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.
“THE WEEK IN REVIEW” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H964-H969 on Feb. 3, 2017.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE WEEK IN REVIEW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, here it is, Friday. It has been a good week in Washington. We have gotten some of President Trump's nominees approved and through the Senate. Call them like you see them, I think.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has done a great job this week. I applaud his efforts. And as a result of what President Trump has been doing--and actually part of it is just his getting elected--has done for our economy because people know--at least a lot of people know--he is going to keep his word. He is already showing he is doing that, and he has repealed some of the executive orders that have been doing so much damage to our economy.
And when we say economy, what we mean is, the rank and file people, the backbone of America who have been struggling, who have made less money than they did 8 years ago when adjusted for inflation. Those are the people we are talking about; those who have been out of work, the 94 or 95 million who have become so desperate, they pulled out of even applying for work.
I enjoyed, to an extent, the exchange between my friend, Kevin McCarthy and my friend across the aisle Leader Hoyer. And I get amused when I hear Democrats quoting Senator McCain and Senator Graham--
wonderful people. Lindsey Graham, it is a real joy to be around talking to Lindsey Graham. But if you look at positions they have taken, it would make you think twice about quoting them as positions you wanted to have supporting yours.
I mean, nothing stands taller than the 30 million of the 90 million or so living in Egypt, when they rose up that June because a Muslim brother named Morsi was seizing power. He was on his way to becoming the Chavez in North Africa, and the people rose up. It was not only the largest peaceful demonstration in the history of the world, it was the largest demonstration in the history of the world.
All over Egypt, moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews, secularists, they all rose up, went to the streets and demanded the removal of the man who would be king, the Muslim brother named Morsi. The difference in this king is, as many of the Egyptians have pointed out when I have been in Cairo and other places, he wasn't just going to be king. He was going to be the puppet of the spiritual leader of Islam in Egypt.
Some of my Egyptian friends, when I have been over there, say: yeah, we have seen video of him taking his orders from the spiritual imam, and he followed his leadership. So if that is true, then he wasn't just going to be king. He was going to be a king puppet.
But the Muslim brother was removed as a result of 30 million people rising up peacefully. Morsi only, allegedly, got around 13 million to claim the win and made clear his opponent knew--for the original Presidential election--that if he raised a stink about any votes being fraudulent, they would burn the country down--that was some of his supporters. Because the Muslim Brotherhood, if you go back and check, when churches are burned, it is normally the Muslim Brotherhood over there.
In Egypt, they had been anathema to representative government, to civilized government, to nonsectarian government. They want a new caliphate to start with basically the old Ottoman Empire and Erdogan in Turkey; he is undoing all of the great reforms made by the great Ataturk nearly 100 years ago, and he is undoing them.
{time} 1145
There are those in Turkey who would like to see a caliphate--a new Ottoman Empire--and it have its leadership in Turkey. They long for the days when they ruled an expansive caliphate.
I had a reporter say: Why would you say that?
I said: Go look at a map. I know you weren't ever taught what the Ottoman Empire was. Go look at a map and look at the countries where our President is supporting an uprising that eventually, if we don't stop it, will become anarchy or it will become part of the caliphate.
The new jobs report that is just out: 227,000 new jobs. And from what I'm hearing from constituents, these aren't just the part-time jobs or the minimum wage jobs that the previous President bragged about. He had to brag about it because he didn't have anything else to talk about. People lost their full-time jobs and could only acquire part-time jobs, and this administration bragged about those. If they got two part-time jobs to make up for losing their full-time job, this Administration bragged: We created two jobs.
I would submit that when you are creating two jobs by causing a person to lose all of their benefits and full-time employment, you haven't done such a good thing.
Fortunately, the people of Egypt did not listen to Senator McCain and Senator Graham when they flew to Cairo and begged for the people of Egypt to return the Muslim ``brother who would be king'' back into his royal kingship. I know they weren't intentionally supporting an evil ruler; it is just they didn't know. So, hopefully, they will become more aware that it is not a good thing to support the Muslim Brotherhood.
With regard to Australia and the alleged news about President Trump getting into it with the leader of Australia, well, to whom is the leader of Australia accountable? To whom does the leader of Australia owe his allegiance?
It is the people of Australia. So when he calls or talks to President Trump and begs or demands Trump to take these refugees that the Prime Minister in Australia knows are a threat to the safety of the Australian people, when he wants them out of Australia, there is a reason--because his allegiance is not to the people of the United States--his allegiance is to the people of Australia. So, naturally, being allegiant to the people of Australia, he wants the dangerous refugees out of Australia.
President Obama, basically by his actions, in effect, was saying: Give us not your tired, your poor, the people yearning to be free, but give us your people that yearn to destroy America because we're going to bring them in. We're not going to vet them properly because we have got no information to properly vet them. That's how we have been able to let people in who had their fingerprints on IEDs that killed Americans, and maimed Americans because we are not properly vetting them.
Oh, yeah, we compare any information we have against what we've got. But don't forget, as Phil Haney, the whistleblower from Homeland Security, pointed out, he was personally required to delete massive pages of information about terrorist ties of people coming into the United States because they did not want those terrorist ties in the Homeland Security database. Then he also, of course, was on his computer when he saw somebody above his pay grade deleting things that he personally put in about terrorist ties. They were deleting them.
So when Janet Napolitano talks about, We get a ping and we connect the dots, she caused massive numbers of dots to be deleted. They are not there. We don't know who we are getting. When anyone comes from Syria--we know ISIS has taken governmental printing areas before. They can produce official Syrian passports not with the support of the Syrian Government, but just because they have the equipment to do it. So when we get information saying, I am from Syria, maybe they are, and maybe they're not. We don't know where they're from.
The FBI Director created one of the most incredible political stunts of any FBI Director in history last summer when he stepped up and outlined that a crime had been committed by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. But then he goes on to say: But no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this. It is incredible the extent he went to to help Hillary Clinton.
I know there were some of my Democratic friends that got mad at him when a week before the election he said that they were reopening the investigation. But if you look at the circumstances, it was information that we had FBI agents who were so upset that Comey wouldn't reopen the investigation. When they knew some of what was in the computers that they had gotten ahold of belonged to Anthony Weiner and Hillary Clinton's closest adviser and confidante, Huma Abedin Weiner, the word was we had FBI agents saying that: If you don't reopen, we're going to have a press conference, we're going to resign, and we're going to out you that you're protecting Hillary Clinton. So what could he do to help Hillary Clinton but say: ``I am going to reopen the investigation?''
I commented to somebody in the media back then:
Well, of course, it may appear to help Hillary. We will know whether that was his intent or not because you can't examine tens of thousands of emails adequately. You can do an algorithm search, but you can't adequately investigate them for a crime, including false statements to the FBI, within a week. So if he comes out before the election and says that there is nothing here, then we know why he came out and said that we are reopening. It was to stop FBI agents from resigning and from outing him for protecting Hillary Clinton.
So what happens?
Two days before the election, he said: Yeah, we checked it all out.
He couldn't possibly have.
He said: We checked it all out, and there is nothing here to prosecute.
So that same FBI Director, though, didn't help the Obama administration. On occasion, he was calling them like he saw them; and that is:
Yeah, we will vet these people, but when they give us information from Syria, we have no information against which to vet that. We have to accept it for what it is because, yeah, we're technically vetting it against what we have, but we have nothing, so we don't know who these people are.
So, in the meantime, the economy is turning around.
How sad is it when we have just lived through 8 years under a President's policies that were so abysmal for the good of America that the economy, when adjusted for inflation, was slower than it was in the 4 years of Jimmy Carter?
I know there are some in the media that would grab 1 month and say: See, this was a good month.
Let's look at the 8 years compared to the 4 years of President Carter, 4 of the worst years for the American economy in history since the Depression. President Obama, over 8 years, had a slower economy when adjusted for inflation. That is pretty sad.
It is also sad this week to read this article from The Daily Caller:
``Laura Wilkerson, whose teenage son was tortured and murdered by an illegal alien in 2010, got into an emotional confrontation with House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a CNN town hall event Tuesday night.
``Wilkerson told Pelosi, `In 2010, one of the illegals slaughtered my son. He tortured him, he beat him, he tied him up like an animal, and he set him on fire. And I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day because there are no laws enforced at the border. We have to start giving American families first.'
``On the issue of Pelosi and Democrats' support for sanctuary cities, Wilkerson asked, `How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?'
`` `There's nothing, I'm sure, that can compare to the grief that you have, and so I pray for you,' Pelosi said.''
Pelosi went on: ``But I do want to say to you that in our sanctuary cities, our people are not disobeying the law. These are law-abiding citizens. It enables them to be there without being reported to ICE in case of another crime that they might bear witness to.''
``Pelosi then asked if her son was murdered in a sanctuary city. Josh, Wilkerson's son, was murdered just outside Houston, Texas, which is a sanctuary city.''
So I believe in the power of prayer. I think it's one of the greatest gifts God gave us. C.S. Lewis talked about we are here on Earth behind enemy lines, if you would.
Can you imagine being behind enemy lines and getting messages from your home headquarters and you refuse to open them and read them?
He says that we have a Bible. Those are messages from our home headquarters. We ought to be reading them.
I do believe in the power of prayer, just like our minority leader, Ms. Pelosi; but we need to distinguish between things that we should pray for and things that we can fix ourselves. Things that are outside our control, we ought to be praying about. Those things which are in our control--when it is within your control--to return to the rule of law, enforce the laws that exist, treat everybody fairly under the law, that's something you don't really have to pray about. You just help us do it.
I have not met Tommy Nelson, a pastor in Denton, Texas, but I listened to a 12-hour Bible study he did; and one of his comments on that study in Ecclesiastes was basically what so many people say: We don't have to worry; God is in control.
Tommy Nelson said: Yeah, God is in control, but just because He is in control doesn't mean He wants us to lean on our shovel and pray for a hole. When you have got a shovel in your hand, you don't have to pray for a hole; you just start digging.
When you have got the tools to protect the American people and enforce the rule of law, you just do it. Now, you can pray for wisdom to help you as you go.
I know it may have been a Freudian slip--may not have been--but when Minority Leader Pelosi was asked about illegal aliens, she referred to them as ``our people.''
I don't know; could that be because they know when illegal aliens vote, they vote Democrat?
We know that most dead people vote 100 percent Democrat. I have encouraged the Republican Party: Let's don't have any group that we're not willing to recruit votes from, and traditionally dead people vote 100 percent Democrat. Perhaps it's time that some of them started voting Republican for a change.
In any event, the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, was talking about a fellow with tears in his eyes saying: Please don't repeal ObamaCare because my son will be unable to get insurance if you repeal ObamaCare.
Well, that gets to all of us when somebody with tears in their eyes comes to us and begs for help. The only reason he had tears in his eyes is because of the false information being put out by the Democratic Party, because when we repeal ObamaCare, people are not going to lose their insurance. Some Americans have a right to be skeptical because they were told by President Obama and all of the Democrats: No, no, when we pass ObamaCare, nobody loses their insurance.
Well, we found out that that was a lie to millions of Americans. Some of them were able to get insurance. Some of it ended up being Medicaid. Most of the new people got Medicaid, which is not really the insurance they were hoping for, but that's the insurance most people got.
{time} 1200
I had 17 people come to my office in Lufkin. They were looking to make a show and not so much to give information; otherwise, they would have called for an appointment.
My district representative there was at a service honoring her late father at a hospice and she forgot, in her emotional state, to put a note on the door that she was running to that. Anyway, they made a big deal, here is an office not occupied. Hopefully, they will have a little sympathy for somebody in her situation.
But they weren't looking to get information to me. That is why the reporter had more information about the meeting when my office had no information about the meeting. If they want an appointment, we make appointments. I am here most of the time, so I can't be there. I have got people to meet with them.
This article, February 1, Melissa Quinn, Daily Signal:
``Pamela Weldin's experiences with ObamaCare can be boiled down to just a few numbers.
Since the health care law's implementation 3 years ago, Weldin, 60, has lost her insurance four different times''--under ObamaCare. ``And the Nebraska woman is currently enrolled in her fifth new insurance policy in four years.''
She said: `` `Yet again, and through no fault of my own'. . . . `I'm just sitting here minding my own business, and here we go again.' '' She gets thrown off another insurance policy.
Anyway, she goes on to explain she has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition related to her career as a dental hygienist.
People are not going to lose their insurance. All we are going to do is create the opportunity to have far better insurance policies than you have got under ObamaCare. You are not going to get a penalty for having better insurance than what ObamaCare required. So you don't have to pay a penalty, and you can have good insurance and you won't be taxed for having better insurance. It is going to be a great day for America to do that.
That brings me to a point I want to get to next about the wall.
An article here, February 1, Virginia Hale from Breitbart, says:
``Smuggling Migrants to Europe Now a Major Funding Source for Islamic State.''
Well, it only makes sense that the Islamic State would figure that out, because we had information they consulted with the drug cartels in Mexico. As the Border Patrolmen have told me during the middle of the night the times I have been down there, there is not an inch of the Mexican border that is not controlled by some drug cartel. Nobody crosses that border illegally without paying something to the drug cartel or promising to work for them when they get to America.
What a great business model. You are selling drugs, making billions of dollars getting it across the border illegally into the United States, and, unlike most businesses where you have to pay the employee, they get the employee to pay them as part of their debt repayment to get them into the United States.
So, what a business model, making billions from selling drugs illegally gotten into the United States, and then the Department of Homeland Security, as one told me down on the border: They call us their logistics, in the drug cartels, because we ship people all over the country to cities where they need drug sales, prostitutes, mules. We send them there, and then they have got people selling drugs for them.
If we build a wall--and I know there are areas like where the Rio Grande is so wide you don't need a wall, you just have people guard the border--it cuts off the massive flow of drugs into the United States. It means the billions of dollars going to the drug cartels that they can use to corrupt the Mexican Government will dry up to thousands. Drug cartels know it.
So I would submit, Mr. Speaker, the only Mexican leaders that object to a wall and total security of our border between Mexico are either ignorant--they don't understand that the reason they are 60-something in world economies instead of being fourth or fifth or sixth is because of the corruption that comes from the drug cartels. You dry up the billions of dollars they are making with a wall and border security, and Mexico gets in the top 10 economies. But, yes, it means the drug cartels dry up. They are either ignorant of what will really happen when we secure the border or they are in the pocket of the drug cartels. Those are the only two choices.
If you are a Mexican leader and you oppose the United States enforcing our border, you are in the pocket of the drug cartels or you are just ignorant of why your economy is not one of the top 10 in the world. You have got the best location. You have got two continents north and south above you. They would be great markets. You have got two great oceans on either side to ship. You have got incredible natural resources. You have got some of the hardest working people in the world in Mexico.
So why is it so far down the chain of economies? Well, drug cartels. The wall and border security will dry them up and the Mexican people will be free with a vibrant economy, and they will take their appropriate place in the great economies of the world.
I have been joined by my friend from Florida, and I mean that truly. I think the world of Matt Gaetz.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the danger that is currently posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran and its fundamentalist government pose the gravest threat to global peace, stability in the Middle East, and Israel's existence.
Iran continues to extend its dangerous hegemony through the region in places such as Lebanon, by arming and training Hezbollah; in Gaza, by arming Hamas; in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Iran's taking hostage of U.S. sailors and its continued ballistic missile tests and death threats to Israel highlights Iran's evil intentions and the need for the United States to play a leading role in rolling back Iran's growing influence and its push to destabilize the Middle East and the world. These issues have been exacerbated by the irresponsible and catastrophic nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1.
It is obvious to anyone that the $150 billion given to Iran will be used to fund more terror and further Iran's destructive ambitions. In addition, the nuclear deal legitimizes Iran's ability to enrich uranium and functionally ensures Iran's path to a nuclear weapon within 10 years. The deal is structured to mask Iran's inevitable noncompliance.
As a member of the Florida Legislature, I had supported Florida's Iran divestment. As a Member of Congress, I very much look forward to reauthorizing the Iran Sanctions Act.
I am extremely proud of President Trump and his administration for enacting appropriate sanctions against Iranian officials who have been engaged in the most recent destructive and destabilizing nuclear tests.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Americans, Israelis, and all citizens of the world who aspire to peace continue to be harmed by the reckless and irresponsible foreign policy of the past President's administration. Former President Obama believed in a policy of appeasement toward Iran. This is not dissimilar to the policies of appeasement that Neville Chamberlain used when confronting the threats of Nazi Germany. But if President Obama was America's Neville Chamberlain, perhaps his time has given rise to Donald Trump and the opportunity to be America's Winston Churchill.
I support President Trump's efforts to send a message to Iran that ballistic missile testing will not be tolerated. Iran only understands strength. For the last 8 years, they have seen from this country far too much weakness and far too much willingness to accept their destructive role in the world.
Mr. Speaker, the way Iran operates is through a series of franchises for terror. Whether that is Hamas or Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, we see time and time again Iran acting as a neo-Persian, neo-Ottoman Empire. That cannot be tolerated in a peaceful world. It cannot be tolerated in the most dangerous neighborhood on Earth. It underscores the purpose of Americans speaking with resolve and with strength in condemning the most recent ballistic missile tests and in standing with our greatest ally, Israel.
It was shameful that, in the waning hours of the Obama administration, President Obama was willing to allow the United Nations to take action against Israel while continuing its furtherance of appeasement toward some of the most dangerous countries on the planet Earth who do not share our values or our interests.
So I am glad to see an American reset, a resurgent America again speaking to the great values that have functioned as a beacon of hope for the world for generations. That is what we must return to, and that is what President Trump is doing today. I applaud his administration. I applaud his Secretary of the Treasury for stepping forward and advancing these needed sanctions.
I am hopeful that this Congress will continue to take action to show support for President Trump in this endeavor, but we must also recognize that this is but a first step. So much damage has been done to the cause of peace for the last 8 years under President Obama, and we have much work to do in this Congress, whether it is rebuilding and restoring our military so that we can be a force for peace, whether it is making sure that our allies know that we will stand with them, or whether it is making sure that our adversaries know that we are very serious and there will be serious consequences for their bad behavior.
I am proud of this America that we are working toward together. I am proud of these policies.
The gentleman from Texas may now wish to speak to the importance of Americans speaking with a voice of clarity for peace, prosperity, and strength throughout the Middle East and the world.
Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman might take a question. I appreciate that clarity. It is clarity that has been missing for a long time.
We have people screaming that President Trump should not have put a temporary pause that was half as long as the pause President Obama put on. I understand there is so much stress and pressure when you are President; he probably just forgot he put a 6-month ban, previously, on a Muslim nation sending people in.
You made so clear the case for concern about Iran, and I am with you. I am thrilled that we have a President that is not choosing to give our lunch money, figuratively speaking, to the big bully in the schoolyard.
I don't know if my friend from Florida ever got bullied in elementary school. I did. I learned early on that it doesn't help to give bullies money. They are not going to leave you alone until you stand up to them. Maybe they whip you, but they don't want to go through what you put them through again by standing up to them, so they leave you alone.
In our case, we are strong enough to take on any bully; but instead, we paid the big bully, Iran, as you pointed out, massive amounts, billions and billions of dollars. We agreed to pay them up to $150 billion.
We have got some friends here in Congress in the House and Senate that were so upset with the President having this 90-day pause on seven countries. They didn't realize--I know we get so busy here that we don't notice a lot of other things, but they apparently hadn't realized that those seven countries were designated by the Obama administration. One of them, Iran, a country you have talked so eloquently about, we have people here in this body that don't think we should hold up refugees from Iran.
As the gentleman was talking about, the Government of Iran has not shown any good faith at all. Would the gentleman be concerned about having people that the Iranian Government allowed to slip out of the country and come into the United States? Do you have any problem with President Obama's pause on that refugee surge into the United States?
Mr. GAETZ. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Isn't it refreshing to have a President of the United States who is willing to do, in office, precisely the things he said he would do on the campaign trail, notably, putting the interests of Americans and the security of Americans first in a world that even former Secretary of State George Shultz said is more dangerous and perilous today than the highest tensions of the Cold War?
{time} 1215
So to specifically answer the gentleman's question, I am grateful that President Trump is prioritizing the security of Americans. My hope is that in the 115th Congress, we will work with the President, with his administration to ensure that, as we continue to mature these policies and advance them, we do them in a way that is easily understandable for those enforcing them and for the American people, and that it sends a message to the world that America continues to be the most generous country on the planet when it comes to welcoming individuals who share our values and who aspire to be productive and prosperous and inclusive.
What we have no tolerance for are those who would want to come to the United States of America not to be part of the American experience, but to destroy it. Too often that has not just been the fear that we have felt from some who have been embedded by Daesh within refugees, but it is exactly what is preached by the Government of Iran.
How silly of the United States to think that we would give hundreds of billions of dollars to a nation that calls America the Great Satan, that seeks to wipe Israel off of planet Earth, and believe that that money will be used for peaceful purposes. It won't. Iran's desires for expanded hegemony are not to stabilize the Middle East, they are expressly to destabilize the Middle East. This regime in Iran will never share America's values, so America should not be funding the very destructive behavior that has done so much to harm the lives of so many people.
The gentleman from Texas brings up a great point. If we hadn't endured the policies of appeasement for the last 8 years, if America hadn't withdrawn from the world stage so suddenly, then perhaps we would not have the conditions in the Middle East that have made life so difficult for people that they have wanted so badly to be refugees to Europe and to the United States. We should want countries to succeed that are willing to be stable and inclusive, but those who are our sworn enemies, those who do not share our values should receive no quarter from the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I have the great honor to serve on the House Committee on Armed Services. We received briefings this week, thanks to Chairman Thornberry, from General Petraeus and other national security experts. They reinforced the fact that the world is dangerous as a consequence of American withdrawal. I am grateful that the 115th Congress will stand with President Trump in his agenda to rebuild our military, to rebuild our standing, and to make very clear to the world that we will be with you if you want peace. But if you aspire to spread terror, there is no role for you on the global stage, and we will not do the things to elevate those terrible regimes to any place of prominence.
This is a great time for revival and renewal in this country, and as Americans do more to rebuild the country internally and grow our economy and achieve more prosperity with lower and fairer taxes, with a regulatory climate that is more acceptable for a prosperous country, we also have to keep an eye on the world and our position on the global stage. I think that it is refreshing that that is a time of revival and restoration of American prominence, because the world is a safer place when America is the strongest country in the world. President Trump's actions today to create sanctions against those who have been directly involved in ballistic missile tests send a clear message: We will stand with our allies, and we will stand against the enemies of peace.
Mr. GOHMERT. Those are such great points. The counterargument is made often to us: ``Other than the San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-U.S.-born attacker since 9/11?''
There was a great article in The Federalist by Kyle Shideler on January 30. He answers: Yes, but first of all, why exclude the San Bernardino killers, terrorists?
Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan, and that attack killed 14. As Phil Haney, the whistleblower from Homeland Security, pointed out, if he had not been removed from the line, he would have been allowed to secondarily question someone like Tashfeen Malik. It is worth noting, under the Obama administration, under Jeh Johnson, and before him, Janet Napolitano, they punished people who pointed out radical Islamists rather than giving them positions where they could recognize radical Islamists.
Phil Haney points out that Tashfeen Malik is actually a man's name. The woman came, and if she had come through him, he would have asked: Well, why do you have a man's name, and it happens to be a man who was a terrorist centuries ago?
Well, to ask a question like that, you have to be well educated into the history of radical Islam. Not Islam, but radical Islam.
We have spent so much money as a country and even as a Congress on countering violent extremism. We hear from Homeland Security whistleblowers--some of them don't want to go public yet, but we hear from them that so much of that money was spent on conferences and seminars teaching our Homeland Security agents, our FBI agents, our State Department people, our intelligence people to spot Islamophobes. They would teach them the phrases to look for when someone reported a potential radical Islamist so that they would know that that is an Islamophobe. That is exactly why in San Bernardino, when someone reported this guy as a potential radical Islamist, that he was crazy, that he was going to hurt somebody, they wrote him off as just being prejudiced against Islam. It is because of the money spent by this government intimidating people into refusing to notice radical Islam and getting them punished. If they didn't find people who they named Islamophobes, their career was over.
Mr. GAETZ. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. GOHMERT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GAETZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is from Texas. I am from Florida. Both of our States have seen many of the negative economic consequences of illegal immigration, but my question relates to the negative national security consequences that result from illegal immigration.
We are receiving more reports that ISIS, Daesh, other Islamic fundamentalists are exploiting America's weakness on our southern border with Mexico for their own economic gain, as well as to smuggle people into the United States who may function as lone wolves or even as a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against Americans.
So I would hope that the gentleman would speak to the interconnectivity between the need for strong border security and a wall on our southern border with Mexico and the risks posed by Islamic fundamentalism.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. I would also note, as this Federalist article points out, yeah, of course, when there is a terrorist attack, it also affects the economy. That is why Osama bin Laden wrote about how they had only spent a tiny amount of money to train their people from 9/11 and that it had clearly cost America trillions of dollars, that even if they couldn't bring us down any other way, if they could do other attacks like that, costing relatively low amounts to them but costing us billions and trillions, they could bring us down economically.
So it only makes sense, though, Iran wants to bring us down, so they ought to be one of the seven that the Obama administration named as a threat, and they were. But even just recently at Ohio State University, Abdul Razak Ali Artan ran over several students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife. That was a refugee born in Somalia, one of the seven countries that the Obama administration named as a threat, and so President Trump took the Obama administration seriously and named them as one of seven, that we would have not a permanent ban but a temporary ban for 90 days. The guy ran over numerous students at Ohio State, but our friends on the other side of the aisle and their friends in the mass media, they refuse to notice what is going on.
Look at Tsarnaev, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. As we know, Russia notified the United States not once but twice that the older Tsarnaev had been radicalized, and he had been to a country, and the people he hung around with were radicals, and it seemed like they probably radicalized him.
So what happens? Well, they get information to our intelligence community, and, since, they have been trained for the last 8 years to only notice Islamophobes. You can tell someone is an Islamophobe if they complain about a radical Islamist, then you know you have got an Islamophobe. So of course if they want to stay in the intelligence community, they are not going to be looking. They are going to follow their training, look for Islamophobes instead of looking for radical Islamists. I am sure they looked into it, but, based on their training, they have no basis to work with.
So what happens? Russia notified us again. As I understand, they notified the FBI. And as the FBI Director commented, look, we sent an FBI agent to interview him, and he said, basically, he wasn't a terrorist, he was a good guy. Wow. Imagine that. Somebody who wants to kill Americans might also lie. Who would have ever thought? Except American juries. I have seen it as a judge. I have seen juries find that if you will lie to them, you may do a lot worse things as well. Well, the reverse is also true. Often, if you are willing to take someone's life, you might just be willing to lie about it as well.
So the FBI didn't even stop there, taking the word. They didn't take the word of Tsarnaev. They went to his mother, and apparently his mother said: No, my son is not a terrorist. He is a good boy. He is a good boy.
There you go, full FBI investigation. Not under the old FBI. Not the way most FBI agents have ever been trained. But, of course, under the last 8 years of training of the FBI, they were afraid to ask the tough questions.
The truth is, they don't know the questions to ask. They don't know that you should ask about whether there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of study of the Koran and a massive increase in the memorization of the Koran, and a change in the appearance, and knowing what to look for, and asking questions like: What do you think about Qutb, the Egyptian martyr, the Muslim brother who wrote the little book
``Milestones'' that Osama bin Laden said, along with Mr. Nasif, for whom Huma Abedin worked at one time according to the masthead of the publication, he credited Nasif and also Qutb's book ``Milestones'' to radicalizing him.
If you haven't been trained with Kim Jensen's 700 pages, which were outlawed by the FBI for a while, because he clearly explained what FBI agents should be looking for. Mr. Jensen told me that they banned his information, they struck it, and wouldn't allow anybody to be trained. Under incident information, they train people what to look for in a radical Islamist. But then they brought it back, but only for some of the leaders. The rank and file for so long under this administration did not get the benefit of his 700 pages that would help train. Why? Because CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who had implications in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the biggest supporter of terrorism ever prosecuted in the United States, convictions all around in November of 2008, and they should have gone on to prosecute the named co-conspirators. The only reason they didn't is because a new administration came in.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--the mastermind of 9/11, of the brutal killing of about 3,000 Americans and other foreigners, innocent victims--has bragged about his planning. In a guilty plea where the judge went through, as I used to, to make sure they understood their rights, he bragged about that and some terrorist attacks they didn't even know he had involvement in. He was bragging.
{time} 1230
And he says, if we have terrorized you, then praise be to Allah. And he says such things as we deserve attack, we deserve to be killed in America, anyone who is a low-life Jew or says that God has a Son.
So those of us who believe God had a Son, and He loved the world so much He sent His only begotten Son and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, anybody who believes that is worthy of death under the Koran, according to the brilliant teacher and mastermind of the 9/11 attack. And then he quotes from the Koran that anyone who tries to combine someone with Allah is worthy of death, and that means any Christian. They have explained these things.
But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went through an expansive hearing with a judge explaining what all he was involved in and why he was guilty of 9/11 and praise be to Allah for all of the people that were killed on 9/11 at the Pentagon, at the World Trade Centers.
Why was he not sentenced? Because we had an election in 2008, and before the plea was made final, we had a new Attorney General named Eric Holder. At that point, all bets were off. They didn't follow up the plea was withdrawn, and he still hasn't been sentenced for the things he admitted to over 8 years ago.
Had they simply moved forward with the guilty plea, if we had had a President for the last 8 years that made clear ``you might as well plead guilty because nobody else is going to let you out,'' then we would have finished the guilty plea, and he would have been appropriately sentenced. But instead, this administration chose to send hope to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed he might end up being one of the people they release; because, if they close Guantanamo Bay, he either gets moved to the United States or we let him go, maybe like we have for some who went to Yemen and are back in the fight, or other people like Saudi Arabia and are back in the fight.
He had real hope once President Obama came in and Eric Holder became Attorney General, and Loretta Lynch after him, that he might get released even after he admitted to the most important role in the killing of 3,000 people on American soil on 9/11. He still has not been prosecuted. They didn't follow up on his guilty plea. The plea was withdrawn.
That man should not be allowed out of prison. He is a threat to the world, and he is a valuable tool in the hands of radical Islam.
Well, thank God, as President Obama said, elections have consequences. We have a President who didn't take an oath of office to protect all of the people of Australia. He made clear that our friends will know they are our friends, and I can see him working very closely with the Prime Minister of Australia in the future. But leaders around the world are now taking notice: Wait a minute. America has a President that is not coming to us and apologizing for America's goodness and their pursuit of freedom for as many people as they can--not apologizing.
He is making clear, if you are our friend, you are going to feel it. If you are our enemy, you are going to feel it. So I think Iran may have finally met their match. We don't have an apologist to come in and apologize for America's efforts, the blood, the treasure that has been spent on behalf of people around the world.
And now even our Australian Prime Minister understands: Look, I want to work with you--President Trump feels that way; he wants to work with them, and he will work with them--but my oath is to the United States of America and I know your oath is to Australia. I know because of your oath to help and protect the people of Australia you want to get rid of those refugees, some of whom may be dangerous.
I know President Obama said: Yeah, we will take the dangerous people that may hurt Australians. Never mind we have got Americans being hurt. We will take them.
Well, there is a different sheriff in town here in Washington, and leaders around the world need to know that starting on January 20, the United States is no longer going to take actions that are detrimental to our own well-being, to the well-being of Americans, and to the security of the United States under our Constitution. So thank God, thank Trump, thank those that are seeing with clarity what is going on.
We will look forward to working with the Mexican leaders that realize the only way Mexico ever achieves its rightful economic place in the world is if a wall is built where it can be so that our border is enforced and the drug cartels are impoverished. Then Mexico can be one of the top economies in all the world because of the best workers, some of the best workers in the world, and massive natural resources with which they have been blessed. They just, so far, have not had America be the kind of good neighbor that would help them stop the drug cartels. Instead, we would have Presidents, administrations like the past one, that would send 2,000 weapons to the drug cartels instead of stopping them.
It is a new day. Thank God it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
