The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ISSUES OF THE DAY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H993-H998 on Feb. 26, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
Honoring Major Shawn M. Campbell
Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor U.S. Marine Corps Major Shawn M. Campbell of College Station, Texas.
Major Campbell died on January 14, 2016, when he and 11 additional marines were involved in a helicopter training accident off the coast of Hawaii's Oahu Island.
Major Campbell attended Klein High School in suburban Houston and went on to graduate from Texas A&M University. Upon graduation, Major Campbell decided to follow his lifelong dream of becoming a pilot. He accepted his commission and began a career as a Marine Corps aviator. During his time in the Marine Corps, Shawn served four tours in the Middle East, including one in Iraq.
After serving our country overseas, Major Campbell returned to the U.S., where he became a flying instructor at the Naval Air Station located in Pensacola, Florida. Major Campbell, along with his wife, Kelli, and their children were later transferred to Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii in 2014. During his time stationed at the Marine Corps base, Shawn served as a CH-53E Super Stallion pilot with Squadron 463, Marine Aircraft Group 24.
Throughout his tenure, Major Campbell garnered numerous awards and decorations for his bravery. These decorations include: the Air Medal with strike/flight device, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.
Madam Speaker, Major Campbell was a fearless leader and a decorated veteran. His selfless devotion to protect our country will be forever remembered. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Major Shawn Campbell. He will be forever remembered as an outstanding husband, father, and marine. We thank him and his family for their service and their sacrifice for our country. His sacrifice truly reflects the words of Jesus in John 15:13: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''
The loss of Major Campbell and his fellow marines serves as a reminder of the sacrifices the men and women of our Armed Forces make each day to preserve freedom for this great Nation. We are forever in debt to these great individuals who serve our country.
As I close, I ask all Americans to continue to pray for our country during these difficult times, for our military men and women who protect us from external threats, and for our first responders who protect us from threats here at home.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He and I were at Texas A&M together in the Corps of Cadets, and I know he didn't have to look down to read what John 15:13 was because that used to be a Campusology question that freshmen had to memorize.
The question was: What is the inscription on the Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M?
The proper correct answer, succinct: The inscription on the Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M is ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends, John 15:13.''
It is also touching to me each time I come through the southern entrance of the Capitol, the main entrance for visitors coming into the Capitol--I guess more visitors come in through that entrance--
immediately as you pass through the metal detectors, up on the right is a statue of a Catholic priest named Father Damien.
The statue is a bit strange in the way it is squared off, but there is nothing strange about the life that he lived. The fact that Hawaii would pick as one of the two allowable statues it has, Father Damien to be represented, I think, is most noble.
It also indicates, I think, that 50 years-plus ago, when Hawaii came into the Union, at that time our Nation was still a Christian nation. Our motto still above the Speaker's head here, ``In God We Trust,'' was front and center most everywhere. So it shouldn't have been a surprise that Hawaii wanted to pay tribute for one of its two statues a man who learned of lepers being sometimes just thrown off a passing ship if they had leprosy. Sometimes they would dock and let them go to shore, but there was nothing but squalor, as I understand, back in those days.
People knew that leprosy was contagious. It is terrible to think, but in the words of the poet, the inhumanity to man. But it was an island full of lepers that knew they were going to die as their skin and parts rotted off.
Father Damien heard about the situation, went to the island knowing that by going to that island he would indeed get leprosy. He prayed it would be later rather than sooner so he could minister to all those hurting on the island. But he helped them set up a way of life, and instead of just having hopeless, nonsocietal squalor to live in, he helped them build a way of life, a sense of normality, a way in which they could finish out their life with some element of peace.
I believe it was around 15 years or so before he got the leprosy that eventually took him. On the plaque of Father Damien's statue, one of the first you see when you come in our Capitol from the southern entrance, the words inscribed at the top of the plaque, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' That is certainly what Father Damien did. That is certainly what our fellow Aggie, Major Shawn Campbell, did when he laid down his life for his country.
With that background, we ought to approach most every issue that this Federal Government faces. We have an obligation to those who have gone before us and have laid down what Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. They have given their lives that we might have a better life.
How tragic it is that political correctness has so infiltrated and overwhelmed the United States of America, that when you study history, the colleges are often described as the intelligentsia, the people who are well educated that really figured things out, who are open-minded, where they used to be the most open minded.
{time} 1300
When I attended Texas A&M, it was, if not the most conservative, one of the most conservative colleges, universities in America. I was proud to be there, proud to be in the Corps of Cadets, proud to have an Army scholarship that committed me to 4 years in the United States Army after I graduated, proud to look forward to serving my country.
As conservative as we were, we were not afraid of inviting very liberal speakers, and we were not afraid of having debate with them, very civilized debate.
I recall helping usher Ralph Nader around when he came to Texas A&M, as one of my friends was a host. That was no big deal. It was really an opportunity for a conservative like me and others to have a dialogue with Ralph Nader.
It sometimes shocks people that a conservative like me can have some very liberal friends, just like the great Antonin Scalia was very close friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had totally different views. He believed in upholding the letter of the law of the Constitution and she didn't, but they were friends.
So you can have that friendship, but it is an embarrassment--should be an embarrassment--to this Nation that so many who proclaimed in the sixties and seventies to be the most open-minded among us ended up becoming professors at colleges and began to teach the teachers. Those teachers, in turn, went back and taught elementary school, middle school, and high school.
Somehow, over the last 50 years, we have gone from a Nation that recognizes that true conservatism is confident enough in itself that it is not afraid to have debate and dialogue and hear from all types of viewpoints.
Tragically, as the intelligentsia in America become more and more established in the universities, they have allowed these open-minded, broad-minded liberals to have places of prominence in our institutions of higher learning, and somehow they have become the most close-minded people in America. They don't want to hear from conservatives. They are embarrassed to have a conservative come speak.
It is rather tragic, because no longer are our universities, generally speaking, places where all types of thought are analyzed. They are not taught all types of thought. They are given a very narrow version. It is usually very critical of anyone who is conservative, anyone who believes the Constitution should mean what it says, anyone who stands up for the Judeo-Christian principles on which this Nation was founded.
One of the great things about being founded on Judeo-Christian principles has been that if true Christian principles are applied to government, then anyone of any religion is free to practice that religion or not practice that religion, unless the religion is actually a religion of politics that dictates that their believers cannot follow the letter of the law within the United States Constitution.
From this podium, I have spoken many times about the Holy Land Foundation trial in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas. It was the largest prosecution regarding terrorism in our Nation's history.
The Holy Land Foundation was found to be a front organization for radical Islamists who were funneling money. They called themselves a charity. Some would be funded to charities, some would be for the children, but they also funneled money to terrorist organizations that were used to terrorize people here and abroad.
The Bush administration Justice Department, since President George W. Bush did not have a heavy thumb on the scales of justice and allowed the Justice Department to pursue any crime that they saw, any threat to America--unlike the present day--they went after the Holy Land Foundation. They had evidence to show that the Holy Land Foundation and many organizations and many leading people claiming the Muslim faith were actually tied together and were coconspirators in funneling money to charities, for sure, but also to terrorist organizations.
As I understand from former members of the Justice Department who are still friends, the strategy was to get convictions in that first massive prosecution. I think there were over 100 counts of supporting terrorism. They were to get convictions there.
In the same case, having named many coconspirators who were not actually indicted, if they could get those convictions, as they knew the evidence indicated they should, then they would go after the named coconspirators who were unindicted at that point and go ahead and indict them and get prosecution and conviction of coconspirators.
Well, there were some names of groups and individuals in that prosecution named as coconspirators supporting terrorism who were offended. Perhaps they were more concerned with their public image of being charitable when, actually, they were being exposed through this prosecution by the evidence that existed that they were coconspirators in supporting terrorist groups and terrorist acts. They filed a motion to have their name struck as coconspirators in supporting terrorism.
One such group was CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations. People like Imam Magid, who has been president of the Islamic Society of North America, was also named as a coconspirator.
Anyway, they filed motions to have their names stricken as coconspirators. There was an evidentiary hearing, evidence produced, and the United States district judge ruled in the case that there was plenty of evidence to support that those individuals named were indeed coconspirators to fund terrorism.
Well, not happy with that, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. They said: Gee, we should have our name struck as being coconspirators in supporting terrorism.
I have even read from the opinion of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled that not only is there evidence that these individuals--like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North American--not only is there evidence, but there is actually substantial evidence that they have been coconspirators in funding and supporting terrorism.
Well, I believe it was November 2008, right after Senator Barack Obama was elected President, that the convictions were obtained in over 100 counts. Before the conviction could become completely final, there was a new administration coming in. We had a new Attorney General coming in.
The new President and the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, had a different agenda. They were not going to prosecute radical Islamist supporters, people that funded radical Islam and their terrorist activities. There would no longer be those prosecutions. So they were dropped. They were dropped.
None of those who were listed as coconspirators were going to be prosecuted by the Obama Justice Department--or, perhaps a better way of saying it is the Obama-Holder ``just us'' department--because they didn't prosecute. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated, there was plenty of evidence to support that they were conspirators.
But if that were the end of the story, that would be bad enough. Instead of not prosecuting, this administration made the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, one of the most influential organizations with a voice inside the White House. If they objected to anything, then the White House immediately flew into action and did whatever CAIR--this named coconspirator of radical Islam, of terror--
indicated by phone or otherwise, in person. Whatever they indicated was offensive to them as named coconspirators in supporting terrorism, whatever offended them, this administration made sure it was blotted out, covered up, or stopped, whether it was a seminar or conference being given at Langley or an intelligence facility.
A 2-day conference for law enforcement on radical Islam that was going to be led by people who had spent their adult lives studying radical Islam and who knew the dangers and would warn of the dangers, CAIR finds out, they call the White House, and from what we understand, that is what led the White House to call Langley and cancel the conference on radical Islam for law enforcement and come out with new directives.
In effect, it seemed like they were saying, unless CAIR approves of somebody--these conspirators who support terrorism, according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--unless this coconspirator that supports terrorism agrees to any comment about Islam, you can't make it, you can't have it in training materials.
So then began a partnership between what were alleged to be supporters of radical Islamic terrorism and the FBI. Actually, some of that began during the Bush administration. But they had this partnership with many of the named coconspirators supporting radical Islamic terrorism. They are still partners with the President, with this administration.
When I say ``coconspirator,'' I am referring to as named in the pleadings in the prosecution in Federal court that were ruled on in the district court, ruled on by the Court of Appeals, and they said, yes, there is plenty of evidence to support that they have supported radical Islamic terrorism.
So those coconspirators have been a great help to this administration in advising them of things that offended them as, apparently, coconspirators to support radical Islamic terrorism.
Some years back, when we found out the FBI training materials had been completely purged of any information that CAIR found objectionable, we wanted to see those documents.
{time} 1315
But we were told that they had been classified. The documents, the training materials, that were cut from what FBI trainees could see, they classified them because they didn't want the country to know how ridiculous some of the things that were removed from the training material were when trying to train people on what radical Islam was.
Because they are classified, I can't say specifically what training materials were removed. But I can make the global statement that, to me, if a student training to be an FBI agent is needing to learn about the most radical enemy of the United States that has been--some of my Muslim friends in the Middle East and North Africa have said: They have been at war with you since 1979, and you are still helping them. We don't get it.
Well, this administration not only helps those coconspirators, they listen and are sensitive to anything the coconspirators supporting terrorism find to be troublesome.
But, to me, if you have, say, a verse from what they call the Holy Koran and you are showing FBI agents Scripture that a radical Islamic terrorist holds as Gospel and that the percentage of Muslims who have taken this radical Islamic path utilized to help radicalize themselves and others, that would be something an FBI agent should know.
But, unfortunately, since CAIR objects to FBI trainees knowing verses from the Koran that have helped radicalize Muslims into becoming radical Islamic terrorists, it makes it tough to really be a well-
informed FBI agent.
Even if you are in the FBI and you happen to know some of those Scriptures, even though they have been blotted out, hypothetically speaking, from training materials, you know you have got to keep your mouth shut because anybody in the FBI, Justice Department, CIA, any of our intelligence agencies, that makes the political or occupational mistake in this administration of pointing out some truth about radical Islamic terrorism, their career will be over, as my friend--and I can now call his name, since he has retired--after he knew so much, tried to warn so many about radical Islam, about groups within radical Islam, including the ones that conducted the terrorism murders in California, tried to warn, provided information.
But since his information was offensive to radical Islamic terrorists, then he had to be purged from Homeland Security. A man that helped start Homeland Security, had been with them from the beginning, who had won acclaim and notoriety within Homeland Security for identifying hundreds of people with terrorist ties, became a problem.
I tried to work with him for a number of years. We couldn't get enough assistance. No assistance in the administration. We knew they would come after him. So we were privately trying to help this would-be whistleblower go through proper channels.
When Homeland Security and Congress recommended he go file an IG complaint, I knew it was a mistake. We should have taken action ourselves. But he filed the IG complaint.
The IG's office in Homeland Security had already been condemned for altering an IG report in order to protect the administration. They were going to do an investigation on thousands of pages of records that linked some people that advised this administration with terrorists and terrorist organizations? They deleted those thousands of pages?
I knew that, if he filed an IG complaint, they would come after him because the evidence was so damning for this administration that they would do what they always do.
You don't go after the people that are conspiring to harm America. You go after the whistleblower who has blown the whistle on your callousness toward those who would hurt America. And they did, even having a grand jury empanelled to just harass and destroy the personal lives of him and his wife.
This man is a patriot. Phil Haney is a patriot. He should have been getting all kinds of awards, not just one letter commending him for finding all these terrorist ties. Instead, they go after him.
And the grand jury, after they have probed every orifice, figuratively speaking, that they possibly could, couldn't come up with anything.
So then they put him in, basically, a closet, gave him no responsibility, in essence, forcing him to go ahead and retire, which he has.
This is no way to treat one of the most wonderful and intelligent patriots I have ever met. His wife ended up in the hospital during all that harassment by Homeland Security and the Justice Department.
But that is what this administration does. If you are a coconspirator, according to the courts, in supporting radical Islamic terrorism, then we want you as an adviser to this administration.
If you are going to blow the whistle, say, on potential perpetrators of the Boston massacre at the Marathon or the California terrorism that could have been prevented had they properly followed up on the warnings from Philip Haney, you go after the heroes, go after the patriots, and allow the supporters, according to the courts, of radical Islamic terrorism to be your advisers.
So, with that background, Mr. Speaker, I see this article today. It was published on 25 February 2016 by Allum Bokhari from Breitbart. The title is ``FBI Scrubs References to Islam from Anti-Radicalization Game After CAIR Complaints.''
Okay. So CAIR, this named coconspirator supporting radical Islam that two Federal courts said absolutely there is plenty of evidence to support that, not only does this administration not prosecute them, but they have a wonderful office right down the street.
In fact, I saw some of them at a hearing this week that Chairman Goodlatte called in the Judiciary Committee. It was an excellent hearing exploring the naming of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist activity.
So the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, I mean, you know, are two peas in a pod. So of course CAIR is going to be there at the hearing, and they were. One of them was kind enough to wave at me. Nice to be recognized.
So the article says: ``Earlier this month, the FBI launched Don't Be A Puppet, a browser-based video game designed to counter recruitment propaganda from violent extremists.''
We call them violent extremists because this administration will not call them the radical Islamic terrorists that they are.
Our Muslim leader friends in the Middle East and in North Africa, not in our public meetings, but in the private meetings, are appalled that this administration won't call it what it is because it makes it difficult for peace-loving Muslims to say: This is a part of Islam we need help stamping out. They can't say that when this administration is saying it is actually not part of Islam.
So people can be comforted. The named coconspirators for radical Islamic terrorism objected to radical Islam being mentioned in this game to try to stop radical Islamist converters or people being converted. And so the FBI has now removed and replaced references to Islam and Islamic terrorism on the site.
``The FBI originally intended to launch the site in November, but progress was stalled by CAIR's complaints. At the time, the Islamic lobby complained that the Web site, which is targeted at young people at risk of extremist recruitment''--that is code for radical Islamic recruitment--``would lead to the `stigmatization' and `bullying' of young Muslims. CAIR also contended that the Web site should instead focus on rightwing extremists, which they argued were a greater threat to American youth.''
And parenthetically inserting here, of course, radical Islamists are not a threat to America. Oh, yeah. They tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day, the Christmas bomber, the underwear bomber, yeah, radical Islamist.
Oh, yeah. They were behind the bombing of Americans at the Boston Marathon. Oh, yeah. They killed all those people in San Bernardino.
And oh, yeah, our FBI Director says there are Islamic State cells and investigations in every State in the union, but since this coconspirator to support radical Islam is objecting to using the term
``Islam'' or ``radical Islam,'' we can't refer to that.
So we have to start talking about rightwing radicals, this Clinton-
esque, rightwing conspiracy that we later found out actually was not a rightwing conspiracy at all. It was a relationship between a President and an intern.
And you can be sure your sins will find you out from the stains it leaves.
But the article goes on: ``The game still includes a scenario where players are invited to go on an `overseas mission'--but the character's Arabic name has been replaced with a western-sounding one, (Sean S).''
Oh, my dear friend Sean Hannity's name is Sean. So it was nice of them to put the initial S there after Sean so they wouldn't think of Sean Hannity, the most popular Sean in America.
But how wonderful that this radical Islamic game is now using the name Sean. That is lovely.
Anyway, no longer radical Islamic name.
But the article says: ``The FBI also appears to have heeded CAIR's advice to focus on rightwing extremists, with a new example featuring a
`white supremacist rally' where players are told to commit violent acts in the name of white supremacy.
``According to the IJ Review, `the new version of the game does not mention Islam, Muslims, or any particulars of Islamic ideology or targets at all, aside from the usual disclaimers that ISIS does not represent mainstream Islam.' ''
{time} 1330
``While the FBI avoids mentioning the terrorist group at CAIR's behest, the Islamic State remains among the largest terrorist hubs in the world, with recent estimates from the U.S. intelligence community putting its number of foreign recruits at approximately 30,000.
``Still, you never know, the FBI may be right to shift focus. Maybe animal rights activists are planning to set up their own terrorist state too?''
I hadn't thought about that. Maybe animal rights activists are out there planning some massive international caliphate starting in Syria and Libya, and, boy, do they want Egypt back. That is why the Muslim Brotherhood is fighting so hard to overcome our friend. And when I say
``our,'' I am not including the President. I know there is no love lost there. Why? Because President el-Sisi there in Egypt is a Muslim who has stood up to radical Islam. That does not endear him to this administration.
So it is important to note where we are. I think it is also an indication as to why so many Americans are concerned about where our country is and how fundamentally it has been transformed for the worse. There is more racial tension.
I understand Karl Rove was accused of doing some division politics where you find a group, divide the group against each other, and you know the majority will be on your side. You create groups. But this administration has been the master of division politics even though it has created more racial strife than we have had since the sixties and even though we had a Nation that elected an African American President. I have talked probably to thousands of people who have said: Well, I voted for President Obama because I wanted to be able to say that I voted for the first African American President.
What happened to Martin Luther King's dream of a day in America when we are judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin? For heaven's sake, to elect a man because of his race is as racist as any of the wackos in America who indeed actually are racist. You shouldn't be electing somebody because of the color of their skin. Elect them because of who they are, what they believe, and whether they will help the country. We have seen the divisions in this country.
We have seen more debt arise than was ever imaginable. How can a man accuse George W. Bush of being unpatriotic because in 2006, for heaven's sake, we had a $160 billion deficit, about $160 billion or so more going out than we had coming in? That is un-American. That is unpatriotic. He is accusing George W. Bush. And what happens? He becomes President, and he demands a $1.6 trillion deficit.
So if Bush were unpatriotic for having a budget that helped create
$160 billion deficit--obviously, it is Congress that passes the ultimate budget, with no thanks to the Senate. But I guess that makes it 10 times more unpatriotic for anyone who supports a budget that creates 10 times more of a deficit.
It is interesting that Americans have gotten so upset in this election cycle. Some are actually scared. Some of them reflect the opinion that I have mentioned that I heard from a senior gentleman from Togo, Africa, when I was visiting there in years past. Before I left, he wanted to meet me and visit with me.
As he explained: ``We were so excited here when you elected your first Black President. But since he has been President, we have seen America grow weaker and weaker. And please tell people in Washington''--so I keep telling people here, Mr. Speaker, I want them to know what he said. ``Since he has been President, we have seen America grow weaker and weaker. And when America is weaker, we suffer.''
They are Christians. They know where they are going when they die. But he was making emphatically clear that, as America has gotten weaker and weaker in this administration and there is more domestic division in this country under this President, friends around the world are suffering more than ever before. There are more Christians being persecuted than ever in history and more Jews being persecuted than ever in history.
Despite this administration's repeated statements about all of the hate crimes against Muslims, the FBI statistics do not, have not, and will not bear that out. It is not Muslims in America that are the number one victims of hate crimes. Try looking at Jews. Try looking at others, because it is not the Muslims.
So it begins to be a bit offensive as more Christians are being persecuted and killed in the world than ever at any time in our world history to continually defend those whom courts have said are coconspirators in persecuting Christians and Jews. It is basically anathema to what America has been and thought in the past.
So as that has gone on and people have gotten so upset, it has been amazing to see an ally in Congress, Ted Cruz, being attacked for being for amnesty. I was here. I was thrilled when Ted Cruz got elected. I had known him. I knew he was brilliant and I knew he was truthful, so I was thrilled. A number of us would meet sometimes at his office, sometimes other places, trying to strategize: How do we stop the Republican establishment's caving in and doing the will of the administration to allow a massive amnesty?
We knew the administration was not enforcing the border properly. We knew that they were allowing people in in droves; and the more they came in illegally, the more others heard that you can come in illegally. As one of the border patrolmen told me in the wee hours of the morning:
We are called logistics by the drug cartels and the gangs in Mexico. All they say they have to do is get people across the river and Homeland Security is logistics. We ship them anywhere they want to go.
There is a great deal of truth to that.
So it has been amazing to see this reinvention of what really happened back in those days.
We had a fantastic election in Florida where our friend was elected there, a Tea Party favorite. Thank goodness. We were so thrilled, because it meant because of his promises we had another ally in the Senate that would help us stop the Republican establishment's cave to the Obama administration's desire for amnesty.
Chuck Schumer, for all he is, he actually can be quite persuasive. And John McCain, for all his efforts in 2007 that nearly cost him a chance to be the nominee so he could lose in defeat to the Democrats, his push for amnesty in 2007 nearly kept him from being the nominee to lose in the general election. Gosh, if he had continued to push his amnesty, he would not have gotten the nomination. Who knows? Maybe Barack Obama would not have won in 2008. It is interesting to think about.
I was looking at this article by Sarah Rumpf back in January of 2015. She had been asking about problems that I had, and I pointed out, I referred back to broken promises by our Speaker and why we needed a new Speaker, and it was the same Republican establishment problem we had had.
As the article says, one of the biggest broken promises included
``promising to `fight tooth and nail' against Obama's executive amnesty orders, but then allowing the CR/Omnibus bill to proceed forward.''
But it wasn't just that. It was so much that had been going on for a number of years. So there was no one who felt more dejected than our little group that was gathering regularly trying to come up with ways to slow down the Gang of Eight bill because we knew that once this handsome, young, articulate guy that had just been elected from Florida was talked into being the leader on the bill--very clever getting him to be the leader on the bill--we knew it was going to be a very, very, very difficult thing to stop.
Going back, here is an article from April 15 of 2013 by Byron York of the Washington Examiner: ``A Look Deep Inside the Gang of Eight Bill--
and How They'll Sell Immigration Reform to Conservatives.''
He points out regarding this Gang of Eight bill, he says: ``Of course some in the GOP are still panicked by last November's election results and will be inclined to sign on to almost any deal. But many of the more conservative Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill will have to be convinced that the Gang's proposal is an acceptable way to go. It won't be easy.''
Anyway, he points out that, ``Starting this week, with the release of the bill, the Gang will launch an extensive public information campaign''--with Senator Rubio leading--``lots of press releases, frequently asked questions, and fact sheets specifically addressing the concerns about reform that conservatives have raised in recent months.''
It also talks about, ``The GOP Gang''--the GOP Gang of Eight, he is talking about--``members know full well that the Federal Government has promised all those measures and more over the years, and the border is still not secure and businesses still hire illegal immigrants. For example, Congress has passed multiple laws requiring entry-exit systems similar to what the Gang will propose, and the system has never been built. So Gang members know that conservatives, at least, will be skeptical.
``The answer the Gang hopes will reassure those skeptics is the concept of triggers. They've set up three points at which the bill's requirements will have to be met before the process''--of amnesty is what he is talking about--``can continue.''
But anyway, it goes on and discusses the Gang of Eight bill.
Americans had heard these promises before, going back to 1986 when a hero of mine and a hero of my friend Dana Rohrabacher, who was a former speechwriter, got talked into signing off on an amnesty that turned California blue probably for the rest of my lifetime. That was a Republican President that got tricked into doing that. They got the amnesty, never got the enforcement. And that is what the Gang of Eight bill was going to do. Americans knew it, but we had to fight it like crazy.
So anyway, I just find it interesting, as someone who met with Senator Cruz on a regular basis trying to strategize, my friend, Steve King, and I met in his office sometimes about all of these efforts to stop this Gang of Eight bill that would have given amnesty.
Here is another, from June 11, 2013, ```Gang of Eight' Immigration Bill Clears Senate Hurdle.'' I know Senator Cruz was doing all he could to stop it--greatly appreciated. Actually, if they hadn't slowed that down, that gave us the ability to slow it down even further.
Here is an article from The Daily Signal by Amy Payne and Kelsey Lucas, June 24--my anniversary--2013. It talked about that Gang of Eight bill now has ``ballooned to 1,190 pages.'' That makes it what you would call comprehensive.
As I pointed out to friends before, when you hear the words
``comprehensive bill,'' the loose definition of a comprehensive bill in Congress is one in which some people want to hide things that could never possibly get passed if people knew what they were voting on. So it is comprehensive and massive so you can hide those things that could never pass on their own if people knew what they were voting on.
So it is amazing to see in politics how perception that is completely false can be considered true just because people are saying it. I know. I was here, and I am grateful that Ted Cruz got elected. Without his advice, his meeting with us, encouraging, doing all he could in the Senate, I don't believe we would have stopped amnesty, and I don't believe this election would even be competitive. The Democratic nominee would walk away with this thing had the Gang of Eight bill been passed as they wanted.
Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOHMERT. One other thing that has been really intriguing, Mr. Speaker, this verse has been quoted time and time again in recent years. I know there are people that freak out when I quote Bible verse because they had one of these liberal teachers that didn't teach them the truth about American history and the fact that the Bible has been the most quoted book--nothing even close--so many times more than any other book or any other author ever in American history. The Bible has been quoted on the House floor and Senate floor by Presidents more than any other book.
{time} 1345
The President says we are not a Christian Nation. I used to say I won't debate that, and now I think he is right. But we were. We started out based on Judeo-Christian principles, so much so that a very thorough decision by the U.S. Supreme Court back in the late 1800s, when we had finally done the right thing and eliminated the scourge to this Nation that had held this Nation back for many decades, called slavery, was finally ended.
The Supreme Court went through all of the foundings, the Founders, the statements of the Founders, statements and founding documents, statements of State constitutions, and concluded after all of the recitation of evidence--130, 140 years later--they said: This is a Christian Nation. Well, it was back in the late 1800s.
It doesn't hurt to still quote scripture. We have other religions represented in the House--friends. You can be Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, whatever you want to be. I have got a number of really wonderful Jewish friends in Congress. You can be whatever you want to be because a government based on Judeo-Christian principles will protect everyone's rights.
Islam will not protect rights like that. There is really not another religion that, beliefs of which, will protect every religion, no religion, equally. That is because we know. God gives us those choices. So who are we to take them away?
Back in 2 Chronicles, the verse is very clear, and God was pointing this out. I realize Moses--it is up there, the only full face profile here in this room--was considered the greatest lawgiver of all times, although the Supreme Court last summer basically said: Forget what Moses said and God said. He didn't know what he was talking about. When Jesus quoted Moses about marriage, he didn't know what he was talking about. They were a bunch of fools. They didn't know. We are much smarter than Moses and Jesus. Now our Supreme Court majority is our God.
But 2 Chronicles 7:14: ``If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.''
I preached a sermon on that last summer entitled ``Humble or Crumble.'' We do need to humble ourselves as a Nation, but we don't even have to do it as a Nation. It makes clear it is not everybody. It doesn't have to be everybody in America. Just those who are called by the Lord's name. If you humble yourself, pray, see God's face, turn from your wicked ways: I will hear from heaven, I am going to heal your land. You will be blessed beyond.
I really think that after the Civil War and we finally ended the scourge of slavery, that is when we started being blessed beyond measure. So the 20th century was just absolutely incredible, and we became a superpower blessed beyond measure. When we became a superpower, of course, like so many times in history, nations that were begun on the Judeo beliefs, once they turned from acknowledging God, then God let them go.
That is why Christians had believed this was such an important verse. I have heard it thousands of times in recent years.
I just have to note, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting now that Christian leaders across the Nation have said: I think we are going to have to change this. Let's have a new translation. How about if we say: If my people are called by my name, we'll select a leader who says he has never humbled himself, he has never asked forgiveness of God, if we can just get a leader who will never humble himself, then God will hear that from heaven and he will heal our land.
I want to close with these words from Francis Scott Key, April 14, 1814. As a captive on a British ship and the British unmercifully bombed Fort McHenry, he didn't figure there was much left. When the morning came and there was Old Glory, he penned The Star Spangled Banner.
I will close with the last verse, Mr. Speaker:
``O! thus be it ever, when free men shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made, and preserved us as a Nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just; And this be our motto, `In God is our trust!' And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!''
May we remember those words.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
