[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 146 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6501-H6503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CURRENT EVENTS

  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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I know my friend from the Virgin Islands and I have differences on 
political issues, but she was very gracious to me personally and I will 
always be grateful, very grateful. Thank you.
  We do differ on some of the issues. And hearing my friend across the 
aisle from Michigan (Mr. Clarke), he wants what's best for his 
constituents. He wants them to have jobs. He wants them to have less 
taxes. He wants them to be able to revitalize their city. And that is 
what people want on both sides of the aisle. We just have a difference 
of opinion on the best way to go about it.
  My friend from California said that the Tea Party really didn't want 
anything that will raise revenues. And I know she believes that, but 
the contrary is actually true. And what we have seen historically is, 
when you create jobs, even if the tax rate is lowered, if you do 
something that creates jobs, then the tax rate increases.
  Some people have tried to vilify me because I'm advocating getting 
rid of a rather insidious--I sometimes think it is the most insidious 
tax we have because it has convinced rank-and-file folks across America 
that they don't have to pay this tax, some greedy, nasty corporation 
will pay the corporate tax, when the truth is the corporations are 
nothing but collection agents. If they don't collect the tax by adding 
on price to the cost of their product, to the price of their services, 
they don't stay in business. They're a collection agent. So the fact 
is, if you were to drop that tariff that we lay on our own products--
it's a 35 percent tax. It's really a tariff. You eliminate that and 
jobs come rushing back into America.
  The number one reason you get when you travel around the world--
whether it's Africa, China. Others tell me from South America, Hey, we 
had to move because America has the highest corporate tax of any 
country in the world, 35 percent. China is 17 percent. So you lower 
that tariff that corporations have to collect on their goods, jobs 
would come flooding back, and we could see Detroit become the car 
capital that it once was and that it should be. We would see those jobs 
come back.
  In first questioning CEOs overseas, the number one answer I would get 
on why they moved was too much regulation. Well, that was a problem. 
Difficulty in dealing with unions or too high wages compared to what 
people get around the world, that was a problem.

                              {time}  2110

  It wasn't the number one problem. The number one problem was the 35 
percent corporate tax, a tariff we put on all American-made goods.
  I've had people who, apparently, with degrees, are educated beyond 
their abilities, say, but if you lowered or got rid of the corporate 
tax, where would all that tax money come from? Because they don't 
understand how jobs are created. They think that money, it's a zero sum 
balance. It just would go away, and there would be no more tax. We'd 
lose that much tax.
  And, in fact, the liberal Congress that existed in 1974 when they set 
up CBO and set up their rules for scoring bills does not allow the 
Congressional Budget Office to score based on reality. They are forced 
to score under archaic, unrealistic rules that are not allowed to take 
into consideration past history in calculating future performance. Huge 
mistake. But the Democrats in charge in 1974 knew what they were doing.
  So you drop that tax. And, like I've said, the American Jobs Act is 
my bill. After the President beat up on us for 6 days, and it became 
very obvious he was more concerned about making speeches about American 
Jobs Act than he was actually getting one filed and getting one pushed 
through, then I felt like, if he's going to criticize me and our 
friends here for not passing the American Jobs Act, by golly, there 
ought to be one. So I did file one, and that's what it does.
  I'm negotiable. If the President would like to come up zero in 
corporate tax, I'm flexible. But the fact is, jobs would come rushing 
back into this country if the manufacturers, if the companies knew no 
corporate tariff is put on those products. They could compete around 
the world; we would retake the world.
  I know there are people in this country, good folks, smart folks, 
that think we are better off as a service-oriented society in America, 
rather than a manufacturing society. The trouble with that is, and as I 
heard from people in West Africa last year, we're their hope for 
freedom. If we don't remain strong, as one elderly gentleman told me, 
they have no chance of enjoying freedom in this life.
  Well, you can't be an international power and protect freedom, not 
here, not anywhere, unless you can produce the things that are needed 
in the event of war. That's why I'm an advocate for natural gas being 
used to power cars. We need to make sure it's safe, but it's cleaner 
burning.
  Some people say, no, we've got to get cars that run on electricity. 
They don't apparently realize that electricity has to be generated 
somewhere, and it's obvious that Solyndra's not going to be producing 
it for us. Maybe if we give them several trillion dollars instead of 
just 600 billion, maybe eventually they could come up with a product 
that would compete, but that hasn't happened.
  So mistakes have been made. Mistakes get made on both sides of the 
aisle. Republicans made a mistake in '05 and '06, my freshman term 
here, and I have to say that our friends across the aisle rightfully 
beat up on us back in 2006 for spending $160 billion more than we took 
in. We shouldn't have done that. And they promised they would get 
spending down under control and would not run a deficit like that if 
they were simply given the majority. They were for 4 years, and the 
spending went through the roof.
  Republicans made a mistake by spending more than was coming in by 
$160 billion. And then our friends across the aisle made a mistake over 
the last 4 years as they got that spending up over $1 trillion, $1.5 
trillion more than we were bringing in. Major mistake.
  But I want to spend the remainder of my time tonight in talking about 
another problem that we've had here in the United States and with the 
Federal Government. There's been a lot of talk the last few days about 
the death of Anwar al-Awlaki. And it is important to note the things 
that we were told in past years about Mr. Awlaki.
  Pajamas Medium, that's a funny name, but Patrick Poole has done a 
good job doing some research on some of the old articles. For example, 
back in November of 2001 The Washington Post--let's see, I think 
they're going after our Governor from Texas right now.
  Well, that same Washington Post had a wonderful blog back in November 
of 2001 and featured none other than Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. And he was 
allowed to use The Washington Post to try to convince people of what a 
man of peace he was. And you get the impression, certainly, The 
Washington Post said he was a good guy.
  You can look back, again, November 19, 2001. And I printed this off 
of the Internet from The Washington Post. Understanding Ramadan, the 
Muslim month of fasting. And they featured Imam Anwar al-Awlaki.
  Now, obviously, The Washington Post doesn't care much for the 
Governor of Texas, but they certainly had a great appreciation for the 
man that was killed recently, featuring him in their publication to 
explain things for us. And they featured him explaining

[[Page H6502]]

that, about Ramadan. Isn't that wonderful that The Washington Post 
would reach out to someone who it turns out wanted to destroy America, 
our way of life, thought it was a good idea to kill Americans, believed 
that actually it would be a good thing to bring down America. It was 
good The Washington Post would give him that much time because they're 
so open-minded, honorable people. So are they all, all honorable 
people, as Shakespeare had Mark Anthony saying.

  All those folks at The Washington Post, they're honorable people. I 
mean, why else would they give their paper, their moniker, to a man 
that they judged to be a man of peace?
  New York Times had a good article, October 19 of 2001, and they 
mentioned Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijrah 
mosque in Virginia, one of the Nation's largest, which draws about 
3,000 worshippers for communal prayers each Friday.
  ``In the past we were oblivious. We didn't really care much because 
we never expected things to happen. Now I think things are different. 
What we might have tolerated in the past we won't tolerate anymore. 
There were some statements that were inflammatory and were considered 
just talk, but now we realize that talk can be taken seriously and 
acted upon in a violent, radical way,'' said Mr. Awlaki, who, at 30, is 
held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East 
and West, born in New Mexico to parents from Yemen, who studied Islam 
in Yemen and civil engineering at Colorado State University.
  So they featured what they believed to be a man of peace. And, 
certainly, The New York Times is full of honorable people. So are they 
all at The New York Times, all honorable people that had such nice 
things to say about the man who would destroy America.
  Of course, Fox News published an article on May 20, 2011, that said:
  With the recent death and, again, this was May of this year, of Osama 
bin Laden, the life of another al-Qaeda-linked radical Muslim cleric--
well, that seems pretty hurtful of them, Fox News, to say about someone 
that The New York Times and The Washington Post thought so highly of. 
I'm sorry that Fox News was so mean to somebody that The Times and The 
Washington Post liked so much.
  The article goes on:
  Documents obtained exclusively by Fox News and its special unit shed 
new light on his stint as a guest speaker at the Pentagon just months 
after the September 11 terror attacks. American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, 
the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, which seems a 
little mean of the CIA. I mean, The Washington Post and The New York 
Times thought he was okay back in 2001.

                              {time}  2120

  Again, the article says:
  American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill 
or capture list, is still considered a grave threat to U.S. national 
security. He now is hiding out in Yemen, where earlier this month a 
U.S. missile attack tried to kill him and his followers.
  The scene was much different on February 5, 2002, when the radical 
imam was invited to and attended the Pentagon event.
  Fox News obtained new documents through a Free of Information Act 
request as part of a year-long investigation called ``Fox News 
Reporting: Secrets of 9/11.'' An internal Department of Defense email 
that announced the event with Awlaki also laid out other details, like 
a proposed menu including pork, which is prohibited for Muslims. The 
email states ``the chef will create something special for 
vegetarians.''
  The documents show that more than 70 people were copied on the 
invitation, which originated in the Defense Department's Office of the 
General Counsel. It is home to the Pentagon's top lawyer.
  ``I have reserved one of the executive dining rooms for February 5, 
which is the date he, Awlaki, preferred,'' a Defense Department lawyer 
wrote in the email announcing the event.
  ``He will be leaving for an extensive period of time on February 
11.''
  The email states that New Mexico born al-Awlaki was the featured 
guest speaker on ``Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture.''
  The Defense Department lawyer who vetted the imam wrote that she 
``had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki's presentations in 
November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by 
how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in 
the audience.''
  The article goes on and points out that al-Awlaki, a dual U.S. and 
Yemeni national, was interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the 
first 8 days after September 11 because he had ties to the three 
hijackers involved. They were three of the five hijackers of American 
Airlines Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon. Apparently none 
of the FBI's information about Awlaki, his ties to the hijackers or his 
history of soliciting prostitutes, was shared with the Pentagon.
  Another article published in Andrew Breitbart Presents Big Peace, 
November 9, 2010, points out that al-Awlaki was involved in the 
training of the Defense Department's Muslim chaplains and lay leaders 
as an instructor at the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in 
America, IIASA, in the Washington, D.C., area.
  It goes on to say:
  Controlled by the Saudi Embassy and operating under the kingdom's 
Ministry of Higher Education, the IIASA served as the branch campus of 
the al Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh. The 
institute was certified to train the Pentagon's Muslim chaplains until 
2003. Many of the faculty members, who held diplomatic passports, had 
their visas revoked in January 2004, and the institute itself was 
raided by the FBI, Customs, and the IRS the following July.
  It goes on to say:
  Awlaki's role in the program was reported by Glenn Simpson at The 
Wall Street Journal back in December 2003 but hasn't been mentioned 
since. Writing about the IIASA's controversial role in the military 
chaplain program, Simpson noted:
  ``Anwar al-Awlaki, the former imam at a mosque in San Diego, also has 
lectured at the institute. A congressional report on September 11 
released this July said Mr. Awlaki counseled two of the hijackers while 
they stayed in San Diego and then transferred to a mosque that both 
hijackers attended in northern Virginia shortly before the attacks. Mr. 
Awlaki, who is now believed to be in Yemen, has denied knowing of the 
hijackers' plans.''
  The article goes on:
  More is now known about Awlaki's relationship with the 9/11 terror 
plot. Time magazine reported that the cleric held closed-door meetings 
with two of the hijackers in San Diego, and the pair followed Awlaki to 
the D.C. area when he moved there in early 2001. Hani Hanjour, who flew 
American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, joined them there. The 
three hijackers attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, 
Virginia, where Awlaki served as imam.
  Well, isn't that interesting?
  Also, a report, this is a Rewind: Anwar al-Awlaki leads prayers 
inside U.S. Capitol for congressional Muslim staffers.
  This is from Pajamas Media:
  Anwar al-Awlaki's appearance leading Friday afternoon prayers inside 
the U.S. Capitol following the 9/11 attacks. As Fox News later 
reported, Anwar al-Awlaki was not the only terror-tied al Qaeda 
cleric leading prayers for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association.

  Then it goes on and points out that there is footage of Awlaki 
leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers (which also included 
then-CAIR official and now convicted terror operative Randall 
``Ismail'' Royer) shot for a PBS documentary called ``Muhammad: Legacy 
of a Prophet.''
  Interesting stuff.
  Of course, National Public Radio, that receives so much of our 
taxpayer money, reported November 1, 2001, that Awlaki was contrasted 
to Osama bin Laden as one of the, quote, moderates who want to solve 
the problems without violence, unquote, and someone who could, quote, 
build bridges between Islam and the West, unquote.
  Interesting stuff. It just doesn't seem that we seem to learn our 
lessons very well.
  We also know that this Attorney General not only had a Justice 
Department-involved, which obviously included ATF involvement in 
selling guns to criminals, Mexican drug cartels who we know killed at 
least one,

[[Page H6503]]

and there may be others, but this Justice Department dropped the 
charges against the individuals and the groups that were named 
coconspirators in the Holy Hand Foundation trial that was tried in 
Dallas, Texas, first to a hung jury. As I understand, there was an 11-1 
verdict. One person held up the verdict, so they tried it again, and 
the Bush administration's Justice Department intended if they got a 
conviction of the five people charged with aiding terrorism that they 
would then move forward. In fact, the Assistant U.S. Attorney involved 
filed pleadings with the court, the District Court in Dallas, Texas, 
the Federal Court, and also with the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans in 
response to some of those groups that were named coconspirators to 
supporting terrorist activity with money and basically said there's a 
prima facie case here. There's enough evidence to keep them in as named 
coconspirators.
  The conviction occurred, I believe it was November of 2008, five 
defendants, 105 counts, as I recall. Then, rather than going forward as 
they should have based on the evidence, the stacks and stacks, the 
boxes and boxes of evidence, this Justice Department decided to drop 
the matter.

                              {time}  2130

  It's understandable given some of the relationships that are 
involved.
  Of course, CAIR, mentioned in one of the articles, was one of the 
named coconspirators to financing terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation 
trial. We know that ISNA was one of the named coconspirators, the 
Islamic Society of North America, and the head of ISNA, Imam Magid. 
Actually, Imam Magid was the leader of a named codefendant in 
sponsoring terrorism in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which this 
administration refused to pursue further. Then we find out that Imam 
Magid, a year ago, was at the White House, leading the White House in 
the Iftar celebration at the conclusion of Ramadan.
  Then, of course, we know that the second-highest person in the 
National Security Agency, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis 
McDonough, was invited and spoke, and thanked Imam Magid there for the 
wonderful prayers at the White House and also for the wonderful 
introduction. They have a wonderful relationship.
  Well, isn't that special.
  In the wake of Mr. Anwar al-Awlaki being killed in Yemen for his role 
in having declared war on the United States, I can't help but reflect 
back on something that sets our country apart. In a new democracy 
visited earlier this year, I had a leader there say, We're constantly 
worried about the military trying to take over because we never had a 
George Washington who did what no one has ever done before or since: 
led the Revolution--a military revolution--won the Revolution, 
resigned, and gone home. Nobody has done it before or since. What a 
man.
  In his resignation that was sent to the 13 Governors, Washington, at 
the end--and there's a painting of him tendering his resignation--
included a prayer. He says in the prayer--and we have his own words, 
but I won't read the whole thing--``I now make it my earnest prayer 
that God would have you and the State over which you preside in His 
holy protection.''
  He goes on and says, ``And finally, that He would most graciously be 
pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean 
ourselves with charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were 
the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and 
without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can 
never hope to be a happy Nation.
  ``I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Your 
excellency's most obedient and very humble servant, George 
Washington.''
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I can't help but wonder if Mr. Al-Awlaki 
ever knew the divine author of our blessed religion, who George 
Washington says, ``without an humble imitation of whose example in 
these things we can never hope to be a happy Nation.''
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________