[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2349-H2354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my 
dear friend, Mr. LaMalfa.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate my good friend from Texas. Thank you for 
yielding time tonight.
  I wanted to speak a little bit about some issues affecting California 
and the wise use of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  California's high-speed rail, on its surface, may have sounded 
promising to voters when they acted on it in the 2008 election--until 
you take a closer look at it.
  Once the planning on the project began, the public found it would 
take billions of dollars to build and operate beyond what they were 
promised when it was on the ballot. What had been a $33 billion ballot 
pricetag was exposed at a November 2011 public hearing as a nearly $100 
billion project.
  After some scrambling to make plan changes, which likely render it 
illegal from the enabling legislation voters passed as Prop 1A, we now 
see the current $69 billion plan, which uses low-speed modes in the 
urban areas of San Francisco and LA, again, found illegal under 
Proposition 1A. The tripled, then discounted, doubled pricetag is far 
from what 52 percent of California voters said ``yes'' to.
  High-speed rail's ballot measure was delayed by the State legislature 
two election cycles before finally placing the High Speed Rail 
Initiative on the 2008 ballot, where Californians approved what they 
thought would be a reasonably managed project to connect San Francisco 
to Los Angeles with a 220-mile per hour train.
  Because of Proposition 1A, the State could fund a portion of the 
construction with $9.95 billion in bond funds, with the assumption that 
the rest of the money would come from private investors. At the time, 
the 2009 stimulus act was unknown.
  The high-speed rail project that we have today has been plagued with 
poorly drafted funding plans, with little or no accountability to 
anyone for the absurd amounts of money spent so far. No accountability 
means millions of dollars spent on consultants, environmental impact 
reports, even lobbying here in Washington, D.C., and on numerous 
lawsuits from Californians who stand to lose their homes, farms, and 
businesses because they are in the path the high-speed rail would 
travel.
  Recently, a Superior Court judge ruled that the High Speed Rail 
Authority needed to redraft a 2011 funding plan for the project. The 
judge halted all bond sales because the Authority hadn't attained the 
necessary environmental clearances for the areas of the State where 
construction is planned to begin, nor shown there was even a plan of 
financing to complete even the first phase of the project.
  Meanwhile, the State schemes to inappropriately use truck weight fees 
or to use cap-and-trade funds in order to prop up the high-speed rail's 
bottom line.
  If a Superior Court judge says that Californians can't spend any more 
money on the planning and construction of high-speed rail, why should 
America taxpayers via the Federal Government?
  Nearly $3.3 billion in grant money has been awarded to the High Speed 
Rail Authority by the Federal Government via the aforementioned 
stimulus package that was approved in 2009 by a different Congress. 
This is to spend on construction. However, the Federal grant award is 
based on California's ability to match the Federal dollars with State 
funds from the bond. So it is my hope the Federal Government will put 
all the money earmarked for the high-speed rail on hold.
  Mr. Speaker, given the judge's recent ruling, I don't believe it is 
in the best interest of California's taxpayers or America's taxpayers 
to continue throwing money down this high-speed rathole. These Federal 
dollars should be used for pretty much anything else, such as building 
more freeway lanes, expanding airports, or, especially in this time of 
severe drought in California and the West, redirecting these scarce 
dollars to alleviate drought now and in the future with new water 
storage and infrastructure, which all Californians will benefit from.
  Instead, even after the judge's ruling, the High Speed Rail Authority 
said that they would continue to press forward the funding efforts to 
seize land from farms and businesses and hurriedly perform the 
necessary and very expensive environmental reviews. They now plan to 
front-load the project with funding from the U.S. taxpayer via the 
Federal funds we saw in the stimulus package because the State funding 
has been put on hold by the judge unless we in D.C. say ``no.''
  California has $8.6 billion in bond dollars left to spend on building 
the high-speed rail, as nearly $1 billion has already been spent 
without yet turning a shovel. Assuming they still receive the $3.3 in 
stimulus funding and the total cost to build is the lowball number of 
$69 billion, this mean the High Speed Rail Authority has less than one-
sixth of the funding necessary secured at this time. To me, the math 
doesn't add up. Perhaps in Fantasyland, where the monorail rail runs, 
it does.
  Would you continue to invest in something that has a majority of the 
already-secured funding put on hold because your illegal business plan 
has holes big enough to drive a train through? I think not.
  The Authority also hasn't shown any restraint in using taxpayer 
dollars. To date, they have spent upwards of $600 million on 
engineering and environmental consultants without ever breaking ground. 
The Madera-to-Fresno segment alone is going to cost $987 million--an 
unbelievable amount of taxpayer dollars for a segment that can't even 
operate trains as a standalone project.
  So many affected residents of the Central Valley, and all over the 
State, are happy the funding has been put on hold. Their farms, 
residences, and businesses are threatened to be seized, shut down, and 
destroyed for a project that will not ever happen.

[[Page H2350]]

  I hope California wakes up and realizes that this project is just a 
pipe dream that has hit none of its goals for cost or ridership. The 
legislature has had many opportunities to stop this high-speed rail 
boondoggle, and they will have another chance again next year. State 
Senator Andy Vidak has revived my ``Revote the Rail'' measure that I 
tried to get legislated back in 2010 and 2011, and will try to get the 
high-speed rail issue on the November 2014 ballot.
  As the LA Times poll says, 55 percent of Californians would like to 
vote again on the high-speed rail issue, and 59 percent say they would 
vote down high-speed rail. I support Senator Vidak's proposal, as I did 
before. It needs to move forward to give people choice, now that they 
have seen the real numbers.
  Here in D.C., we need to stop Federal dollars for the rail and 
instead direct those funds towards real needs such as tried and true 
water storage projects, infrastructure that will turn the water, and 
the jobs, back on in the Valley, and keep California, the Nation's 
fruit and vegetable capital that it is, producing, in some cases, over 
90 percent of U.S. fresh fruit and nut crops that U.S. consumers need 
and desire.
  Once again, let's not put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for a high-speed 
rail boondoggle that benefits only those that make money off of it. 
Californians don't want, don't need, and can't afford it.

                                (1830 )

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is very helpful to set the 
record straight, as my friend from Tennessee talked about earlier, and 
I thought that would be highly appropriate, given some of the 
lighthearted and sometimes mean-spirited barbs that have been sent the 
way of former Governor, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
  So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, so that 
people will understand, and the Congressional Record will properly 
reflect just how prescient that Sarah Palin has been in the past.
  We are going back 5\1/2\ years, but this was an interview that 
Charles Gibson did that gave rise to a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit. 
This was Charles Gibson, quoting verbatim from him, and then Sarah 
Palin.
  Gibson: Let me ask you about specific national security situations. 
Let's start, because we are near Russia. Let's start with Russia and 
Georgia. The administration has said, we have got to maintain the 
territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States 
should try to restore Georgia and sovereignty over South Ossetia and 
Abkhazia?
  Sarah Palin: First off, we're going to continue good relations with 
Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and 
giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will 
be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For 
Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller 
democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable, and we have to keep-- 
Gibson interrupted and said: You believe unprovoked?
  Palin: I do believe unprovoked. And we have got to keep our eyes on 
Russia. Under the leadership there.
  Gibson: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last 
couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?
  This is the operative line here. Sarah Palin said: ``They're our next 
door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in 
Alaska.''
  Gibson: You are in favor of putting Georgia and the Ukraine into 
NATO?
  The interview goes on, but that is what Sarah Palin said: ``They're 
our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here 
in Alaska.''
  That should be relevant to people. If you are living next door on 1 
acre of land, and the people that own the acre next to you have been 
guilty in the past of breaking into other neighbors' sheds and 
buildings, then certainly that is something that you ought to be 
watching more closely than people on the other side of the town that 
don't live next door. I mean, proximity can be an important matter.
  But here is the text of what ``Saturday Night Live'' did on September 
13, 2008. We know that ``Saturday Night Live'' has altered sketches 
that, in the past, at least once I recall seeing, where they were 
afraid it might make President Obama look bad, and they certainly 
didn't want to do that.
  Okay to take shots at Republicans, but they certainly didn't want to 
be fair and hit back at President Obama the same way, and even as Lorne 
Michaels, comic genius that he is, has indicated, yeah, they do lean 
left there at ``Saturday Night Live.''
  This was a sketch involving Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, Amy Poehler as 
Hillary Clinton. They were appearing together in the sketch, and these 
quotes are verbatim from the sketch.
  Tina Fey, as Sarah Palin says: ``But tonight we're crossing party 
lines to address the now very ugly role that sexism is playing in the 
campaign.''
  Then Amy Poehler, as Hillary Clinton: ``An issue which I am frankly 
surprised to hear people suddenly care about.''
  Tina Fey, as Palin: ``You know, Hillary and I don't agree on 
everything.''
  Poehler as Clinton says: ``Anything. I believe that diplomacy should 
be the cornerstone of any foreign policy.''
  Then Tina Fey, acting as Sarah Palin said: ``And I can see Russia 
from my house.''
  So that is where the line came from. There are many in the United 
States that actually believe Sarah Palin said ``and I can see Russia 
from my house.'' It was a very clever sketch. It was funny. I laughed 
when I saw it.
  I also knew how intelligent, and what a great leader and Governor 
Sarah Palin had been, and what a great leader she is, but we can all 
laugh at ourselves.
  I just didn't realize that that was going to take off, and by the 
writers at ``Saturday Night Live'' giving Hillary Clinton a line that 
said, ``Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be cornerstone of any 
foreign policy,'' sounding like a diplomat or a politician, and then 
trying to make Sarah Palin sound very much less so, when, actually, the 
best quote remembered from Hillary Clinton will probably go down as the 
statement made here on Capitol Hill in reference to the four American 
heroes serving in harm's way whose lives were taken by radical 
Islamists in an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with the video.
  Our Secretary of State, having suffered a blow to the head, we were 
told that kept her from testifying originally, she was able to say: 
``What difference, at this point, does it make?'' Not realizing, 
obviously, that when Americans are murdered, who are working for this 
government, and even working for her with her as the boss, it is rather 
important to find out precisely why those people were murdered.
  In fact, some Libyans told me that very thing back before Christmas. 
They said, so many Americans want to know who killed your four 
Americans. That is important, but an even more important question is 
why they were killed.
  So we have Hillary Clinton, who is saying, at this point, what 
difference does it make why they were killed, how they were killed?
  Just the reverse of the way ``Saturday Night Live'' made those two 
individuals look through the caricature, Sarah Palin called the shot 
with Ukraine years ago. I would say prophetic, but it is not prophetic. 
It is a bit prescient, but it has more to do with someone who has 
studied international relations, understands leaders like Putin, 
understands their lust for power, and understands they have got to be 
stopped, instead of carrying a plastic button over to dogmatic, 
totalitarian, wannabe leaders of Russia and saying, here, let's press 
this button and we will restart, reset everything.
  That is no way to conduct foreign policy. The greatest strides in the 
security and safety and acquiring the security and safety of the world 
have come when people knew they were dealing with an evil empire and 
stood up to it.
  I was asked just shortly ago, why did you vote ``no'' on the bill 
that was brought to the House floor to provide money, give loans to the 
Ukrainian people?
  I developed a great love and care for Ukrainian people as a college 
student on a summer exchange program, and I found a lot of commonality 
with college students, some of the college students there in Ukraine.
  I made the mistake of saying ``the Ukraine,'' Mr. Speaker, but one of 
my

[[Page H2351]]

Ukrainian college friends corrected me when I was there as an exchange 
student. He said: Do you say I am going home to ``the Texas''? I said, 
no.

  He said: We don't say ``the Ukraine.'' You come to Ukraine. It 
doesn't need the article ``the.''
  So there in Ukraine, people are suffering. They feel the boot of 
Russian power coming at them, at first from the Crimea, and it may go 
farther.
  I understand, having been there a number of times, in Ukraine, that 
there are parts of Ukraine that have sympathies with Russia, that love 
the days of the Soviet Union when they didn't have to look for a job 
themselves.
  The government would tell them how far they were allowed to go in 
school. They would tell them what their job would be. You step out of 
line, you could go to Siberia. They actually miss those days.
  Whereas most Ukrainians seem to have that yearning that George W. 
Bush talked about as President, a yearning to be free--not all people 
have it, as we have seen. Some prefer security over complete freedom, 
and that needs to be understood.
  As Franklin was quoted, paraphrased as saying: Those who would give 
up liberty for security deserve neither.
  I know there were Soviets after the fall of the Iron Curtain, after 
the demise of the Soviet Union, who were panic-stricken. You mean, I 
have got to find a job? I mean, the government has always told me 
everything to do.
  I will never forget being in Ukraine in recent years, and I had gone 
with a Ukrainian translator friend. My Russian has gotten pretty bad 
since college, not having any need to use it.
  We were in a Ukrainian restaurant. It was off the beaten road, and so 
it was mainly Ukrainians there. But in one area of the restaurant there 
was a very large, extended Russian family. That was clear. And the 
patriarch was clearly Russian, speaking Russian. He appeared to have 
had too much to drink.
  A little trio came by, a couple with musical instruments, one, a 
young Ukrainian, with an incredible operatic voice, and they would 
perform at tables and do requested songs.
  They came over to the extended table with the extended Russian 
family, and the patriarch called out that he wanted to hear ``Moscow 
Nights,'' and I bet the group knew ``Moscow Nights,'' but they said 
that they didn't know that.

                              {time}  1845

  So they asked for another song, and they performed it. It was 
magnificent. Then the boisterous Russian patriarch said--and the 
translator was helping me--he said: We never knew why you, in Ukraine, 
wanted to pull away from Russia. We love you Ukrainians. We love you. 
We wanted to stay together, as brothers. We never understood Ukraine 
wanting to pull away and not be part of Russia.
  And the guy was probably late twenties, maybe 30, that was the 
singer; and he very politely said in Russian to the Russian: Have you 
been here to Kiev before?
  And the Russian said: Yes, but it has been perhaps 20 years.
  And the young Ukrainian said: Ah, so how do you find it now compared 
to 20 years ago?
  And the Russian patriarch, having had too much to drink, said: It is 
magnificent. You have done a fantastic job. Oh, we love all of the 
buildings, all of the growth, all of the wonderful things you have done 
here. We want to be brothers. You have done a magnificent job.
  And the young Ukrainian singer yelled: That is why we wanted to be 
apart from Russia. You kept us oppressed. You took away the best we 
had. You stepped on us. You mistreated us. You would not let us reach 
our potential. That is why we want to be separate from Russia. That is 
why we separated from Russia. That is why we do not want to be part of 
Russia. You took the best we had and left us nothing. We can do much 
greater things when you allow us, as Ukrainians, to be in charge of 
Ukraine.
  And I wanted to stand up to give the young man a standing ovation. I 
was just thrilled that he was so passionate and felt so strongly about 
Ukrainian freedom.
  There are so many in Ukraine who feel that way. They don't want the 
Russian boot on their throat. Some are not aware that when--perhaps the 
most evil man of the 20th century, Hitler--Hitler's forces marched into 
Ukraine, they were actually met initially with banners and lauding that 
the Ukrainians looked upon them as liberators from Russia.
  And if they had not been so consumed by the ridiculous superrace 
mentality that they had sold themselves on, they would have recognized 
that the Ukrainians would have helped them; but, instead, they 
brutalized them, wantonly killed Ukrainians, and forcefully turned the 
Ukrainians against the Nazis.
  Had the Nazis not been so consumed with their narcissism and self-
aggrandizement, they probably could have used the Ukrainians' help and 
never suffered such a brutal winter in Russia as they did. That is 
history.
  And I am very proud that we have a former Governor from Alaska that 
understands people like Putin, understands that Putin may have suffered 
from a debility, like Stalin did. Stalin described it--the English 
translation was ``with power, dizziness.''
  So Putin gets a little bit dizzy. Gee, let's take the Crimea--because 
he has done, as Khrushchev did of our late, great President John 
Kennedy--Kennedy was a brilliant man. There was no question he was a 
man of courage, as illustrated during World War II.
  We are told that he was taking a number of medications when they met 
in Vienna in the summer of 1961; but he also acknowledged, after his 
meeting with Khrushchev, that Khrushchev just brutalized him, and he 
seemed to be embarrassed with how he performed.
  Khrushchev, on the other hand, had said he was immature. He was weak. 
That was his assessment of Kennedy because he already knew that he had 
backed Kennedy down during the Bay of Pigs.
  The plan that was hatched during the Eisenhower administration, 
Kennedy was apprized of, but then it was changed. Kennedy takes office 
as our President, and he finds out there is going to be more American 
involvement.
  Unfortunately, within 3 days of the invasion to be launched into the 
Bay of Pigs to attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba, President 
Kennedy got cold feet and pulled back on the support that was going to 
be offered.
  The people were devastated, killed, or taken prisoners. It was a 
disaster. Kennedy said, later, that he would have preferred an all-out 
invasion to appearing so weak, words to that effect.
  A meeting between Khrushchev and Kennedy in Vienna--I believe it was 
June of 1961--reaffirmed in Khrushchev's mind that this was a weak, 
immature leader.
  Then toward the end of July of 1961, President Kennedy gave a 
powerful speech, basically making clear that we have a commitment to 
West Berlin. We have a commitment to West Germany; and we would not, 
under any circumstances, allow the Soviets to prevent us from making 
good on our promises.
  He even used the word ``force.'' We didn't want to use force; but if 
it was required, it would be used. Khrushchev had already taken his 
measure of the man, knew he could push him further, and the Berlin Wall 
began being built.
  The United States did nothing; and it reaffirmed, in Khrushchev's 
mind, that what he had assessed in Vienna--that Kennedy was immature, 
was weak--was even more true than he had thought before.
  He knew he could push this man; and as a result, he was willing to 
risk thermal nuclear war to put missiles with nuclear weapons into 
Cuba. He would never have been so brazen as to put nuclear weapons on 
missiles within 90 miles of Florida had it not been for his repeated 
assessment in the first year of John Kennedy's Presidency that he was 
weak.
  Well, he misread him. Kennedy showed weakness in 1961 at least three 
times, but he did have courage. It just took him a while to get up to 
it.
  But as a result of the weakness that was assessed by Khrushchev, we 
almost came to mutually assured destruction, where the Soviet Union and 
the United States would have launched nuclear weapons toward each 
other. It was a very, very dangerous time for the world.

[[Page H2352]]

  We are now under the administration of President Barack Obama; and I 
cannot imagine any Russian leader perceiving anything but just absolute 
weakness, as a leader, when the microphone picked up what President 
Obama said before the election: you know, tell Putin that, after the 
election, I will have a lot more flexibility.
  The message was clear. I am willing to cave on all kinds of things. I 
have to look strong right now, but I will cave on all kinds of things 
once we get past the 2012 election.
  For all the things that he is, Putin is not stupid. He knew exactly 
what that message was, though most of the voters in the 2012 election 
did not; and as a result of that and so many other things, Russia 
believes they can cow America, and we will not stand up. When this 
President draws led red lines, they won't be enforced.
  I am going to go back to something Sarah Palin pointed out in her 
interview, and this is actually in NewsBusters. It talks about the 
interview that Sarah Palin gave with Charlie Gibson, and it sets the 
record straight.
  Palin foresaw that, because of Putin's actions and Russia's movement 
against Georgia, that if we did not send a very clear message that such 
offensive border-neglecting actions were not rebutted, then there would 
be other invasions to follow.
  She has been skewered for saying, back in 2008, that if Russia was 
not stopped, then next, they would move against Ukraine. She was 
belittled for that; and yet, she had read Vladimir Putin far better 
than anybody in this administration.

  She knew what they were capable of. She knew what they wanted to do, 
and she knew there is only one way to deal with bullies, and it is not 
to repeatedly give them your lunch money. If you continue to attempt to 
appease bullies, not only will they continue to take more and more and 
more, but they will have no respect for you whatsoever.
  That is also a problem we have had with radical Islamist leaders in 
the world. They understand one thing: strength. That is why the United 
States Marines were sent to the shores of Tripoli.
  It was not the negotiations that Thomas Jefferson and others engaged 
in with the Barbary pirates, those radical Islamists. That didn't do 
any good. It wasn't until the Marines fought as bloody or tough or 
tougher than the radical Islamists that they realized, gee, we had 
better leave these guys alone.
  But for the valiant, fervent fighting of the Marines, then we would 
have continued to have to pay huge portions of our United States budget 
for extortion to get our sailors back.
  Sarah Palin understood that. She understood that you have got to 
stand up to bullies, so I think it is important that the Congressional 
Record properly reflect that Sarah Palin had it right.
  Saturday Night Live assessed her wrong. Sarah Palin had Putin pegged. 
She had the actions of Russia pegged. She knew what they would do next.
  So what have we done? Ukrainian borders are violated by Russia, and 
we want to go by as our friend is being brutalized, assaulted, and 
throw money at our friend who is being brutalized.

                              {time}  1900

  That is not much of a friend. If I am being assaulted, I would hope a 
friend would stop and help me and not just throw money on the way by. 
In fact, we have agreements in writing that require more than simply 
throwing money at Ukraine when they are being brutalized by Russia. 
Russia's economy is not all that strong. And I don't know if Ukraine 
would get this desperate or not, but we know that Putin, just to show 
Ukraine that they can hurt them, has stopped the flow of natural gas 
before.
  Perhaps at some point, Ukraine will get desperate enough to say: 
Well, they may have a very weak leader over in the United States that 
will not come help us, but something we can do to hurt you, Mr. Putin, 
you do one more thing and those pipelines of yours that bring you so 
much money into your treasury will be history, and then see how you do.
  I hope it never gets to that point. I hope that Russia doesn't 
continue to push matters until they push us, as Khrushchev did, to the 
brink of world war again. But in seeing the debate between President 
Obama and Governor Romney in which President Obama chided him by saying 
the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back, we have now 
seen the appeasement repeatedly of this administration. And that is why 
I have said before that Neville Chamberlain called to this 
administration, and he wants his foreign policy back, because it 
appears it is being utilized once again. It didn't work for England 
against Hitler, and it will not work now against Russia and Putin.
  I was very small as a kid in elementary school, but I learned early 
on I may get my nose bloodied, but I am going to make the big bully 
hurt. And when I made him hurt enough, after he had bloodied my nose, 
he left me alone. He could have hurt me. But it doesn't matter whether 
you are big or small, if you want to deal with bullies by appeasement 
over and over and over again, then it is clear you are going to 
continue to encourage bullying. I was never for bullying. I would stand 
up to it as a young kid in elementary school, and I am for standing up 
against it when we have the most powerful military in the history of 
the world--until this administration finishes with it. We still do for 
now.
  Well, here is something else that is pretty powerful. Sarah Palin in 
her speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee on March 8, 
2014, said this:

       Those policies that the Cabinet have to explain and 
     justify, how do you convey to Putin the threat that sounds 
     like, ``Vladimir, don't mess around, or you're going to feel 
     my flexibility, because I got a phone and I got a pen and, 
     um, I can dial real fast and poke you with my pen. Pinkie 
     promise.''

  Well, obviously, she was having some fun herself, but she makes the 
point. A phone and a pen won't do it. When you are talking about a 
bully that does not mind violating borders, killing people, and 
subjugating masses of people, you have to stand up to them.
  I think one of the clear indications not only that we had a weak 
administration on foreign policy, but also we didn't use common sense 
in protecting ourselves came very clearly before the Boston bombing 
when the Russians, the Russian leaders--the Russian people like us 
pretty well, but the Russian leaders don't like us particularly and 
certainly don't respect us. But even so, they realized that we actually 
have a common enemy, and that is radical Islam, radical Islam that 
would love to see Russia fall, Ukraine fall, and the United States 
fall, would love to see them all fall under a giant global caliphate. 
So we have that common enemy who wants to destroy each of our ways of 
life.
  So Russia, despite their dislike and distaste in some ways for the 
United States, actually reached out and said: Hey, we are not sure you 
realize, but this Tsarnaev, he has been radicalized, and he is 
dangerous. We are not going to reveal too many secrets here, but any 
intelligent administration will take what we have said that Tsarnaev is 
dangerous, he has been radicalized, and he is a threat to you and do 
some digging. And the best we can find out, even after questioning the 
Director of the FBI, the best we can find out is they apparently went 
and talked to Tsarnaev himself.
  Well, okay, I guess you've got to do that. Good idea. If somebody is 
very good at questioning, if somebody really understands the radical 
Islamist mind, if he knows who the Islamic authors are that have 
inspired radicalism, if he knows who the imams are that have helped 
radicalize people, then you can ask the right questions about which 
imams you have been around, what authors are your favorite authors, 
what do you think of Qutb in Egypt and the writing that he had, that 
milestone that Osama bin Laden credited with helping radicalize him. If 
you know the questions to ask, you can find out whether somebody has 
really been radicalized.
  But as a few of us have found out when we reviewed the material 
purged from FBI training material, we are not allowing our FBI agents 
to be properly trained as to the threat and the beliefs of radical 
Islamists. Again, as one of our intelligence officers has told me, we 
have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. And it 
continues. We continue to have people advise this administration who 
have known associations with radical Islamists. The Egyptian paper, 
back when it was controlled

[[Page H2353]]

by the Muslim Brotherhood, bragged that they had six Muslim brothers 
who were top advisers in top positions in this administration. So we 
are not allowing our FBI, our intelligence officials and agents, to be 
trained to properly see this threat.
  So the Russians say: Hey, this guy is a threat to you. You had better 
check him out, and you will find out what we are talking about. He had 
been to an area where people were often radicalized. He had gone to an 
area that he came to America claiming asylum, to need asylum from, and 
he goes back to that area? Well, that should have been a red flag right 
there. He didn't need asylum from that area. He just went back and got 
radicalized. But our blinded FBI agents were not able to ask those 
questions, and when I chided the FBI Director for not even going out to 
the Muslim mosques to talk to people out there, to ask questions, to 
ask questions to find out if the Tsarnaevs have been radicalized, the 
FBI Director said that they did go out there to the mosque. I didn't 
hear it at the time, but I heard it on the replay when he adds, ``as 
part of our outreach program.''

  They didn't go out there to investigate the Tsarnaevs to save 
Bostonians' lives. He didn't even know that the Islamic Society of 
Boston was started by a man named Al-Amoudi, who is in prison for 23 
years for supporting terrorism. After being a very important adviser, 
he helped find Muslims to go into the military as Muslim chaplains. He 
helped the Clinton administration. He actually helped the George W. 
Bush administration early on until they figured out, whoa, this guy is 
supporting terrorism, and they had him arrested I believe it was 2003 
out at Dulles Airport, and he is in prison now because they recognized 
what he is. But our FBI Director, the FBI agents didn't even know you 
had a terrorist supporter that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs 
went.
  So when the Russians see that we give America--that we don't really 
like, we don't really trust, but we give them a heads-up to actually 
save American lives, and even with a heads-up like they gave us, we 
can't properly protect the people of Boston because of political 
correctness in this administration, well, it just adds to the 
assessment by Putin and the other leaders in Russia that these are 
people that don't recognize danger when it is pointed out to them with 
a big sign saying ``danger'' on it.
  So, of course, just like Khrushchev's assessment that turned out in 
the end to be wrong, I hope and pray that we don't get to the brink of 
nuclear war because leaders around the world have assessed, as 
Khrushchev did, that the American President is weak and can be pushed 
around indefinitely. I don't think President Obama can be pushed around 
indefinitely, but I sure don't want him to be pushed all the way to 
nuclear war before we finally take a stand, as Kennedy did. And you 
don't have to get that far if you stand up against the bullies early 
on, as Neville Chamberlain was not willing to do, and as a result, 
millions and millions died, and millions suffered unthinkable tragic 
suffering because leaders wanted to go the appeasement route.
  For all the flack Sarah Palin has taken, she had Russia pegged. And 
it is not because she ever said ``I can see Russia from my house.'' She 
never said that. She accurately said you can see Russia from parts of 
Alaska--not her house.

                              {time}  1915

  She was willing to laugh at the skit, but now we are not talking 
about laughable things. We are talking about freedom being taken at the 
point of military weapons in Crimea, in Ukraine.
  We see China moving in areas and places they have never had the 
courage to move because they knew America would not stand for it and we 
would rally other nations against China. The Chinese leaders know that 
at times, as good as the economy seemed to be going, they are a fragile 
economy. As I have said before, I think if China knew that they could 
call all the debt of the United States and push us into a bankruptcy-
type mode in the United States, they would except they would suffer 
dramatically, and if they ever get to the point where they think that 
they can take this Nation down financially without losing their own, 
they would do it. That is why it is a terrible wrong as a government to 
allow ourselves to become further and further indebted to China.
  Today, apparently the news we were seeing, their economy has taken a 
hit today. I look forward to learning more about that this evening, but 
it is time Americans woke up, Mr. Speaker, and realize that appeasement 
of bullies, of thugs, has never worked. It will never work, and when 
you are the most powerful, have the most powerful military in world 
history in the face of growing bully power, you don't abandon yours.
  We want to help those who cannot feed themselves in America. We want 
to help those who cannot provide for themselves in America. Certainly 
we differ on our side of the aisle. For those who are able-bodied and 
can work, let's get the economy going so that people have a job and can 
do for themselves and make more. Let's don't continue to make people 
more and more dependent on the government.
  I know my friends across the aisle do not want to see the world fall 
into war as it did in World War II, do not want to see us come to the 
brink of thermonuclear annihilation as it almost did during President 
Kennedy's term, but it is important to understand from history that is 
where you go when you show weakness.
  We can defend ourselves without putting tens of thousands or 100,000 
troops into a country like we did in Afghanistan. For heaven's sake, we 
defeated the Taliban with less than 500 Americans in there helping the 
Northern Alliance. We helped them with weapons, we helped them with air 
cover, we helped them with intel, and they defeated our enemy for us, 
and this administration will point to the Northern Alliance and call 
them war criminals because they fought like the Taliban fought. We can 
fight our enemies by empowering the enemy of our enemy. They are 
Muslims. We can live with the Northern Alliance as long as they don't 
ever turn on us. As long as they are going to fight our enemy, then let 
them fight our enemy.
  Yet for the government that was given to Afghanistan at our pushing--
a tribal, regional country like Afghanistan was given a strong 
centralized government that would lead to nothing but corruption. We 
should have known it when it happened, so how do we deal with the 
problem there? As my friend, former Vice President Masood said, You 
help us get an amendment into our Constitution that allows us to elect 
our governors, elect our mayors, pick our own police chiefs, take that 
power away from the appointment power of the President, and we can 
protect our regions and keep the Taliban from taking over.
  This administration does not seem to want to push for something like 
that. It can't even get a status of forces agreement that was teed up 
completely for them by President Bush in Iraq but then was fumbled by 
this administration.
  I was meeting, had a visit with a Baloch friend today. If you have 
done homework, you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Taliban is apparently 
getting supplied mainly from Pakistan, and much of the supplies come 
through the more southern area, the Baloch area of Pakistan. We also 
know that the Baloch have been victimized, oppressed, persecuted, 
killed, and terrorized by the Pakistani military, the Pakistani 
government. Iran has done the same thing because the Baloch people are 
indigenous to the southern part of Pakistan and on into the most 
mineral-rich areas of Iran. So we don't have to go to war with Iran, we 
don't have to go to war with Pakistan, but if you start assisting the 
Baloch people to stop the oppression and perhaps have their own 
independent country, the Taliban stop getting supplied by Pakistan. 
Iran doesn't have all of the minerals. They have those mineral areas, a 
big part, an important part of them at least are run by the Baloch 
people, and we can do business with them.
  There are ways to deal with the enemy of our enemies so that they 
keep areas around the world in check so you don't have to lose so much 
American lives. Most people are not aware that most Americans have been 
killed under the administration of this President. It is time we stood 
firm. It is time we let the bullies of the world

[[Page H2354]]

know Sarah Palin was right, and we need to stand up to them.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________