[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5323-H5325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1320
             TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS TO VISIT UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Heck). 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  There is nothing like being vilified to get your senses acutely 
attuned. We had a hearing in Judiciary last week--on July 19, 
actually--in which Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano 
appeared. During the exchange that I had with Secretary Napolitano, I 
said these words. They're from the transcript:
  And this administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members 
of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White House. You're aware 
of that happening, aren't you?
  Secretary Napolitano: Absolutely not.
  This week, apparently, somebody brought her back into the loop when 
she testified before Pete King's committee. There are a couple of 
articles here about it that are rather interesting. One is from The 
Hill, by Jordy Yager, apparently posted today, July 26:

       Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told lawmakers 
     on Wednesday

[[Page H5324]]

     that a member of an Egyptian militant group labeled by the 
     United States as a terrorist organization was vetted by three 
     U.S. agencies before visiting the White House. Napolitano 
     said the State Department, the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the Secret Service all thoroughly examined the 
     Egyptian man, Hani Nour Eldin, before his visit to 
     Washington, D.C., where he met with Members of Congress and 
     senior administration officials.

  Then there is a quote in the article from Secretary Napolitano that 
says:

       ``As we move forward, we are going to continue to have 
     visitors to this country that the State Department and others 
     feel are useful to bring to the country, to have discussions 
     moving forward, who say they're members of a political party 
     that in the past has been so designated.''

  Another quote:

       ``He was vetted before he got a visa against all known 
     terrorists and other databases for derogatory information. 
     None was found. As he entered the United States, we, too, 
     vetted him against all of our holdings, including terrorists 
     and information from a variety of sources, and no derogatory 
     information was found. Before he entered the White House, he 
     was vetted a third time by the Secret Service. No derogatory 
     information was found. So then we can have some confidence 
     that this was not a security breach in that sense.''
       Napolitano said she knew ``of no such intention'' by U.S. 
     officials to release Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh.
       Chairman King said, ``The administration, whether it's this 
     administration or another administration, may feel that some 
     of these people can be dealt with, can be worked with, but if 
     that's to be done, to me, it would seem it would have to be 
     an open process, a transparent process, where Congress and 
     the people would know who was being let into this country.''
       Napolitano, according to the article, conceded that King 
     made a ``fair point'' and that she would look into whether 
     efforts were taken to notify Members of Congress.

  It's a little pesky detail. There do happen to be laws on the books 
that were apparently ignored in that process.
  The problem is, when the Secretary of Homeland Security says there is 
no derogatory information, when the information we have indicates he is 
a member of a group that we have named as a terrorist organization, 
then it would seem that the obvious thing would be the fact that he is 
a member of a known terrorist organization, which would, to most of us, 
or at least to many of us, be considered derogatory information. The 
fact that we can't dig up minute details of specific acts of 
misconduct, nonetheless, should not be necessary when someone is a 
known member of a terrorist organization, an organization designated by 
this government to be ``terrorist.'' It's an amazing thing.
  But then we're told in an article by Joel Gehrke from The Washington 
Examiner on July 25:

       Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano 
     told Congress today to expect more members of designated 
     foreign terrorist organizations to visit the United States.
       ``I think you are right in pointing out that as we move 
     forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this 
     country that the State Department and others feel are useful 
     to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward 
     who say they are members of the political party that in the 
     past have been so designated,'' Napolitano told House 
     Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King during a 
     committee hearing this morning.
       Napolitano was defending the decision to host Hani Nour 
     Eldin--a member of Egyptian Parliament elected on the 
     political party platform of the Islamic Group, which the 
     State Department has designated a foreign terrorist 
     organization--at the White House.

  Just as a reminder, Mr. Speaker, in our hearing, I said these words:
  This administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of 
terrorist groups who are allowed in the White House. You're aware of 
that happening, aren't you?
  Her answer: Absolutely not.
  So the evidence seems to be pretty clear. He was a member of a known 
terrorist group. He was allowed into the White House, but the answer by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to that happening was: Absolutely 
not.
  She didn't say that we had vetted him many times and that, even 
though he was a member of what we in the State Department had 
designated as a terrorist organization, we still thought he was safe. 
She said it just absolutely did not happen. Absolutely not.
  The article goes on from The Washington Examiner:

       ``I think we have to add more nuance to that,'' she said, 
     when King mentioned that Eldin is part of a designated 
     foreign terrorist organization. ``We have to know what the 
     group was. Is it now a political party that is running the 
     government of a country that has strong ties to the United 
     States?'' She added that he went through three stages of 
     vetting, and ``everyone who looked at this person felt 
     confident that he was not a security risk to the White House 
     or to the United States.''
       King charged the Obama administration with violating a law 
     in hosting Eldin at the White House. ``It appears as if the 
     law was not complied with in that he did not apply for a 
     waiver, and Congress was not notified, which is also 
     required. It does not appear that either the letter or the 
     spirit of the law was complied with.''
       When King reiterated that complaint about the process by 
     which Eldin was allowed into the country, Napolitano 
     conceded, ``On the process, that's a fair point to make.''

  There is a reason we have laws, and you would hope that someone who 
is a Cabinet official in the top position of our Homeland Security 
would think that it is important to comply with the law.

                              {time}  1330

  Just as we've seen massive amounts of money go to places that have 
leaders who say they want to eliminate Israel and the United States, we 
see this kind of conduct from this administration.
  And I have reporters asking me if I want to apologize for five 
separate letters that were written to five separate inspectors general 
of five different departments with different facts pertaining to that 
department in each letter, and the facts in the letter are true. The 
simple question was not an accusation or allegation, because it's 
pretty obvious there is influence by the Muslim Brotherhood in America. 
The question is: How much influence is there, and where is it coming 
from? It is an amazing thing to see all of this transpire.
  Obviously, it's great fun and sport to attack a messenger that is not 
liked by certain people in the media, but what we keep seeing that is 
amazing and that is happening with what was once the proud tradition of 
journalism in America is our national security being sacrificed on the 
altar of political correctness. Why isn't the mainstream media making a 
big deal about a Secretary of Homeland Security who one week says, 
Absolutely not, it was not a member of a known terrorist organization 
that got in the White House, and a week later she admits, It did 
happen, but we properly vetted him three different times?
  I hear about what apparently is being grossly overlooked also that I 
get as I speak to Muslims in other parts of the world who are our 
friends, who have fought with us, who have buried family members and 
loved ones because they want to live in freedom like we do. They don't 
want a strict group like the Taliban dictating their lives. They're 
moderate Muslims who want to live in peace. What they keep bringing 
home to me is what this administration misses entirely. When the 
President of the United States, when the leaders of this country, this 
administration, meet with members of known terrorist organizations and 
will not meet with our Muslim friends who have fought with us instead 
of against us from other parts of the world, the message has a chilling 
effect on our friends wanting to continue to be our friends because it 
appears to be the most dangerous place in the world to be, in the 
category of ``friends'' with the United States, because it means this 
administration is one step away from abandoning them in favor of ties 
and relationships with groups that we know have been terrorist 
organizations.
  It's not just the meeting with. It's not just a danger or lack of 
danger of someone coming into the White House. Of course they can check 
them with the metal detectors to make sure they're not carrying 
anything. It goes beyond that. It devastates our friends. It destroys 
hope around the world for people who are hoping that we'll stand up as 
we once have, not for the Muslim Brotherhood who want an international 
caliphate which includes the United States and the United States to be 
added to the 57 Muslim states that comprise the OIC; it's what we're 
doing to our friends.
  I hope and pray that people in the mainstream media will get past the 
enjoyment of vilifying and trying to destroy the messenger and look at 
the message, that they'll get beyond the lazy tactics of calling 
someone, getting

[[Page H5325]]

with someone and saying, ``What's your opinion about these 
allegations?'' and getting a response of, ``Well, gee, we don't think 
there is anything to them,'' instead of digging the facts out and 
presenting them as the once proud journalist tradition was here in 
America. There are still journalists doing it, but I hope that that 
practice will be extended. We're hurting ourselves, but unfortunately 
we also hurt our friends when we do that.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is no evidence of any Muslim 
Brotherhood influence in America, I would urge them to go back and 
review the evidence in the convictions of the Holy Land Foundation 
trial obtained in November of 2008 before this administration began 
embracing the named coconspirators like CAIR and ISNA, when they were 
named as coconspirators of supporting terrorism. I would hope they 
would go back to the 1995 trial where Andrew McCarthy did a stellar 
job, and the Clinton administration awarded him for his incredible work 
in proving that there are people in America who want to establish 
shari'a law as the law of the land and subvert our Constitution. He 
proved it beyond a reasonable doubt among some wonderful New York 
citizens in New York City.
  And as Andrew McCarthy has asked: ``What's happened since 1995 to 
make that evidence no longer true?'' It was true then; it's true today.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________