[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 27 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H930-H934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hurt). 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, a lot of things going on in the Middle 
East, a

[[Page H931]]

lot of things needing to be addressed at this point. I have grave 
concerns about the manner in which this administration is handling the 
things in the Middle East, maybe continuing with the policy on 
international affairs of this administration, which is, apparently, 
from what we see them doing, if you've been an ally to the United 
States, if you have been our friend, if you have fought with us, if you 
have had friends and family that fought with us and lost their lives, 
then this administration's message is we're going to throw you under 
the bus and we're going to negotiate and help your enemy and our enemy.
  So it almost looks like the best thing to do for people in the United 
States that want help from the Federal Government: move to an island, 
declare war against the United States, and then this administration 
will send you all kinds of money and help, buy you an office in Qatar, 
all kinds of things we're willing to do if you're an enemy.
  One of the latest things to be occurring, this week we're hearing 
reports from Egypt, after this administration, through an ally with 
whom agreements had been signed, negotiations continue to be ongoing 
with Mubarak in Egypt. The man certainly wasn't a Teddy bear by any 
stretch of the imagination, but he had had some success in keeping some 
semblance of peace with Israel.
  And yet this administration was quick to tell Mubarak, as our ally, 
he had to get out. Kind of the way that President Carter failed to 
support another guy that was not a nice man, but the Shah in Iran. And 
the Carter administration also welcomed the return from exile of a man 
commonly called the Ayatollah Khomeini. The Carter administration 
welcomed him as a man of peace. As a result of that, Americans have 
lost lives and will continue to lose lives. There was nothing 
intentional in that fiasco by the Carter administration.

                              {time}  1210

  They meant well. They intended good for the country and the Middle 
East. They just simply didn't know what they were doing.
  Right now we're seeing reports this week that the Muslim Brotherhood 
in Egypt--who certainly made clear from their actions they're not our 
friends. They are certainly not a friend of Israel. They've been making 
noise for some time that they did not intend to recognize Israel, they 
did not want to keep the peace treaty with Israel. In fact, there is an 
article from February 14, 2011, by Dean Reynolds from CBS Interactive 
that points out that Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood--this was 
supposedly before the Arab Spring even--never supported the Camp David 
Accords, and a leading secular politician, Ayman Nur, says they should 
be renegotiated.
  The people that this administration has been so out front and 
welcoming, sending people over there--those that have been able to get 
out and come back that aren't being held by this obviously anti-
American government that has taken shape--are indicating, at least 
those in the administration, gee, we've got to send a bunch of money to 
Egypt, we're going to try to buy them off and buy their allegiance. 
I've been saying for many years now every term since I've been here 
something that should be clear to all Americans: When it comes to all 
this money that we throw at people around the world that hate our guts, 
that want to see the United States brought down, places where they 
laughed when 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11, we're sending them 
money. The thing I've been saying ever since I got to Congress is: You 
don't have to pay people to hate you. They will do it for free.
  I've had a U.N. voting accountability bill that I've filed in each 
Congress. It got over 100 votes at one point, and hopefully that will 
continue to grow. The bill is very simple and it follows the adage that 
I have been saying for all these years: You don't have to pay people to 
hate you. They'll do it for free.
  The bill is very simple. Any nation that votes against the United 
States' position in the U.N. more than 50 percent of the time would get 
no money, no assistance of any kind from the United States. These 
countries are autonomous, they're independent, and they're free to make 
whatever decisions they wish, but if they are going to be anti-American 
and be against all of the human rights positions that we hold dear, 
whether it is for religion or gender--as we see women's rights being 
abused so badly around the world in countries we're pouring in money, 
as we see in areas in the world where we have poured in hundreds of 
billions of dollars, and yet they are doing all they can to eliminate 
churches--some have been successful--to persecute Christians and Jews, 
yet we continue to pour in money.
  Since we've seen the position of this administration being anti-
religious here in recent days, it's starting to come together and make 
more sense that this administration is simply being consistent. We 
admire consistency; but when they want to send money to countries that 
persecute Christians and persecute those who want to worship freely, I 
guess that is consistent with what has been done in the President's 
ObamaCare bill and the latest pronouncement that Catholics just needed 
to set aside their religious beliefs because they were inconsistent 
with what the President wanted done.
  We've got an article here from February 18, 2011. This headline from 
Reuters says: Peace Treaty with Israel is Up to the Egyptian People.
  This was a year ago:
  Spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood responds to U.S. National 
Intelligence director, who said he assumed Brotherhood was not in favor 
of maintaining peace treaty with Israel.
  Well, that's a nice thing for this administration to plant in the 
head of the Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt, 
that, gee, we kind of just assumed you wouldn't want to support the 
treaty with Israel.
  Well, that allowed the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to say, you know 
what, gee, we thought you were going to be upset with us if we didn't 
support the treaty with Israel, but thanks for letting us know that 
your assumption would be that when you helped us take over that we 
wouldn't support Israel being there.
  Great move. That was the Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper. He said this regarding the Muslim Brotherhood:

       I would assess that they are not in favor of the treaty.

  What kind of diplomatic fiasco is that?
  We go to September 12, 2011. This September 12, 2011 article one day 
past the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, and the headline reads, Muslim 
Brotherhood: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty Needs to be Reviewed.
  The subtitle: Muslim Brotherhood tells regional Asharq al-Awsat daily 
peace treaty is of great importance; says Israel generally does not 
honor the agreement.
  Then they quote Mahmoud Hussein, the group's secretary general, as 
saying:

       And like the other agreements, it needs to be reviewed, and 
     this is in the hands of the parliament.

  There are others in which some in a position of power in Egypt have 
called for the complete elimination of any agreement with Israel. There 
are those who have said, let's put it up to a national vote, and since 
the Muslim Brotherhood is all about Israel no longer existing and since 
the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a slim majority in the government 
there in Egypt, then it would seem that it's likely their position 
would prevail.
  In all of those years, the one crowning glory that the Carter 
administration can point to, the Camp David Accords, this 
administration has even thrown the Carter administration under the bus, 
just like they have some of our allies like the Northern Alliance in 
Afghanistan, like those who were loyal to Americans in Iraq, like the 
Kurds in many ways in northern Iraq, like Israel, for example, in the 
manner in which we've treated them publicly.
  It was May 2 years ago that this administration did what some thought 
was unthinkable, that this administration or any administration would 
never do, they voted with all of Israel's enemies in demanding Israel 
disclose their weaponry, particularly nuclear weapons, any that they 
have. We had never done that before.
  For those that bother to look in the Old Testament or the Jewish 
Bible--the Old Testament to some of us--you can read the account of 
Hezekiah welcoming leaders from Babylon. Isaiah

[[Page H932]]

was sent to Hezekiah and asked--he knew the answer, but he asked 
Hezekiah, what have you done? In essence, Hezekiah, King of Israel 
said: These wonderful leaders--of course this is a Texas paraphrase--
these wonderful leaders came over from Babylon and I showed them all 
our treasure and I showed them all our defenses, our armaments.

                              {time}  1220

  In essence, Isaiah basically said, You fool. Because you've done 
this, you'll lose the country.
  Now, it has been hard for some administrations that took the position 
in thinking, Gee, if you're just completely open, as Hezekiah was, 
about our defenses and what all we have, if you bring people on and let 
them review your nuclear submarines, if you let them see the abilities 
we have, if you bring them into our military bases and show them how we 
operate, and if you show them our tactics, that they'll just all of a 
sudden fall in love with us, and that it will make us stronger.
  The lesson throughout history, including the one Hezekiah and his 
sons had to learn the hard way, is that you don't show your enemies all 
your defenses. You don't climb into political relationships with those 
who want to destroy you, with those who want to destroy your best 
friends. It's not a good message.
  In an article from Fox News, it reads:

       Al Qaeda on the rise in Syria has a ``marriage of 
     convenience'' with Iran, U.S. intelligence director says.

  I would think that was pretty obvious. I'm glad someone with our 
intelligence department has been able to figure that out. Hopefully, 
they'll be able to figure that out with regard to Lebanon. Hopefully, 
our intelligence department will be able to figure that out with regard 
to Iraq; that the leader in Iraq has shown hostility to this government 
and to the people in this government.
  It's to the point that when five of us were over there, a bipartisan 
group, we had a couple of questions that Maliki did not particularly 
appreciate, one about, hey, there were people who were assuring us back 
in 2001, 2002, 2003 that if we came and got rid of this terrible 
dictator who hated the United States named Saddam Hussein, that because 
Iraq was so oil rich, that once we were able to turn the country back 
over to the Iraqi people after wresting it away from a totalitarian 
dictator who killed and abused and tortured Iraqi citizens, Iraq would 
be so grateful once the oil got to flowing that they would help 
ameliorate some of the vast amounts of treasure that Americans spent to 
allow them to elect their own leaders, to allow them to elect a leader 
like Maliki.
  He was deeply offended, it appeared, as he was when I brought up Camp 
Ashraf and the maltreatment--in fact, the killing--of residents of Camp 
Ashraf, who were Iranian refugees. The concern was the United States 
had promised the residents of Camp Ashraf, the Iranian refugees in 
Iraq, that we would make sure they were protected. When Maliki's 
government took over from us, he, himself, promised Camp Ashraf 
residents that he and his government would make sure they were safe. 
Maliki promised the United States that he would keep them safe.
  Yet, apparently, the pressure from Iran and the fear that Iran has 
instilled in the leadership in Iraq, particularly in Maliki, is so 
profound that since he knew President Obama had made clear we were 
pulling out completely and that we weren't going to be around to 
protect them, to help them, and that we were getting out completely and 
that we were not going to be around to make sure that our investment of 
American lives and treasure was not wasted--we were pulling out, 
leaving everything to him, going to leave everything to chance despite 
the investment--Maliki showed no gratitude. In fact, he showed 
hostility.
  In fact, when our group of five bipartisan Members of Congress was 
flying out on one of the luxurious C 130s--I am prone to sarcasm. The C 
130s are no better than they were when I was in the Army 30 years ago. 
You're sitting on web seating just like the paratroopers used back 
then--and still use--and the back end opens down. They're the same C 
130s. We were flying out, and we got word by radio that Maliki's 
government had told us that our group of five Members of Congress was 
no longer welcome in his country. The man seems to have thrown in with 
Iran.
  I know we have some brilliant intelligence officers. I've interacted 
with some of our intelligence community. I'm quite impressed with the 
intelligence of many of our intelligence officers, and I am hopeful 
that the intelligence at the lower levels of our intelligence agencies 
will eventually affect those in top positions in our intelligence 
agencies so they will begin to realize what others have known for a 
very long time.
  In Afghanistan, I understand President Karzai is not terribly pleased 
with the position that some of us have taken, but some of us are not 
terribly pleased with the positions of the Karzai Government in 
throwing in--well, at least in accommodating--the Taliban, in 
accommodating those who are supplying the Taliban, and in the Taliban 
itself, as it continues to plot and kill Americans.
  But, in fairness to President Karzai, when you look at his situation, 
President Obama has made clear that the United States is completely 
getting out of Afghanistan, and that we're going to leave them just as 
we did Iraq, just as the Democratic Congress demanded in 1974 from 
Vietnam. We were going to leave our allies, those who had fought with 
us and assisted us, who had lost family, friends, treasure to support 
our position because they were enemies of our enemy. This 
administration was going to leave them high and dry, and this 
administration has already shown in Iraq that that's what happens.
  So, from President Karzai's position, he has got to be sitting there, 
going, They're about to leave. The Taliban has gotten stronger and 
stronger with Pakistan's supplying and assisting them. The United 
States Government will not be here to protect me. Gee, maybe I'd better 
start being nicer to the Taliban and the radical elements in the 
Pakistan Government because that's who's going to determine whether I 
stay in power or not.
  I found out in a meeting with some Afghan officials from the Northern 
Alliance--and then I've done subsequent research since--that the 
Government of Afghanistan has about a $12.5 billion budget. They, 
themselves, collect enough revenue--taxes and whatnot--in Afghanistan 
that they're able to supply about $1.5 billion of their $12.5 billion 
budget. The rest comes from other countries, and most of that is from 
the United States.
  It was interesting traveling around Afghanistan before New Year's and 
after New Year's and going to forward operating bases, talking to some 
of our troops. We've got some terrific folks on the ground over there, 
but there is a problem. Those of us who majored in history know and 
those of us who have bothered to read any history have learned that 
that is a tough area in which to be an occupier as a foreign country. 
Foreign countries occupying or trying to occupy in Afghanistan don't do 
very well. It's not a place we ought to be occupying.

                              {time}  1230

  So I hear some, like some in this administration, it sounds like 
they're throwing up their hands saying, Well, let's just get out and 
let happen whatever is going to happen, because they know occupying 
forces don't do well. They're right about that. But by simply 
withdrawing without using some intelligence and some lessons learned 
from history means that we may have to fight the Taliban again. And it 
may, again, be after a massive loss of American lives. And perhaps the 
next time it will be when they're armed with nuclear weapons where they 
can kill hundreds of thousands instead of thousands.
  Of course, if you read the communications that were intercepted about 
9/11, they were hopeful there for a while that there would be maybe 
50,000 people in the Twin Towers that were going to be killed, they 
hoped were killed when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New 
York City. They didn't care about innocent American lives or all those 
foreign visiting folks that were in the Twin Towers. They could care 
less. They wanted to make a point, and make a point by killing tens of 
thousands.
  Well, with the inappropriate strategy of this government, of this 
administration, the Obama administration, we

[[Page H933]]

could end up having this Nation pay a far greater price than has even 
been paid to date.
  Unfortunately, there are consequences for bad decisions. It is 
important that we select proper leadership in this country. Anybody 
that reads through the book of Hosea will find a verse--and I had never 
had it jump out as it did until a few weeks ago. And there are 
different translations, but I like the translation in which the 
communication from God to Hosea was:

       He was angry with the people of Israel because He said they 
     had chosen leaders who were not God's choice.

  There needs to be a lot more praying in this country as we select our 
leaders, as we select our national leaders for President, for his 
administration, for those who are elected to Congress, for those who 
are elected to the Senate, for those who are elected in State and local 
elections, and a lesson for us in Congress that we elect, within 
Congress, the proper leaders because, as the Founders believed, we are 
endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.
  One-third of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were 
not just Christians; they were ordained ministers. One of them has a 
translation of the Bible--one of the signers of the Declaration--which 
still can be found in print today. These people understood the lessons 
from history, and they did not want to make those mistakes.
  Here we have, from February 13, an article by Patrick Goodenough 
entitled, ``Hamas Leader Promises Iran Never to Recognize Israel.''
  Now, we've had some in this country, in this administration, who have 
indicated privately, you know, we don't really have to worry; Sunnis 
and Shias hate each other. They're never going to come together. So 
that can help keep one from getting too much power because there is 
that conflict. Well, because, in small part--but the small part is 
growing into a larger part due to some of the actions and inactions of 
this administration--Shias and Sunnis are coming together.
  So here you have a Hamas Gaza leader, Ismail Haniyeh, delivering a 
speech at a rally in Tehran, Iran, last Saturday, marking the 33rd 
anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. He's speaking, and behind him 
are the portraits of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and his 
predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini. Here he is in the Gaza Strip as a 
leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, and he's speaking on behalf 
of Iranian leaders. We are bringing Shia and Sunni together, like 
people 10 years ago would never have believed possible, by the 
ineptitude of what's happening in this administration.
  But, the article points out:

       Amid growing speculation of a split within the top ranks of 
     Hamas, Iranian leaders at the weekend urged the terrorist 
     group's Gaza leader to continue its campaign of violent 
     resistance and pledged continuing financial support.

  This from a terrorist group of leaders who are pledging to support 
the terrorist Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip. And the Supreme Leader 
Ayatollah Khamenei told the Gaza Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, people 
do not expect anything except endurance from Palestine's resistance.
  It's time to wake up to what's going on with this administration and 
their help for groups that hate America, that hate Israel.
  Here's an article from February 12, which says, ``Muslim Brotherhood 
Lawmakers: U.S. Aid to Cairo Assured.'' Well, isn't that special. He's 
gotten an assurance from this administration, as he told Al-Hayat, that 
if the U.S. cut aid to Egypt, it would be a violation of the 1979 peace 
accords. They've indicated they're not interested in keeping the 1979 
peace accords.
  Here's an article from February 13, ``Muslim Brotherhood Warns U.S. 
Aid Cut May Affect Egypt's Peace Treaty With Israel.'' But apparently 
they're getting assurances--hey, we're going to make sure you keep 
getting money from us. You hate our guts. You hate Israel. You want 
Israel gone. So, you know, hey, we're going to keep supporting you.
  And, in fact, in another article from February 13 of this year, the 
headline reads, ``Obama Proposes $800 Million in Aid for `Arab Spring.' 
'' Well, we've seen what the Arab Spring has done. If you were a 
Christian while Mubarak was in power, there was some persecution, and 
it wasn't pretty. But now, all semblance of any efforts to allow 
Christians to worship freely in Egypt is gone. We saw a headline last 
year that the last public Christian church in Afghanistan had to be 
closed. We continue to pour in aid.
  Here is a February 8, 2012, headline, ``Pentagon Counters Dim 
Assessment of Afghan War.'' Then there's another article, ``The 
Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read,'' by Michael 
Hastings. There's one by Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, ``Truth, 
Lies, and Afghanistan: How Military Leaders Have Let Us Down.'' Here's 
one from February 10, 2012, ``Roads to Nowhere: Program to Win Over 
Afghans Fails.''
  In talking to some of our troops in forward positions in Afghanistan, 
some were a bit down, particularly those who have been training Afghans 
to farm, because we are sending around $3 billion for nothing but 
projects in Afghanistan, including these types of farming projects, so 
the people can make their own way.

                              {time}  1240

  Yet we were told they were training the Afghans, they have been 
training the Afghans; but the billions of dollars the United States 
Government, the Obama administration has sent to Afghanistan to help 
them develop farming projects, at least in this one region, has never 
gotten past the corrupt regional government.
  So the projects where they could use these farming skills that are 
being taught don't exist, and they are not anticipated to exist. We set 
up a corrupt government in Afghanistan. And I don't know how honest 
anybody in the Karzai regime was before they got there, but there 
should be a lesson that can be learned from King David, the only person 
mentioned in the Bible to have had a heart after God's own, that when 
there is no accountability, even the best among us can do terrible 
things.
  So when you set up a government in Afghanistan and we, the United 
States, supported their constitution that said sharia law ruled, that 
meant there were not going to be any more Christian churches in 
Afghanistan, and now there're not. Not publicly. And Jews have had to 
flee from Afghanistan. The last report I read said there was one 
publicly acknowledged Jew in Afghanistan.
  With all of the blood and treasure we shed to eliminate the Taliban, 
the Taliban has now come back, and now this administration has 
announced to the world and to the Taliban, Look, we will release all of 
the people we have in detention that have murdered American troops, we 
will let them come back. They can keep murdering when we let them go. 
We'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar if you'll just come talk 
to us.
  That is the kind of proposal that everyone has heard, and that's what 
has allowed Taliban leaders, as one of them did in Afghanistan earlier 
this month, to announce to all of Afghanistan in their largest 
television station that, look, we're about to be in charge as soon as 
the American Government leaves.
  So here's the deal. The American Government is--they basically 
acknowledge we've whipped them, they've lost. So they're doing 
everything they can to get us to negotiate. So here's the situation. If 
you have not been totally supportive of the Taliban here in 
Afghanistan, they say, then it's time to come to us, ask forgiveness, 
and ask for our providing safety for you. Because if you don't, when we 
take over, as soon as the U.S. pulls out, you know, you're in trouble. 
And the result could be the death penalty.
  There is a way around totally abandoning the investment we had for a 
peaceful Afghanistan without a powerful Taliban. It's common sense. You 
see it throughout history. What you do is support friends who are 
enemies of your enemy. The Taliban is our enemy. We know that the 
Taliban can be defeated because they were when we had less than 1,500 
American troops in Afghanistan, Special Ops guys, incredibly trained, 
and some of our best intelligence officers over there from our 
intelligence agencies, obviously not top intelligence officials because 
these guys were really competent. And they

[[Page H934]]

whipped the Taliban, had them completely on the run. And then we kind 
of took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and started looking at 
Iraq, and the Taliban has made a resurgence, and they have become 
powerful again in Afghanistan.
  In meeting with leaders from the Northern Alliance--even though 
Secretary Clinton and former Secretary Albright did what they could to 
keep us from meeting because, apparently, when this administration 
throws our allies under a bus, this administration wants them to stay 
under the bus. Some of us believe if somebody has been our ally, has 
helped fight our enemy, then they need to remain our friends. These are 
Muslims. These are our friends, and their enemy is our enemy. And I'm 
told by some of the military, American military leaders, that the 
Northern Alliance has plenty of weapons; but they don't have all the 
weapons that they had when they defeated the Taliban before. We do not 
have to stay in Afghanistan. But if we do not want to have to come back 
and fight the Taliban again, the thing to do is rearm and reempower the 
enemy of our enemies.
  Afghanistan has never been strong and never had a strong central 
government. What made us, in our arrogance, think we could force a 
strong centralized government that would work in that country? It is a 
very tribal nation. In the northern area, this administration wants to 
call our allies, our former allies warlords, war criminals, blood on 
their hands. They were fighting for us and with us. So in this 
administration's effort to manipulate the U.S. media, they leak all 
kinds of stories about how terrible our allies were. They're fighting 
terrible people. They're fighting people who were training others to 
come kill thousands and thousands of Americans. These are not nice 
people, and war is not a pleasant thing.
  The Northern Alliance leaders had two asks: one, help us get a 
constitution amended so that we get to elect our regional leaders. Each 
province in Afghanistan should be able to elect their local governors. 
Each province should be able to elect the mayors of the towns within 
that province. Let them select their own police chief. Let them do as 
the United States came together to do, not so much in 1983 with 
Articles of Confederation, but in 1987 with our U.S. Constitution that 
allowed people to elect local government officials, State government 
officials, and national officials.
  We have a constitution that has been set up in Afghanistan that 
basically lets the Karzai administration appoint the regional 
governors, the mayors. They select the police chiefs. That is a system 
fraught with corruption. No matter how honest anybody is going in, 
including President Karzai, how in the world could you stay honest and 
above corruption when you have set up a system that lends itself to 
corruption?
  Well, that's what's happening. So it doesn't seem so much to ask, let 
the Northern Alliance, as every other area of Afghanistan, elect their 
local leaders, elect their governors, and then those regional areas 
become strong again.
  And then just as States fuss when the Federal Government of the 
United States tries to get too powerful, as we've seen with ObamaCare, 
let's empower those regional provincial governments in Afghanistan to 
be powerful enough to call down their national leaders when they are 
corrupt. Let's empower them to fix their own problems, and you don't 
have to have massive numbers of American troops to do that, but you do 
have to be smart in the way you deal with a country that has lots of 
your enemies that want to kill you.
  So they asked, let us elect our local, regional leaders. Give us 
enough equipment where we can defeat the Taliban again, for you and for 
us.
  Now, in meeting and talking to people in Afghanistan, they knew, as 
did the Baluch leaders in southern Pakistan, that the Taliban is being 
supplied and equipped with armaments. IEDs that are dismembering and 
killing our soldiers in Afghanistan are being supplied through the 
southern area of Pakistan.

                              {time}  1250

  This is an area of Pakistan that hadn't been Pakistan until 1948 when 
international leaders arbitrarily took pencils and just drew boundary 
lines, and they included most of Balochistan in with Pakistan. The 
Balochistanis did not want to be there. They have a very mineral-rich 
area that is supplying Pakistan with most of their minerals. And yet 
the Pakistan Government is so badly mistreating the Baluch people. They 
raid, they torture, and they terrorize the Baluch people in southern 
Pakistan.
  And if Pakistan is going to so terribly mistreat our Muslim friends 
in southern Pakistan, in the Balochistan area of Pakistan, then it's 
time to push for an independent Balochistan that will be a nation of 
Muslim friends of the United States, and we will remain their friends 
because their enemy is our enemy, and we won't have to sacrifice 
American troops, American lives, and massive amounts of American 
treasure like we have been doing. You simply empower the enemy of our 
enemy and let them do the work for us.
  That is the solution. That would be in keeping with holding dear the 
American lives that have been lost in fighting the Taliban in 
Afghanistan. That would be true to our beliefs and our desire only to 
fight those who want to destroy what we are and who we are. That would 
truly honor those who have given so much in honor of this country.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I have a friend, Mr. Mo Brooks, here. I 
yield back the balance of my time so Mr. Brooks can be recognized.

                          ____________________