obama from 2008 regarding the usage of the term apartheid. there's no doubt that israel and the palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that goal. president obama said. it's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate and it's not what i believe, unquote. it's not what americans believe either. i think for me and what i want to tell anybody that's watching and anybody that's listening is this should be proof positive. finally the evidence of what many conservatives and many people that support israel have been saying for the last six

years. finally what we're seeing, if this hasn't improved, i don't know what is, the thoughts and the feelings and the mindset and what's in the heart of this administration regarding israel. this is what they believe. this is who they are. and if you support israel, as the only ally in that part of the -- the only true ally for america in that part of the world, if that's who you support then you must recognize this for what it is, mr. speaker. it is an abandoning. it is not only an abandoning of our ally, our great ally and our true friend, but it's a castigation of who they are. you know, when we think about what apartheid is, israel doesn't represent any of that. it's an open democracy that lets people live freely and participate within the confines of their security situation. as the representative before me

discussed, rockets being rained down upon them, homicide bombers coming into their children's school and blowing up their children, blowing up their buses on a busy street or a cafe where people are just trying to have a meal, that is their daily life. and we're supposed to cast gait them for defend -- castigate them for defending them for that and that is somehow apartheid? the physical, racial, financial, i mean, the spiritual and emotional oppression for the sake of race, that is apartheid. that is not what israel's doing. that is not what israel's about. that's not what israel has done. israel has tried to live peaceably in that region of the world among its neighbors. it has fought to exist. it fights every day to exist. so for the secretary of state to say -- to use that term in describing who israel is, what they are as a people, what they re as a government, it's not

only reprehensible, in my mind truly defines, it very clearly illustrates what this administration believes. and so if you are a supporter of israel, if you are a supporter of the only ally, the true ally of the united states in that region of the world, it is time for you to take stock. if you have been a supporter of this administration, it is time for you to take stock in that support. is it justified, is it realistic, is it really what you believe? because if you believe what this administration believes, then you believe that the only answer is for israel to continue to give, to give of itself to its neighbors who hate it, who are continually trying to destroy it, who refuse after all these years -- 1947, after all these years, continue to refuse as a matter of just negotiation to

acknowledge israel's right to exist as a state. i mean, how much longer will it take, mr. speaker? how many more years until these other organizations -- you know, the united states taxpayers fund the palestinian authority and their effort to pay stipend to prisoners who blow up veilis, who blow them up -- veilis, who blow them up? -- israelis who blow them up? he more heinous you give the more you get paid. and yet israel is suppose to turn their cheek. even after they give -- let's face it, after they give, because they've offered to give time and time and time again, we all know, mr. speaker, it's not going to be enough because the people that call jews and israel descendents of apes and dogs and pigs, you know, they're not going to stop

thinking that just because israel agrees to whatever concession they demand. they won't stop until there is no israel. that's their goal. that's been their stated goal and it hasn't changes. so with that, mr. speaker, i just want to, again, highlight to anybody who has supported this administration because -- because of their support for israel, see what it is, look it in the face. it has shown itself finally for what it truly is. it is not supportive of israel. it is supportive of a political agenda that makes israel continue to bleed, and it is unacceptable for the united states of america to turn its back on this long-standing ally. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a primplingd report from the committee on

rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 557, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4486, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4487, making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and today i rise to warn the american people that fundamental changes are being proposed in our legal system here in washington as it could have dramatic impact on their freedom, dramatic impact on the

prosperity of this country, dramatic impact on the security of our country. these -- but these changes that i'm talking about are not so apparent to the average person because they deal with a very complicated issue of technology and technology ownership. i've been in congress for about 25 years -- actually 26 years at the end of this year, and during that time period there's been an ongoing fight that has not been recognized by many american people. it is the fight to maintain a very strong patent system in our country. and it's been ongoing because major players around the world, especially multinational corporations, have not been supportive of the idea that the american people have a right to own their creation -- to own their own creations. in fact, our founding fathers felt this was so important that we have the patent rights and

copyrights for the average american person that they wrote it into our constitution. i just happen to have a copy of the constitution here. section 8, article 1, section 8, i believe it is -- yes. article 1, section 8, says one of the powers of congress is to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. this is what our founding fathers wrote into the constitution. this is the body of the constitution. this is before the declaration of independence. our founding fathers were so much in favor of this concept where people would own what they created and that would spur their creativity and the genius of people and that would uplift all of humankind, they were so much engaged in that

concept, they wrote it into our constitution and put it on par, thus, above the bill of rights in terms of speech, religion and other rights. people like benjamin franklin, one of our great founding fathers, a technologist at heart, knew this was the way we would be the shining light of the world where ordinary people would be able to live well. jefferson, go to monticello and see he himself was an inventor. yes, he was the first one. he was the first administrator of the u.s. patent office. no, the intellectual property rights that we have enjoyed over the years has provided ordinary people from throughout the world a chance to live decent lives, have jobs in which they can own homes, have jobs that will create wealth. it wasn't because our american people worked harder. people work hard all over the world. you have people struggling and working so hard, but they don't have freedom and they don't

have technology. it's the technology, the freedom to create technology and the utilization of that technology by ordinary people that expands the creation of wealth so that ordinary people can live well. and so tonight i'd like to alert the american people, one of the fundamental elements laid down by our founding fathers that would help us create this wonderful country, freedom and prosperity for ordinary people, it is now being threatened. it's being threatened by a concerted attack by large, huge corporations, multinational corporations who do not have the loyalty to the american people at their heart. the -- let me note that today after fighting this fight for 26 years, the first fight that we were in dealt with where they were going to put an amendment -- i remember this. they were going to put the amendment on the gap implementation legislation,

which is a treaty of laying down the rules for trade around the world. that provision they were going to put in would have reversed the basic tenants of our patent system and that is, number one, they were going to say if you are issued a patent -- excuse me -- if you apply for a patent, after 18 months whether r not that patent is issued or not, it will be -- i call it the steal american technologies act. today, if you apply for a patent, that is top secret. in fact, if somebody at the patent office leaks that information they could be put in jail for a felony. no, they wanted to change that because the rest of the world, europe and japan, has that system and they want to globalize our rights. especially our patent rights. so they were going to say they were going to limit it after 18 months they would publish it. we fought that back. marcy kaptur, democrat, and myself, on both sides of the aisle, we had people fighted this and we beat the big guys.

well, unfortunately over the years we've had three or four of these fights. sometimes we've lost. sometimes we've won. but once again we are talking about people who've come to the floor to reform the patent system. they always use the word reform, when in reality they are trying to destroy the fundamentals of a strong american patent system. the last patent bill -- reform bill was the american invents act which just went into effect last year. the patent lawyers and courts and innovators are still trying to figure out what the implications of the changes that we made in the last congress and, however, that -- we have to recognize that bill itself was the most sweeping in changes to the american patent system in the history of our country. and now they're trying and now they are trying to put another bill -- try to shove

another one through and it has gone through the house, even another were able to bill h.r. 3309, the innovation act was rammed through the house last december. its companion bill, the patent transparency act, they sound so good, don't they -- right now, that bill is being considered in the united states senate. prudentens and good judgment suggests that congress should move forward slowly and see how that last bill we put in place, how that's working, if it phase one, let's wait to see how it's working. perhaps we should take time to see if there are unintended consequences. i'm here to say to the american people that there are intended consequences to these changes and intended consequences are to

diminish the patent protection that has been afforded the american people since the founding of our country. diminish your rights to own the technologies you have developed. and it's a great threat to our people. this onslaught has been under the guise of pro-patent and pro-inventer. this is cynical and being proposed by huge corporations, multinational corporations who despise the little guy because he is demanding to be paid when his technology discoveries are being used. instead of what we have is a globalist effort to neuter the patent rights of the american people, patent rights we have had, the strongest patent system since our constitution was written and the whole world we have had the strongest patent system. this anti-patent juggernaut has been financed by mega

multinational companies, the public and yes, my colleagues haven't had time to understand this power play that has been ongoing and especially the power play that we see now on the part of the electronic industry giants like google. a vote approaches in the senate, which could take us down a road which will be hostile to american innovation and a road from which we will never return. a vote in the senate should be and must be postponed. the american people need to speak to their senators and let them know that they expect the senate patent bill to be postponed, maybe perhaps until next year, while we get a chance to look and see what's in this bill and what impact it will have on the american people. some huge corporate interests are on the verge of being given power. that's what this bill would do,

to steal the creative genius and innovation of american technology, entrepreneurs and inventors. what will this do? it will undercut the well-being, the standard of living and prosperity for average americans here. how can this be happening? why would we give up our freedom and undercut our competitiveness? the big boys are set out to scare us into giving up our freedom, to create some horrible threat and sounds very sinister, that will let us put restrictions on the ownership of intellectual property, which we know is america's greatest asset. we are going to go along with that? there is some threat to that. they called it the submarine patent. how horrible that was going to be and undercut our

competitiveness and proved to be nothing, zero. and today, it is the patent battle is supposedly aimed at patent trolls. it refers to scam artists using patent infringe meant claims to extort money from small business owners. yes, some of that happens in our country like throughout our economy, you will find lawyers threatening lawsuits, aimed at forcing victims to pay and face exorbitant legal fees in order to get them off their back. this is worse than -- that is a frivolous lawsuit and they are part throughout our system. and it's something that unfortunately the average businessman and business woman in america has to put up with. but this legislation, using that atent troll and this frivolous

lawsuits which plague every portion of our society, every businessman, doctors, lawyers, affected by frivolous lawsuits but this only focuses on --posedly frivolous lawsuits how come they are being singled out and they have to change the rules of the game and won't be frivolous lawsuits by inventors as compared to all the other frivolous lawsuits? that's because this legislation that's going through congress treats all inventors as if they are scam artists. you see, there aren't any legitimate lawsuits by inventors. every one of them are scam artists and in order to get the scam artists, they have to eliminate or dramatically reduce the ability of small inventors to protect their invention.

this bill, of course, is a reversal of the frivolous lawsuit scam. what we have here are large corporate interests who want to steal the inventions of our little guys by making it too expensive and complicated for them to protect their rights through judicial process. of course, they are not going to tell you that's their goal, but that's what it is. they are trying to shack will the little guy so he can't protect his own rights. in the legislation making its way through congress, the terms of patent troll and assertion entity and nonpracticing entity are all lumped together. this is the evil and the -- this is obviously wrongdoing by someone and certainly not a legitimate property right for these people to be bringing these suits.

that's what we're being told. the legislation, however, doesn't limit frivolous lawsuits. in fact, it doesn't limit frivolous lawsuits at all. it limits lawsuits by every inventor. it weakens the position of every inventor in relationship to a large corporation that is involved with arrogantly trying to steal that inventor's patent rights without paying the little guy. it's the little guy who created these things and this law we are putting through in the name of getting the patent troll, cuts the ground out from the people who we have most to be grateful for, the inventors that have come up with the technology that has created the wealth and freedom and the security that we have here. this battle is the ultimate david versus goliath. and i'm sorry to say the united

states congress is on the side of goliath. after all of these years of fighting this battle, republicans and democrats on both sides of the aisle, we now find that this legislation on behalf of one huge company, the google gang, we can call them, they have agreesed the skids, but the -- greeced the skids. they have gone way down the road on this and not unstoppable and not irreversible yet. if the senate passes the bill, well, it's probably the point of no return. they have however -- we do have a chance. they have overplayed their hand and that often what happens when companies become too arrogant. in this case, the universities who are not helpless and without supporters as compared to the small inventors, the little guy in their garage, universities

have been put at risk by this legislation. science and research departments of he had educational institutions create new things all the time. they apply for patents because they are involved on a full-time basis of pushing back the boundries and undering new technologies. they deserve to reap the rewards and deserve the benefit of patents. our founding fathers knew this would be a great source of wealth for institutions that invested and creating new ideas. they have many patents that are not practiced, meaning the university just develops the new technology, but they don't practice it, they don't put it and try to commercialize it. that makes them a patent troll by the definition of this legislation. according to the patent

legislation, they are patent trolls, our universities become patent trolls. in fact, if this legislation passes in the senate and enacted into law, many of the value of the patents held by america's universities will evaporate. it will be the most damaging hit ever taken by university-based science in the history of our country. who will be doing just fine? our universities will be taking a big hit but google will be doing just fine. if this becomes law, small businesses will be forced to sue in order to defend their patents and they will find that the process is more costly, more risky, less certain. investors will stop investing in small companies and stop investing and if someone comes to them with a good idea and they will require a greater return for their investment if someone is trying to help an innovator or technologist develop his or her idea.

all of this -- the risks will be increased so thus any investor will demand more of a return. this will destroy the small and independent inventors, but these big companies don't care. what they care about is taking anything they can get their hands on and using it without paying the inventor. an he past, we have had effort by the corporations to eliminate what you call treble damages. it says if someone comes to them and if it can be proven they are aware that they are using patented technology and not paying a royalty to the inventor of that technology, they can be sued and get treble damages. they tried to take this away. the reason why the corporations want to take it away, because you can not get a lawyer to work

on contingency if you are going to get your equal damages paid for. if you get treble damages, a lawyer could be called in to help defend the little guy against the big guy. they tried their best to get this taken out. why are they doing that? why is the big corporation doing that? well, they are doing it because they don't want to pay that little guy and what's happened because they couldn't get the eble damages taken out go -- they now have found a way around it. before, when a company was developing a new type of video screen or electronic device, if there was a new chip or something that needed to be included, there would be a search, a patent search, to go and see where are they stepping on somebody's toes. well, that was part of what they did. that was part of the process.

it was a costly part but made sure everybody's rights were protected and didn't go forward and build something without notifying the patent owner and working out a deal with him or her. that's not the way it is anymore. these big corporations that we are talking about instruct their engineers and their sciencists, don't do a patent search, because if you don't do a patent search, they can't prove that we knew this was invented by somebody else and thus, we don't have treble damages. we are talking about -- this is as cynical as it gets, but yet we have members of the house that get onto the floor and fend these corporate scaff enengineers and -- scavengers, they defend them. guess what? these are powerful players and google has given enormous

amounts of money politically in order to make sure people listen to them. i'm not saying people are bought by them, but they have laid the foundation and now congress is listening to them. that's why that bill passed. the american people have to counter that and we counter that by making sure our voice is heard, making sure the voice of the little guy is heard and making sure that the people who believe in the constitution of the united states, that their voice is heard over some mega multinational corporation board mbers who are out wining and dining people. . we've had the fundamentals working for us. we've had a patent system and a constitution working for us. so, what we need to do, and if indeed there is a problem with trolls, let's admit to these corporations, yes,