[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 101 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4786-H4791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE TRUTH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor and a privilege to be 
here speaking on the House floor. It is interesting these days being a 
part of Congress. The media is given unfettered access to so much 
because we believe that people should be entitled to the truth. In 
fact, many libraries around the country have the line ``the truth shall 
set you free.'' Of course, most people don't know where that came from. 
It was Jesus talking about him being the truth, and he was the truth. A 
lot of libraries that put that up don't realize that's what it is 
talking about. And I imagine there are a lot of reporters who have used 
that same line, and they don't know where that came from.
  But what gets troubling is when reporters have access to complete 
transcripts, video, and they intentionally set out to deceive the 
public. It seems to happen a great deal. I personally think it is one 
of the reasons that Fox News has just taken off so strongly, because 
people can see that the other cable news networks, so many of them at 
least, have such a slant. They don't give you the whole truth. There is 
nothing fair or balanced about some of the presentations. I know 
personally, having been on a CNN show where they cut your mike off for 
4\1/2\ minutes, trash-mouth you for awhile, turn your microphone on, 
and then refuse to acknowledge that there is even the possibility that 
what you're saying is true when you know, indeed, it is true.
  But this happened just here in the last week. I was on a Fox Business 
show, and we were talking about the money being spent by this White 
House and also comparing that to the Bush White House, and I had the 
data, absolute factual data that, for example, in the Bush White House, 
there were 447 total staff, and in the Obama staff there are 454 total 
White House staff.

                              {time}  1330

  You wouldn't think seven additional people would be that big of a 
deal except that nearly a fourth of the Bush White House staff--102 
people, in fact--made under $40,000; whereas, in the Obama White House, 
there is no paid staff member who gets less than $40,000. So you see 
dramatically the difference. I was pointing out that perhaps, in the 
Obama White House, because of all the greatness of this White House as 
compared to prior White House staffs, that you deserve to be paid more 
because you're associated with so much more greatness in this White 
House.
  It's interesting to see over the last 6\1/2\ years I've been in 
Congress that there are an awful lot of people in the mainstream media, 
especially in Washington, who do not understand sarcasm, who do not 
understand facetiousness. So, at times, it's funny to say things 
sarcastically, knowing that they won't get it.
  But in any event, we also commented on the fact that there were all 
these--I think 34--czars in the Obama White House, and they're getting 
paid tremendous amounts of money. So Fox News had published an article, 
and they pointed these things out. They were talking about the 
interview, and they got all of the quotes accurate.
  As they pointed out, it said: ``The White House released its annual 
salary report to Congress, and like anything in Washington, it depends 
on who you ask if they went up too much or are an adequate reflection 
of the tough economic times and have moved down.''
  This is the writing of Kimberly Schwandt with Fox News.
  Ms. Schwandt goes on to say: ``The salaries, which can be seen here, 
show that about a third of the employees make more than $100,000 per 
year and the lowest earn $41,000, except for three people who are 
working for no compensation, or zero annual salary; 21 employees made 
the maximum of $172,000.
  ``The White House backs the figures, saying that salaries went down 
an average of $150 per person and that total salary spending decreased, 
in part, due to the total number of staffers going down as well.''
  Then a quote from spokesman Eric Schultz from the White House: 
``President Obama is deeply committed to continuing to reduce costs in 
government. However, some critics say they are spending too much, like 
Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas.''
  He quoted me accurately as saying: `` `In the White House, in looking 
at it, this administration's got over 450 employees. Now, under the 
Bush administration, there were over 100. About a fourth of the 
employees made less than $40,000.'
  ``Fox News fact-checked, and the Congressman's statements do pan out, 
with 102 of the 447 employees on the 2008 list having salaries of less 
than $40,000.''
  Another quote from me. I said: `` `I guess, you know, there's so much 
greatness when you associate with this White House you deserve to be 
paid more. I don't know,' he said.
  ``Gohmert added another sarcastic jab, 'Don't forget the 34--the 34 
czars that are out there dictating policy, and let's face it. When 
you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.' ''
  Then it points out: ``As the economy faltered, President Obama 
enacted a pay freeze earlier in his administration for top wage-
earners. Wednesday, at a Twitter town hall, he referenced the freeze.''
  Of course, as we've learned from this White House and as we know from 
the House rules, the President never lies or misrepresents, but 
certainly there are many facts that are just wrong. For example, when 
the President ordered our troops to bomb Libya and be involved in what 
he called a ``kinetic attack'' in Libya, which was clearly military 
action, he said we would be there for days, not weeks or months. It has 
turned out it's months and maybe years unless Congress gets the Senate 
to go along with one of the things we passed here in the House, to cut 
off the spending in a country where this President is fighting for and 
with a group that may turn out to be worse than the bloodthirsty, mean-
spirited Qadhafi has been.
  In any event, there was an article written in The Hill newspaper. 
Again, this was fact-checked by Fox News, but it's just interesting. 
You hear about it all the time, the slant of the mainstream media. It's 
interesting because The Hill has reporters like Molly Hooper. I've 
never had her be anything but completely honest and truthful. She has 
always, that I'm aware of, been fair to me and fair in her reporting 
that I've seen; but this one is a person named Judy Kurtz, who just, I 
have to say, was dishonest. This is the story that Judy Kurtz wrote 
this week, July 6, in The Hill.

[[Page H4787]]

  She quoted me as saying: `` `I guess there's just so much greatness 
when you're associated with this White House that you deserve to be 
paid more,' Representative Louie Gohmert said. `Let's face it. When 
you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.' ''
  That gave the impression to people who read the article and who had 
picked up on it that I was saying President Obama was a dictator. In 
this setting, that is not what I said. The interesting point is just 
how clearly deceptive and dishonest Judy Kurtz was. She took two 
quotes. She had access to the whole video, to the whole transcript, and 
chose to put them together and give the wrong impression. When you do 
look at the full quote in context, we were talking about the czars, 
that there is so much greatness when you're associated with this White 
House that you deserve to be paid more, but then ``don't forget the 
34--the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy, and let's face 
it. When you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.''
  So it is important to note there are some reporters you can trust 
even within the same newspaper, and there are some who can be 
dishonest.
  During my days as a trial judge of major civil litigation and 
felonies, including through death penalty cases, the rule of evidence 
was always--and is--that credibility is always an issue. It's always an 
issue. Everyone should understand that, especially reporters, who are 
so important to this country's being different from any other country 
in the world.
  So it's hoped that more and more reporters will get back to deserving 
their protected status that they have under the Constitution and have a 
little more responsibility than Judy Kurtz did. I did appreciate Ms. 
Kurtz' noting that I was being sarcastic to be sure that people like 
her didn't miss it. I didn't just leave it to chance. I pointed out 
verbally that I was being sarcastic, so I'm glad she got that part of 
the quote anyway.

                              {time}  1340

  But nonetheless, I've heard from people that were shocked that I 
called President Obama a dictator. Now they know the context.
  But there are some important things going on; and with the massive 
overspending we're getting, it's important to understand who is 
spending money where they shouldn't. We have just voted out the Defense 
appropriation bill today. There were a number of amendments that were 
voted on that would defund the action this President has committed us 
to in Libya. This President has repeatedly said that he doesn't believe 
he violated the War Powers Act and doesn't believe he needed to comply. 
But he certainly didn't comply with the War Powers Act. He certainly 
didn't get approval of Congress before he took such action.
  Most Presidents, knowing that Congress constitutionally has the power 
of the purse, have come to Congress, and the President has made his 
case to Congress as to why we should be involved in a theater of 
operation that the President wanted to commit us to. Not this 
President, of course. This President heard from the Arab League; he 
heard from apparently some in NATO and the U.N., and decided that they 
were more important than a consensus from Congress, not even from the 
Senate. The Senate is Democrat controlled. The President didn't bother 
to get a vote or even approval tacitly from the Senate and here in the 
House, where this body, especially as a Republican majority, has 
steadfastly stood with the President of any party when that President 
committed troops to harm's way.
  In this case, there are still some in the Republican Party who have 
said I don't think we ought to be in Libya; but I'm afraid if I vote to 
cut off funding to the action in Libya, then it may be perceived as not 
being supportive of the troops. Some of us who have been in the 
military and still talk constantly to people in the military know the 
common response we get from the military goes something like this: Sir, 
we take orders. We salute and we follow our orders. That's what we took 
an oath to do. And if we're ordered to go to Libya or anywhere else, we 
will salute and go. But we hope, we pray that somebody in Washington 
will use some good sense so that when we lay down our lives in the call 
of duty from Washington that it will not be in vain. Please take action 
to make sure that when we lay down our lives, it's not wasted.
  And for this administration and some in Congress, certainly not a 
majority, to think it's a good idea to go into Libya and to get our 
services involved in an action which Secretary of Defense Gates said we 
have no national security interest in that action--it's not a good 
idea--and when we find out factually that there are al Qaeda, a group 
with whom we are at war, and when there are Muslim Brotherhood, who 
believe in violence, involved in the rebel action against an evil 
Qadhafi, then wisdom would indicate you should find out if the person 
that is going to be replaced by your bombs and your military or kinetic 
action--you have an obligation to find out--is going to be worse than 
the person you're replacing.
  And we don't know that. In fact, the indications are whoever replaces 
Qadhafi in this current rebel group will likely be a tremendous enemy 
of Israel, a significant enemy of the United States. It may be a 
situation in which the people that replace an intolerant leader like 
Qadhafi may be worse than Qadhafi, just as we saw happen in Iran back 
when Jimmy Carter was President.
  As I recall, I believe Jimmy Carter welcomed the Ayatollah Khomeini 
back as a man of peace. Well, Khomeini's idea of peace was a whole lot 
different than most of ours and certainty the party's in Congress 
that's in the majority, because Khomeini's idea of peace was a world in 
which there is a world-wide caliphate and one great Muslim leader 
dictates what peace means. He dictates shari'a law for everyone. There 
is no freedom of worship for Christians, for Buddhists--certainly not 
for Jewish people of orthodox faith, absolutely not. In fact, they're 
obviously infidels from the things that were written and the things 
that can only be written and spoken in the Middle East.
  In Egypt, Mubarak was a problem, but Mubarak had seen the handwriting 
on the wall. And he was moving toward some local elections and could 
see he needed to move toward the idea of democracy, but didn't want to 
give up power. Mubarak, for all his flaws, at least was not an active 
belligerent against Israel. Qadhafi we knew had blood on his hands, but 
we also saw from Ronald Reagan dropping bombs down his smokestack back, 
I believe in '86--and then again when the United States moved into Iraq 
we saw it again--Qadhafi was afraid of us. And perhaps it's better to 
have a leader who is afraid of you in power than people who are 
religious fanatics who have sworn that their goal in life is to bring 
your country down.
  One of the important things--and to me, I think it's the most 
important job, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress--is to provide for the 
common defense. We heard the President down at the border not along ago 
say he has committed more Federal troops to our border than any 
President ever--more people down there to protect our border anyway. 
Actually, he probably didn't have enough history training to know that 
in 1916 President Woodrow Wilson--I'm not a big fan of President 
Wilson's, but nonetheless, after a man named Pancho Villa was 
responsible for coming across into the United States and killing some 
Americans, Wilson committed General Pershing to go--my recollection is 
it was around 14,000 troops that went into Mexico. Because Pancho Villa 
had come across our sovereign border and killed people, then it was 
deemed to be appropriate to chase him down wherever he might go because 
that individual, with his cronies, had declared war on us and taken 
war-like action.
  And there was also a group, a new group basically, the National 
Guard, that was called up. One account I read said over 100,000 
National Guard soldiers were called to our southern border to ensure 
that no one came across and killed Americans again.
  Now, I know that President Bush committed National Guard troops. I 
was very disappointed that the troops were not put on the border. They 
were put miles back, and they were given rules of engagement that said, 
in essence, if you see some armed group coming from across the border, 
then you are to report it and then flee the

[[Page H4788]]

area. Well, that's not what should have been done, and I can assure 
what's being done today is not what should be done, where we take more 
action to go against the States that are trying to defend themselves 
than we do to try to defend the States themselves.

                              {time}  1350

  But we are at a crucial time in this country's history. Admiral 
Mullen said the national debt is the biggest threat to our security. 
But take your pick. Whether it's a nation like Iran that is led by a 
religious zealot who may be crazy--but he's not stupid--they've got 
people working toward, around the clock, moving toward having nuclear 
weaponry. They already have at least one bomb. And even though our 
friends down in the majority in the Senate, even though in this White 
House so many say, ``Oh, no. We just need to step up sanctions and all 
will be well. We'll bring them into line,'' Iran knows that once 
they've got enough in the way of nuclear weaponry that they'll be able 
to extort countries into removing any type of sanctions.
  People in Israel are well aware, most of them--certainly Prime 
Minister Netanyahu is--that when Iran has adequate nuclear weaponry, 
they'll be a threat to Israel. They'll be a threat to freedom. They'll 
be a threat to liberty around the world because they will be able to 
take blackmail or extorted action to get countries to either do as they 
say or a nuclear weapon will be going off in that country.
  They're working on the missiles. They'll be able to carry those 
nuclear weapons to places like the United States. Even now, it wouldn't 
take a missile to put a nuclear weapon on a boat, a yacht, to bring it 
into one of our harbors. And let's face it. We saw our vulnerability on 
9/11, many of us, even though I was a judge at the time. We said we can 
never let ourselves be that vulnerable again. And here we are, nearly 
10 full years later, and we're allowing a madman, a religious zealot in 
Iran, to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions haven't worked. They're not 
working. The centrifuges are still turning. They're still developing 
nuclear weaponry.
  We've got these type of threats in the world, and instead of standing 
firm as Ronald Reagan did, which led to bringing down the Iron Curtain, 
this administration has chosen to placate our enemies and turn against 
many of our allies.
  That was further brought home to me when I traveled with Dana 
Rohrabacher and a couple of other Members of Congress. There were 
warlords from the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan that wanted to meet 
with us because we were told that the administration didn't want to 
meet with them. And after we met with them, it was clear why the 
administration wouldn't want to.
  Now, I was not aware--and it was during the Bush administration of 
course, our initial actions in Afghanistan--we sent in intelligence. We 
sent in special forces. We sent in weaponry. We equipped the Northern 
Alliance tribes who had a special personal interest in defeating the 
Taliban. Afghanistan, as a whole, had seen how evil the Taliban was, 
how much damage they could do to society as they burned paintings and 
books and films and totally suppressed freedom in Afghanistan. Well, 
they knew. These people are evil, but they were afraid of them. But 
with the United States weaponry, with our guidance, intelligence, 
training, these people defeated the Taliban.
  What I was not aware of until we met with these folks--and it turns 
out I could have been aware. I just was not. But you do the research. 
You'll find out. The Bush administration convinced the Northern 
Alliance, Okay. Now that you've whipped the Taliban, you need to 
totally disarm, because we're the United States, and we're here, and 
we'll make sure nothing happens to you again.
  Well, the Northern Alliance messed up because they trusted us, and 
they turned in their weapons. I asked one, You turned in all your 
weapons? Well, apparently, they have some small arms but nothing that 
would allow them to take on the Taliban again. Naturally, these people 
were concerned, because they know because they fought for and with the 
United States against the Taliban that, if the Taliban is allowed to 
overtly exist in Afghanistan, then these people that fought for us and 
with us will all be killed as will all their family members.
  They were and are our allies. They fought for us. They defeated the 
Taliban, and now we're on the verge of leaving these people disarmed, 
vulnerable, and to be killed by the very people we went into 
Afghanistan after. It doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to 
be this way at all.
  I mean, we can learn from the past. Rearm the Northern Alliance. We 
perceive the arrogance, the condescension not only from Prime Minister 
Maliki in Iraq but certainly from the leader in Afghanistan, Karzai, 
certainly from his brother. There's just too much arrogance there. All 
kinds of stories about corruption. But whether or not you believe that, 
it's clear that the Taliban is being allowed to do things now in 
Afghanistan that we were supposed to have eliminated by our coming in.
  It may well be, as one Afghan told me, that once we begin, if we 
would, to rearm the Northern Alliance, Karzai might be a lot more 
cooperative than he has been.
  But nonetheless, a year ago, we were being told, Your administration 
in Washington, the Obama administration, is indirectly talking, 
negotiating with the Taliban to just let the United States out without 
any big incidents, and then they can have whatever they take. And 
that's when they pointed out, You can't let this happen. You can't do 
this to your allies.
  Well, we've already seen it with Israel. We voted with Israel's 
enemies in May of last year, I believe it was, to demand that Israel 
disclose all of their weaponry, their nuclear weaponry. It's the first 
time the United States had joined forces with Israel's enemies, and it 
was one of the reasons that shortly after that that we saw the flotilla 
come from Turkey down to challenge the Israeli blockade. That was a 
blockade for one thing: weapons. Prevent weapons from going into the 
Gaza Strip. The rockets were coming every day. Israelis had been 
killed. There was no reason to allow those weapons to come into the 
Gaza Strip. It was a legitimate blockade. It came after we showed 
distance between our great ally Israel and this country.
  That also came on the heels of the President snubbing Prime Minister 
Netanyahu. And of course Prime Minister Netanyahu has not spoken of 
this that I've ever heard or read, but certainly others noted how badly 
he was snubbed by the President just blowing him off where normally you 
would have a meal, saying, Good luck on your own, and when you get 
ready to accept what I told you to do, then send me a note and I'll 
come back and see you. But anyway, we have not been allies as we should 
be to Israel.
  But it was after that when I started pushing to try to get Prime 
Minister Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, to be invited in this room. 
Speaker Pelosi, when I broached the subject with her, thought it was a 
good idea, but she didn't feel there was adequate time. And I brought 
it up in June, between then and the end of the year, to work him in.

                              {time}  1400

  Obviously, we did have to name a lot of courthouses and had athletic 
teams to congratulate, so we weren't able to get to that. But Speaker 
Boehner, to his credit, did extend the invitation. Prime Minister 
Netanyahu did an incredible job. With the ideas he put forth, he did an 
incredible job, from the second level here, of addressing this body and 
addressing the world from here in Congress.
  What I had hoped for came to pass. The world got an incredible visual 
image of the fact that this body, both sides of the aisle, that can't 
hardly agree on much of anything, over and over--I am told 26 times--
stood to applaud the leader of Israel, showing the world that we are 
united in our support of our friend Israel from Congress, regardless of 
what the house down Pennsylvania Avenue does the rest of the time. 
Congress controls the purse strings, and Congress is a friend of Israel 
and vice versa.
  So it is important, in order to provide for the common defense of 
this country, that we make sure that our allies know, if you're our 
friend, then we stand by you. If you're our enemy, then we will do as 
President Kennedy pointed out, as President Bush pointed

[[Page H4789]]

out: We will seek you wherever you are, and we will eliminate you as an 
enemy. By doing that, you can have peace in the world.
  There is a sign that emerges from time to time. People carry it 
around. I've seen it up here. I've seen it in New York: ``War never 
brought about peace.'' It says a great deal about the history teachers 
that an individual that would carry that kind of sign must have had 
because the only time you have peace for an extended period is when a 
big-hearted country does take on evil that has grown too big and 
becomes a threat to people's liberty and freedom and defeats that evil. 
Then you have a period of peace.
  And the only way it becomes an extended peace is when a country is 
strong enough, or countries are strong enough, that the world knows if 
you become a threat to our liberty, our freedom, then we will eliminate 
you as a threat to freedom.
  Now, again, there are those who believe shari'a law talks of freedom 
and peace, but that's a freedom and peace as dictated by the ultimate 
leader of the group. That also brings me back to the issue of the 
Muslim Brotherhood. This administration has given the indication that 
they think it is a group of peace. You can go on Wikipedia, and the 
proponents of the Muslim Brotherhood have done an excellent job of 
cleaning up the history that shows them to be supporters of terrorism 
and the numerous ties linking them to terrorism in the world.
  They've also done a good job of making this administration believe 
that they're peaceful and loving to the point that, as Denis McDonough, 
the number two person in our national security agency or 
administration, thanked President Magid, Imam Magid, the president of 
the Islamic Society of North America, for the wonderful prayer he gave 
inside the White House in the celebration of Iftar last year, the end 
of Ramadan, that President Obama had.
  The Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, is a named co-
conspirator--was--in the Holy Land Foundation trials in which the first 
five defendants were found guilty of 108 counts of supporting 
terrorism. And when some tried to have their names stricken because 
they were not indicted in that first action, the judge, in essence, 
ruled there has been a prima facie case here showing that they are 
linked and supportive of terrorism; we're not eliminating their names.
  So it was shocking to some of us when the Holder Justice Department 
dropped the cases against the named coconspirators and refused to go 
forward with them. This notebook has some of the materials, and there 
are plenty of them, as anybody can see. This is a thimbleful compared 
to what is there. You want checks from the Islamic Centers' co-op 
funds? You want deposit slips? You want ledgers? The FBI's gathered all 
this stuff. There are great cases against these groups that the Holder 
Justice Department decided not to pursue.
  And when we had Attorney General Holder in front of our Judiciary 
Committee and he was asked about dropping it, he acted like and 
basically stated he had nothing to do with it, that that was somebody 
down in Texas, an attorney down there, and he could get us a copy of 
the Dallas Morning News article where the U.S. Attorney--actually, it 
was acting U.S. Attorney--had made that statement that politics played 
no role.
  Well, certainly politics played a role, and that became very obvious. 
And the more we find, the more it appears the Attorney General is not 
honest about perhaps the reason that these were not pursued. But until 
we find out the actual reasons for these being dropped, we will not 
know how honest or dishonest the situation with this Attorney General 
is.
  I know that Chairman Issa is pursuing the Fast and Furious 
investigation. But on this one, we could put this whole matter to bed 
very quickly if the Attorney General will just produce the memorandum 
that Chairman Pete King and Chairman Lamar Smith have requested from 
the Justice Department. If he will just come forward, produce that 
memo, not black it out, then we can find for sure the documentation of 
whether or not what the Attorney General had said in testifying before 
Congress was true or not.
  Now, it was interesting to find that the FBI had a special 
relationship, a special partnership, with CAIR, another of the named 
coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And it was rather 
shocking to me that it was not until 2009 that the FBI decided to end 
their special relationship with this named co-conspirator in the Holy 
Land Foundation case. Apparently, the FBI had had a special 
relationship with CAIR for years, even though the FBI began to gather 
these materials back as early as 1993 and had solid proof for a number 
of years that they were involved in supporting Hamas with terrorism.
  And yet nothing was done until 2009, when a letter was sent, saying, 
because of the evidence that was introduced some months back regarding 
CAIR and their relationships with terrorism, we think it's appropriate 
to suspend our relationship for now.
  Now, I realize that there are people in the media, as we saw this one 
reporter from The Hill that will not give adequate coverage, who will 
take quotes out of context in order to misrepresent or give people a 
false impression. But if this is adequately looked at, people will find 
the truth: that we have people who have been associated with the 
support of terrorism coming to the White House--one who was president 
of a group, who certainly from the documentation appears to have 
supported terrorism, leading the White House in prayer.

                              {time}  1410

  And then we find out that when the President was giving a speech at 
the State Department, in the State Department--security was very, very 
tight; it was difficult to get in without going through all the 
checking, the bag checking, the metal detectors and all the different 
things you had to go through to make sure security was tight--
apparently the White House invited Imam Majid, the president of the 
Islamic Society of North America, a named coconspirator for supporting 
terrorism. It invited him into the inner sanctum of the State 
Department to listen to the President's speech and give comments about 
what he thought about the speech.
  At some point, this administration is going to have to get around to 
the point where providing for the common defense means you get tough 
with people who associate with groups that support terrorism. You don't 
do, as Senator Obama said, just go talk to terrorists because you're 
so, apparently, warm and friendly. Really, the President, having met 
with him, he is a charming man. He comes across as bright, engaging. 
You want to like him. Apparently that's worked so well, he must think 
that he can convince religious extremists that we're good folks, so you 
can just get along with them. The problem is, when you're dealing with 
people who want to destroy your way of life, there's only one way to 
deal with them.
  We've seen this from the attacks in the early days of our country's 
existence from Islamic zealots in North Africa who captured our ships, 
took prisoners--the men on those ships--held them for ransom, used some 
as slaves, were willing to kill or enslave others, and I read at one 
point, and it's hard to believe that this is true--hopefully it's not--
but that at one point we may have paid as much as 18 percent of the 
country's budget back in the late 1790s for getting our sailors back 
from the Barbary pirates, these Islamic extremists.
  Thomas Jefferson, who had been sent at one point as one of the 
diplomats to negotiate with the Muslim extremists, was taken aback when 
he asked, Why would you attack American ships? We're no threat to you. 
We don't have a powerful Navy. We've never attacked you--and reportedly 
was told that we in our religion believe we go to paradise if we were 
to die while attacking infidels like you. Jefferson was shocked. He was 
an extremely well-read person. He found it hard to believe there was a 
religion anywhere that any believer of that religion perceived that you 
could go to a paradise by killing innocent people. So he got his own 
English translation of the Koran, that can still be found in the 
Library of Congress, so he could read for himself. Some of the passages 
are subject to interpretation and certainly have been interpreted by 
some as meaning the only way to proceed is to attempt to

[[Page H4790]]

take out infidels like those of us who are Christians, those who are 
Jewish, because we are certainly considered infidels in their eyes. 
Thank goodness not all Muslims believe that that has to be what occurs, 
but that is certainly what some believe.
  I might read a passage from the judge's decision from July 1, 2009, 
in response to the effort by the named coconspirators, some of them to 
have names stricken who were not actually indicted in the first trial. 
The judge, having reviewed acting U.S. Attorney Jacks's memos, said 
this:
  ``The government has produced ample evidence to establish the 
associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with the Holy Land Foundation, HLF, 
the Islamic Association for Palestine and with Hamas. While the court 
recognizes that the evidence produced by the government largely 
predates the Holy Land Foundation designation date, the evidence is 
nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with 
HLF, IAP, and Hamas.''
  The judge said:
  ``Thus maintaining the names of the entities on the list is 
appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the government.''
  It is important to note that CAIR, with whom our Justice Department 
had a special relationship until on into 2009, and ISNA, that the 
evidence has certainly been produced by the government shows, as the 
judge says, ample evidence to establish the associations with these 
groups with the Holy Land Foundation, the group that was convicted, as 
well as Hamas, and yet this administration continues, I guess, to think 
that their winning personalities, charming as they are, will bring 
people around, and so they trust them to come into the inner sanctum of 
the White House, the State Department, the Justice Department. All that 
means is, we're in big trouble.
  There are those over the years that have believed that our answers 
would come from prayer. Virtually every President, I guess every 
President, has indicated such that this Nation is best protected when 
it prays. That is why you would have such an amazing minister as Peter 
Marshall, as Chaplain in the United States Senate back in the 1940s, 
and this book that I have referenced previously is really profound, and 
I would, Mr. Speaker, like to finish up reading a couple of prayers 
that have been prayed in the United States Senate in the 1940s by U.S. 
Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall.
  One prayer says:
  ``Forgive us, Lord Jesus, for doing the things that make us 
uncomfortable and guilty when we pray.
  ``We say that we believe in God, and yet we doubt God's promises.
  ``We say that in God we trust,'' which can be found right up above 
the Speaker's head, ``yet we worry and try to manage our own affairs.
  ``We say that we love Thee, O Lord, and yet do not obey Thee.
  ``We believe that Thou hast the answers to all our problems, and yet 
we do not consult Thee.
  ``Forgive us, Lord, for our lack of faith and the willful pride that 
ignores the way, the truth, and the life.
  ``Wilt Thou reach down and change the gears within us that we may go 
forward with Thee. Amen.''
  That was one of Peter Marshall's prayers as Chaplain of the Senate in 
the 1940s.

                              {time}  1420

  I conclude with this prayer by Peter Marshall in the 1940s: ``O Lord 
our God, even at this moment as we come blundering into Thy presence 
and prayer, we are haunted by memories of duties unperformed, 
promptings disobeyed, and beckonings ignored.
  ``Opportunities to be kind knocked on the door of our hearts and went 
weeping away.
  ``We are ashamed, O Lord, and tired of failure.
  ``If Thou art growing close to us now, come nearer still, till 
selfishness is burned out within us and our wills lose their weakness 
in union with Thine own.
  ``Amen.''
  It is important to note: Prayers for the individuals to adhere to, as 
George Washington said, have a humble imitation of the designer of our 
blessed religion. As Washington said, those are for individuals.
  We get questions on, Well, how can you be a Christian and not want to 
give away all the government money to the poor and the needy? How can 
you be a Christian and not want to give away the government money to do 
all these other things and to end a Defense Department? have no 
soldiers? just be people of peace?
  And I know that in this great country we have got virtually every 
religion being practiced that's known to man; but in the Christian 
religion, for those that believe the New Testament means what it says, 
Romans 13 is very clear. The government exists as God's minister so 
that they encourage good. Romans 13:4 says, but if you do evil be 
afraid. God does not give the government the sword in vain. It does say 
``sword,'' and that is the purpose of government.
  We took an oath to follow the Constitution. We are supposed to 
provide for the common defense. We are supposed to have an Army, a 
military, that protects this Nation so that people can practice the 
religion of their choice. Whether it's Islam peaceably, Christianity, 
Judaism, Buddhism, the human secularism that seems to have often 
overtaken Washington, you have the freedom to do that.
  But the government's role is to protect the country, protect the 
people, keep people from coming in through our borders that want to 
harm us so that individuals can give from the blessings of their heart 
to help the needy, to help the poor, to help others.
  You cannot find one reference in the New Testament that says 
government is to go about using and abusing its taxing authority, 
legalize stealing from people who have earned the money so that we can 
give it away to Congress' favorite charity or a government's favorite 
charity. The government is to provide protection, protect against evil, 
encourage good, and create an environment where good people can do 
good.

                     [From Fox News, July 7, 2011]

  Only in Washington: White House Salaries Have Gone Both Up and Down

                         (By Kimberly Schwandt)

       The White House released its annual salary report to 
     Congress and like anything in Washington, it depends on who 
     you ask if they went up too much, or are an adequate 
     reflection of the tough economic times and have moved down.
       The salaries, which can be seen here show that about a 
     third of the employees make more than $100,000 per year and 
     the lowest earn $41,000, except for three people who are 
     working for no compensation, or $0 annual salary. Twenty-one 
     employees made the maximum $172,000.
       The White House backs the figures, saying that salaries 
     went down an average of $150 per person and that total salary 
     spending decreased in part due to the total number of 
     staffers going down as well.
       ``President Obama is deeply committed to continuing to 
     reduce costs in government,'' said White House Spokesman Eric 
     Schultz.
       However, some critics say they are spending too much, like 
     Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.
       ``[I]n the White House, in looking at it, this 
     administration's got over 450 employees. Now, under the Bush 
     administration, there were over 100, about a fourth of the 
     employees, made less than $40,000,'' he told Fox Business on 
     Tuesday.
       Fox News fact-checked, and the congressman's statements do 
     pan out, with 102 of the 447 employees on the 2008 list 
     having salaries of less than $40,000.
       ``I guess, you know, there's so much greatness when you 
     associate with this White House you deserve to be paid more, 
     I don't know,'' he said.
       Gohmert added another sarcastic jab, ``Don't forget the 
     34--the 34 czars that are out there dictating policy and 
     let's face it . . . when you're a dictator you need to be 
     paid more.''
       As the economy faltered, President Obama enacted a pay 
     freeze earlier in his administration for top wage-earners.
       Wednesday at a Twitter town hall, he referenced the freeze.
       ``So they haven't had a raise in two and a half years, and 
     that's appropriate, because a lot of ordinary folks out there 
     haven't, either. In fact, they've seen their pay cut in some 
     cases,'' Obama said.
       An analysis by the gossip website Gawker, that was widely 
     circulated and posted on the Internet, compared the salary 
     increases to those of what staffers got last year. The site 
     found that 75 percent of staffers who stayed on got raises 
     from 2009 to 2010.
       And this year, the figure isn't quite as big--but of 270 
     staffers who have been at the White House for more than a 
     year, more than 50 percent got raises with an average 
     increase of 8 percent.
       Fox double-checked Gawker's claim on how many got raises 
     and found 267 staffers on both lists, indicating they had 
     worked for more than one year. Of those staffers, 144 had 
     received a raise in 2011 (54%).

[[Page H4791]]

       It's worth noting that some of those raises were for 
     promotions, not just for the regular yearly increases.
       ``To be clear, in the past year, the average salary of a 
     White House employee went down, the total number of White 
     House staffers went down, and the total amount spent on White 
     House salaries went down. If pay increases were issued, they 
     were given for a variety of reasons, ranging from promotions 
     to additional work responsibilities,'' Schultz said.
       Most employee survey data, like these by The Conference 
     Project, projected about 3 percent raises on average for 
     employees nationwide this year.
       The White House is of course a different entity than the 
     private sector so it's hard to exactly do an apples to apples 
     comparison.
                                  ____


                     [From the Hill, July 6, 2011]

                 Republican Mocks White House Salaries

                            (By Judy Kurtz)

       A Republican congressman on Wednesday criticized the White 
     House for paying staffers too much in salary.
       ``I guess there's just so much greatness when you're 
     associated with this White House that you deserve to be paid 
     more,'' Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said. ``Let's face it, 
     when you're a dictator, you need to be paid more.''
       Gohmert made clear his remark was meant to be sarcastic. 
     However, he criticized the White House for paying 141 aides 
     more than $100,000 per year. A report from the White House 
     released Friday listed the salaries of 454 employees and 
     showed that no staffer is paid less than $40,000.
       ``It sounds like the only thing that's truly shovel-ready 
     is all the bull that they've been feeding to us over the last 
     two and a half years,'' Gohmert said on the Fox News Business 
     channel. ``That needs to be shoveled out in a hurry.''
       Gohmert also slammed a White House stimulus report released 
     last Friday that asserted the stimulus created as many as 3.6 
     million jobs in the first quarter of 2011.
       ``Who would ever dream that paying people $175,000 in the 
     White House would be a bargain compared to how much they're 
     paying to create private sector jobs,'' Gohmert said. 
     ``[President Obama] has squandered so much money that you've 
     heard the sucking sound coming from the private sector.''
       Republicans claim the stimulus paid out $278,000 for every 
     job it created. The White House called that a ``false 
     analysis.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________