[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3102-H3105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1510
                     PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do appreciate the 
recommendations of my friend from Iowa. And I certainly agree, we 
should be passing a bill that would require no leeway for the 
Treasury's Secretary, that he should pay our debts as they come due and 
also make sure the military is paid on time. We know that Social 
Security is already going to be mandatory spending in the event of a 
shutdown. And that way we are allowed to pursue the issues that are 
most critical and that is, really, in the interest of children. That 
term is used so often. It is really true now. We have got to cut the 
ridiculous, irresponsible spending to preserve this Union.
  But there are two problems out there that are seeking to destroy this 
country. One is passively to destroy this

[[Page H3103]]

country, and that is our gross, irresponsible overspending: $2.1 
trillion coming in and $3.75 trillion going out. We won't last much 
longer as a country if that continues.
  The other is not passive. It is very active. And our great military 
and intelligence communities did a fantastic job apparently in taking 
out the most wanted man last weekend in the world, the man responsible 
for possibly more murders than anyone currently in existence on the 
planet, but certainly he had killed more Americans than anyone else 
alive on the planet today. And that was, of course, Osama bin Laden.
  But there has been a great rewriting of history. And since we know--
it has been made very clear that there are radical Islamist jihadists 
that want to destroy our country--it is ridiculous not to defend 
ourselves. We took an oath to defend the Constitution.
  We are supposed to provide for the common defense. It is the most 
important responsibility that we as a Federal Government have, because 
if we do not provide for a common defense, then it matters not what we 
try to do in the way of Medicare and Medicaid. All kinds of problems 
occur in the U.S.
  If we don't defend ourselves, there are plenty of evil groups who 
would love to destroy our way of life. In the case of the radical 
Islamic jihadists, they believe that as much freedom as we have in 
America leads to decadence and debauchery and that we need one leader, 
one religious leader, an ahmadi, to preside over one giant, worldwide 
caliphate.
  So for those of us who realize on both sides of the aisle we make a 
lot of mistakes, people across the country make a lot of mistakes. No 
one at the current time on Earth is perfect. We realize still that 
freedom to make our own choices is what the Founders intended, and that 
is because they believed that the Creator--as they referenced in the 
Declaration, God referenced in other places, Providence in other 
places, they believed that that was God's choice for our life, that we 
have choice.
  And even though God knew that we would make bad choices, when people 
can freely love of their own volition, their own choice, as a father I 
know that means so much more than if you demand that a child or someone 
in your care act like they love you.
  So thank God. He desires our love and our praise. As a result, we 
were given freedom of choice. You don't have to look too deeply into 
founding documents and diaries and journals to realize just how much 
the Founders, the Continental Congress members, believed that.
  So it gets interesting when people try to rewrite history and 
especially in the process of failing to properly provide for the common 
defense.
  We had the Attorney General of the United States before the Judiciary 
Committee this week, and of concern to me and many others has been the 
refusal of this Justice Department to prosecute the unindicted 
coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
  The evidence used in that case had been adduced from back in 1991, 
1993. There was a treasure trove of material found, I believe, in 2004 
here, just across in Virginia. There was a sub-basement that had 
tremendous amounts of documents reflecting the plans and intentions and 
strategy for the effort to bring down the government as we know it, our 
way of life as we know it, and that was by radical Muslims.
  I am also thankful that there are a majority of Muslims who are 
moderates. They don't believe jihad means to go about destroying those 
who oppose what you are doing. They believe that jihad means an 
internal change of life. And when someone has a moderate Muslim for a 
friend, he has a friend for life. It kind of reminds me of southern 
hospitality.
  But, nonetheless, we do our moderate Muslim friends no favors in 
failing to oppose the radical Islamic jihadists, because make no 
mistake, if we do not defend this Nation against the radical Islamic 
jihadists, then some of the people that would lose their lives, at a 
minimum lose their freedoms, would be moderate Muslims, because being a 
moderate is not abided in the world of a radical Muslim. If you don't 
believe just as they do, then it is okay to take your life.
  So that's why I say we are no friend to our moderate Muslim friends 
if we do not defend this Nation against the radicals, because our 
moderate Muslim friends will be targeted if we do not do our job in 
defending the Nation, which brings me back again to the Holy Land 
Foundation trial.
  The Bush administration, acting on information that was obtained 
through the 1990s through the Clinton administration Justice 
Department, FBI, and especially since 1993, the efforts made by the 
FBI, the incredibly professional work that was done, it was amazing how 
well they put a case together. Unfortunately, when the case was tried 
the first time, it led to a hung jury. In the pleadings--and I have 
many of the documents here. Not all of them. There are boxes and boxes 
of documents, and I understand even now, under Attorney General Holder, 
the Justice Department has boxes and boxes of evidence, documents, 
wiretaps that have not even been translated. You would think that would 
be fairly important before a decision was made on whether or not to 
pursue the unindicted coconspirators.

  Now, it is not always the case, but in this case the unindicted 
coconspirators were actually listed. If one goes through the list of 
unindicted coconspirators, you find groups like the Islamic Society of 
North America, aka ISNA; you find the North American Islamic Trust, aka 
NAIT. It is amazing. You find Founders of CAIR, C-A-I-R.
  So it was intriguing, after having five convictions on all 108 
allegations in the Holy Land Foundation trial that went on in Dallas, 
that this Justice Department would ultimately decide we are not going 
to pursue any of those other coconspirators or joint venturers, who the 
evidence shows clearly provided financing for a known terrorist group, 
Hamas. The documentation is substantial.

                              {time}  1520

  And this is only a tiny thimbleful of the evidence that was in the 
case.
  But when I look here at the Islamic Society of North America, at some 
of the evidence that came out, we have journal voucher after journal 
voucher showing the money that was taken out and used to ultimately 
assist in terrorism or to fund a terrorist group. You see all these 
journal entries. There are deposit slips in here making clear all kinds 
of things in the way of money. All kinds of amounts were transferred to 
assist in the funding of terrorism.
  In fact, at the conclusion of the first part of the case with the 
five defendants, some of the unindicted coconspirators filed a motion 
to require the Federal District Judge in Dallas to strike or eliminate 
all of the names of the unindicted coconspirators, or at least their 
own, and an assistant U.S. Attorney in Dallas named James Jacks did a 
very good job in rebutting that and laying out in his brief before the 
Federal District Court how there were significant amounts, tremendous 
amounts of evidence that showed that the unindicted coconspirators' 
names should not be stricken from the record. And the judge in his memo 
order on the case came back and said basically there is a prima facie 
case.
  In fact, the judge said here--this is in his memo decision, and this 
is Judge Solis, a Federal judge in Dallas--``The government has 
produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, C-A-I-R, 
ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, and NAIT, the North American 
Islamic''--I have it here, what the T stands for--``with HLF, the 
Islamic Association for Palestine and with Hamas. While the court 
recognizes that evidence produced by the government largely predates 
the HLF designation date, its evidence is nonetheless sufficient to 
show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP and Hamas,'' and 
being conjunctive together and not disjunctive. The judge goes on to 
say, ``Thus maintaining the names of the entity on the list is 
appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the government.''
  He goes further in his opinion and says, ``The explanatory memorandum 
includes a section entitled `Understanding the Role of the Muslim 
Brotherhood in North America,' which states that the work of the Ikhwan 
in the United States is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and 
destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its 
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that 
it is eliminated and God's religion

[[Page H3104]]

is made victorious over all other religions.''
  Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood's 
``organizations and the organizations of our friends,'' which includes 
ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund, which was HLF's former name, and 
the United Association for Studies and Research. During the early years 
of the OLF and HLF operation, OLF raised money and supported Hamas 
through a bank account that it held with ISNA and NAIT.
  Indeed, OLF operated from within ISNA in Plainfield, Indiana, where 
defendant Baker was employed. The Muslim Brotherhood supervised the 
creation of a ``Palestine Committee,'' which was put in charge of other 
organizations such as HLF, IAP, UASR, and ISNA. The July 30, 1994, 
meeting agenda for the Palestine Committee lists IAP, HLF, UASR, and 
CAIR as working organizations for the Palestine Committee.
  The order is pretty extraordinary in following the pleadings as filed 
by a quite capable assistant U.S. Attorney at that time, now interim 
U.S. Attorney in Dallas, and stating basically there is a prima facie 
case here. In fact, this has come to the attention of a number of us, 
not insignificantly, what to do with Patrick Poole and his research, 
Andrew McCarthy and his research, and other individuals who have been 
prosecutors, people who are familiar with the system, how the system 
works.
  Pete King, himself, has a very pointed letter that was sent to the 
Attorney General, asking for answers, and yet he really didn't get much 
of an answer. In fact, his letter reads this way. It was dated April 
15.
  ``Dear Attorney General Holder, I write to inquire about your 
decision not to prosecute the 246 individuals and organizations named 
as unindicted coconspirators in a Hamas terror finance case.''
  Actually, it is the largest terror finance case in American history. 
If you don't cut off the money, the terrorism will continue, and if the 
terrorists have tremendous amounts of money, it is a lot tougher to 
defeat them as our enemy, our sworn enemy, sworn to destroy our way of 
life. If you cut off their funding, it is a lot easier to be at war 
with someone in a tent, riding a camel, than it is someone who has 
jets, RPGs and the most sophisticated weaponry and the ability to build 
million dollar compounds to hide in.
  Of course, money also opens the possibility for bribes, which makes 
it a whole lot easier to hide in plain sight, because people are 
willing to look the other way. We don't know if that was occurring in 
Pakistan. There is a lot still to be learned in that situation.
  But Chairman King, Pete King, goes on and says, ``I have been 
reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of the 
Council on American Islamic Relations and its cofounder, Omar Ahmad, 
the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic 
Trust was usurped by high-ranking decisions at the Department of 
Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special 
agents and supervisors of the FBI, as well as the prosecutors at the 
U.S. Attorney's Office in Dallas, who had investigated and successfully 
prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation case. Their opposition to this 
decision raises serious doubt that the decision not to prosecute was a 
valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.''
  Chairman King goes on and says, ``I request you provide answers to 
the following questions:
  ``What are the reasons for the Department's decision not to prosecute 
CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and Mr. Ahmad, who is a CAIR cofounder and former 
head of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United 
States?
  ``Who made the final decision not to prosecute?
  ``Who, if anyone, from the Executive Office of the President 
consulted with, advised or otherwise communicated with the Department 
of Justice in electronic, oral or written form regarding the 
Department's decision to not seek indictments of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, and 
Mr. Ahmad?
  ``How does and will the Department and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation address the potential for CAIR, ISNA, NAIT to engage in 
terrorism financing?
  ``What policies with regard to those organizations have you 
implemented to address that threat?
  ``The answers to these questions should provide some explanation for 
declining a prosecution that is strongly supported by the record from 
the Holy Land Foundation trial.''
  Then the chairman goes through and cites some of the information from 
that case, and he goes on and says, ``Hamas has been designated as a 
terrorist organization by the Department of State since October 9, 
1997, and its status was reconfirmed by the most recent annual report 
of the National Counterterrorism Center, issued April 30, 2010.

                              {time}  1530

  ``Hamas shamefully conducts cowardly suicide bombings against 
civilian targets inside Israel.'' He goes on and sets out some further 
information there.
  It also should be noted that Chairman Lamar Smith, when it was 
brought to the attention by some of us on the committee, also sent a 
letter to the Attorney General, requesting information about these very 
same things. In fact, there was a memo that was involved, and Chairman 
Smith on behalf of the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of the 
March 31, 2010, memo entitled: ``Declination of Prosecution of Omar 
Ahmad'' from Assistant Attorney General David Kris to Acting Deputy 
Attorney General Gary Grindler.
  As I understand it, Chairman King got a response; very 
unsatisfactory. Basically, they're not telling him anything. If they 
follow that tradition, Chairman Smith is not likely to get much of an 
answer. But it causes great concern because we have the Attorney 
General, who has testified before the committee this week that no one 
in his Department was involved in advising or consulting over that. Yet 
we have information about a memo which may contradict the Attorney 
General directly. If that's the case, he would have given false 
information before a committee not once but a number of times during 
his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I hope and pray 
that's not true, but there's one way to find out.
  Instead of providing the memo that was requested, he referred Mr. 
Trent Franks, when he asked, to a Dallas Morning News article that 
quotes Mr. Jacks as saying there were no political factors involved in 
that decision. Well, I have a copy of that article as well. I also have 
a copy of Mr. Jacks' pleadings where he did a very nice job of setting 
out that there was a strong case--in essence, a prima facie case--
against these people wanting to have their names eliminated as 
coconspirators in the pleading. He also filed a pleading with the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Now, I know as a former judge and chief justice that lawyers are not 
supposed to file pleadings and try to persuade based on facts that they 
believe or know not to be true. It's called fraud upon the court, and 
there's punitive action that lies in that case. But the information 
that U.S. Attorney Jacks provided to the district court and to the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be very authentic and very 
well done. Obviously, a very capable lawyer. There are no punitive 
actions that can be taken for misleading a newspaper. On the other 
hand, perhaps he doesn't know what was in the memo that was requested 
from March of last year.
  But we're now getting into some very serious grounds when the 
Attorney General of the United States will not be forthcoming, changes 
his answers a number of times about who consulted or didn't consult; 
who's in his department, who's not in his department; who participated. 
So we've got a lot of explaining to get to. I hope there are legitimate 
explanations. But one thing is very clear, Mr. Speaker, and that is 
when the Attorney General is holding evidence that will answer the 
questions that were asked and prove if anyone is lying and who is lying 
and when they lied, it is not at all comforting to say, We're not 
giving you evidence that might contradict something that's been said by 
the Justice Department, but we will refer you to a newspaper article 
that an interim U.S. Attorney gave, who serves at the will of the 
United States President. So then, again, as a former judge, you're not

[[Page H3105]]

looking for evidence which may support or not.
  Could there be politics at play in this kind of decision? Well, about 
this Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, it's interesting. I got a 
transcript of the speech, because I got it off of the White House Web 
site today, made by the Deputy National Security Adviser to the 
President of the United States, Barack Obama, his being Denis 
McDonough. This was actually, it says, for immediate release March 6, 
2011. This is printed, like I say, from the Web site. These are the 
remarks of the Deputy National Security Adviser to the President, 
Barack Hussein Obama, in which he starts his remarks like this:
  Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction and welcome.
  By the way, these are remarks to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, 
ADAMS, ironically.
  Thank you, Imam Majid, for your very kind introduction, and welcome. 
I know that President Obama was very grateful that you led the prayer 
at last summer's iftar dinner at the White House, which, as the 
President noted, is a tradition stretching back more than two centuries 
to when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar dinner at the White 
House.
  Well, ``iftar'' refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their 
fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Iftar is one of the religious 
observances of Ramadan, and is often done as a community with people 
gathering to break their fast together. Iftar is done right after 
sunset time. Traditionally, a date is the first thing to be consumed 
when the fast is broken.
  But if you look at the true history of the country, Thomas Jefferson 
did invite a leader from Tunis to break bread with him at the White 
House, and it was at the conclusion of Ramadan, but there's no evidence 
to indicate whatsoever that this was a traditional iftar dinner.
  You get back to the facts. In the second paragraph, he says--and this 
is Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Adviser--Our Founders 
understood the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of 
people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the 
Virginia Act, establishing religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote 
that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their 
opinions in matters of religion.
  He goes on in his remarks, and he says, Thank you also for being one 
of our Nation's leading voices for the values that make America so 
strong, especially religious freedom and tolerance.
  Parenthetically, I'm not sure if tolerance includes funding terrorist 
activities against Israel and the United States, but that's a 
parenthetical question on my part.
  Back to Mr. McDonough, Whether it's here at the ADAMS Center or as 
president of the Islamic Society of North America, you've spoken with 
passion and eloquence not only about your own Islamic faith but for the 
need to build bridges of understanding and trust between faiths.
  This is incredible. The Deputy National Security Adviser is thanking 
the president of a coconspirator--named, at least, as a coconspirator, 
joint venturer in the Holy Land Foundation trial. He was not merely 
introducing him at this proceeding, but was also thanking him for being 
a confidant who led the White House in prayer in their iftar proceeding 
in the White House. The president of a coconspirator to fund terrorist 
activities is leading Muslim prayers in the White House.
  I realize my time has expired. I just know we need to work hard so 
that this country's time will not expire.

                          ____________________