[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3044-H3049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, there is a deeply troubling matter that has 
come before our government here in the United States. Once again, Iran 
is at the bottom of it. They have shown since 1979, since President 
Carter basically was pushing for the ouster of the Shah, we turned on 
an ally who was not a good man necessarily, but we--well, actually, 
President Carter--hailed the Ayatollah Khomeini as a man of peace.
  What has been wrought--to use the words of Samuel F. B. Morse--has 
been years and years of terrorism in the hands of violent radical 
Islamic jihadists.
  Then we get word that Iran has named one of the people involved in 
the original hostage-taking incident in Tehran in 1979 as its 
Ambassador to the U.N.
  At this time, I want to recognize my very good friend from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn), who has really taken the lead in an appropriate response 
from our House.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for his leadership in getting this time tonight so that we can talk 
about this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned something shocking and appalling. 
The Iranian government wants to appoint a terrorist as their Ambassador 
to the United Nations. A man who assisted in the 1979 terrorist attack 
on our embassy in Tehran. A man who helped hold American diplomats 
hostage for 444 days. This is a man that the supposedly moderate new 
government in Iran wants to represent Iran on American soil in New York 
City. This is unconscionable and this is unacceptable. It is time for 
all of us to speak up with one loud and unified voice against this 
injustice.
  Amazingly, at this moment, the President of the United States does 
not have the legal authority to keep this man off of our shores. The 
President can deny visas to diplomats if they have been caught spying 
on ourselves or our allies, but he can't keep someone out of our 
country if they are a terrorist. They can be admitted as a diplomat and 
get a visa.
  Last week, Senator Ted Cruz and I introduced legislation to fix this 
problem. Our bill would give the President the authority he needs to do 
the right thing and to deny this man a visa. Senator Cruz received 
strong support from Democrats in the Senate like Senator Chuck Schumer 
of New York. The bill passed the Senate unanimously last night 100-0. 
How many issues pass the Senate 100-0?
  I am working here in the House to quickly move this bill forward so 
that we don't have an Iranian terrorist walking the streets of 
Manhattan with diplomatic immunity.
  It is mind-boggling, but if Osama bin Laden himself had been named an 
Ambassador to the United Nations by somebody, the President would not 
have had the legal authority to deny him a visa. We have got to fix it. 
That is why this legislation is before us. The Cruz-Lamborn legislation 
would give the President the ability to do the right thing and to deny 
this Iranian terrorist a visa.

[[Page H3045]]

  Time heals some wounds, but time should not cause amnesia. Letting 
this man into the country with all the pomp and circumstance of 
diplomatic immunity would cause pain to those who are hostages. It 
would jeopardize the safety and security of this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and for House 
leadership to move it quickly to passage as soon as possible.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas once again for taking 
leadership and bringing this issue to the attention of the American 
people through this time here on the floor tonight.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Colorado.
  In fact, when I heard that such an outrage was being suggested, I 
said to my staff, we have got to do something. I was told, and I should 
have suspected, my friend Doug Lamborn from Colorado was already out 
there, he already has a bill, H.R. 4357. I was brought a Dear Colleague 
letter accompanying that, and I said we have got to help our friend do 
what is right for America.
  I was pleased that Ted Cruz was able to get that pushed through in 
the Senate. Frankly, it shows there is still hope for the Senate. That 
is encouraging. You look for hope where you can get it.
  But I remember so well 1979-1980. I was in the Army at Fort Benning. 
This attack occurred and we were outraged. There was nobody I knew in 
the Army who was dying to go to Iran. But really everybody I knew at 
Fort Benning and other posts, we expected to go because it was an act 
of war.
  Our embassy was attacked in Tehran, it was an act of war, and nothing 
really happened for 444 days. There was a failed rescue attempt. I 
still, Mr. Speaker, have asked from the floor before, and I wish 
somebody could verify for sure, but I had a friend from Fort Benning 
who had told me that the original plan for the rescue required that 12 
helicopters would go 500 or so miles inland into Iran to a staging area 
there.

  At the time they knew where the hostages were. There was still good 
intel. They knew where they were. So this was going to be an effort to 
rescue them. This was the original Delta Force. Our friend General 
Jerry Boykin, now at the Family Research Council, was one of the 
original Delta Force. I have talked to him about that time out there in 
the desert.
  They were to rendezvous with some aircraft that would have supplies, 
things they needed. In order to make the trip, as General Boykin 
confirms, they knew they had to have six helicopters there make it that 
far inland.
  What I would like to get substantiation on or just prove, that 
originally the military proposed, the joint military group proposed 12 
helicopters to go in. Their reasoning, as a friend from Fort Benning 
pointed out--this is back when I was in the Army this was being told--
the reasoning was when you go across hundreds of miles of sand, desert, 
with turbine engines, that you run the risk of having a high loss rate 
of your helicopters.
  So they asked for 12, thinking since six was absolutely essential to 
have at the staging area inside Iran, that they should allow for 50 
percent loss of the helicopters. What I still want to find out, is it 
true that the 12 helicopters were proposed, but that the White House 
said: No, 12 would look like an invasion, so let's scale that back to 
eight. I was told the dialogue went: Well, if we have eight and we have 
four losses, then we only get there with four and there is no mission; 
if we don't do it now, we may not know where they move them. We really 
should go with 12. But I was told the White House said: No, we can't go 
with 12. We don't want to make it look like an invasion, scale it back 
to eight.
  General Boykin confirmed that there were eight helicopters that made 
the trip. But when they got to the staging area, when it was clear that 
only five helicopters were going to make it, he said there was an 
automatic abort at that point. Unfortunately, as we know from the news 
of what happened, one of the choppers as it attempted to rise up, the 
pilot must have had vertigo--it is very easy to happen in the desert 
sand as the sand swirls around you--but whatever the reasoning, the 
helicopter slightly turned, the rotors went through the C-130, and we 
lost American lives out there on the desert floor at the staging area 
in Iran.
  I don't fault anyone who was part of the Delta Force. They were some 
of the most heroic people America has produced. They were willing to 
risk it all, and some did give all in the effort to go after our 
hostages.
  But whether the proposal was originally 12 and it was scaled back to 
eight, or whether the administration, the Commander in Chief, just said 
go with eight, either way the error was where the buck stops, at the 
top with the Commander in Chief. Because just like President Kennedy 
admitted after he withdrew the full air support that he had promised 
during the Bay of Pigs invasion, as he said afterwards: We should have 
gone ahead. We would have been better off doing a full-scale invasion 
instead of having something as embarrassing and humiliating as this--or 
words to that effect, is what I had read.
  If you are going to rescue American lives, you commit whatever it 
takes. The military is always ready to commit whatever it takes.
  Our problem comes in the chain of command usually at the very top. 
That is why it has been so tragic in Afghanistan that in a period of 
half the time of President George W. Bush being Commander in Chief, 
President Obama as Commander in Chief had around twice or so the 
fatalities and even more of injuries, debilitating serious injuries.
  The rules of engagement are critical in a battle like that. Whether 
it is going to rescue hostages, whether it is going to provide a 
peacekeeping mission, it is absolutely imperative that our military 
have the full authority to protect themselves, win whatever battle may 
be confronted, and come home.
  The lesson that all too often is not learned from Vietnam is not that 
we should never get involved in foreign battles. The lesson is and 
should be, the one that has not been learned is this: if we are going 
to commit American men and women to combat, then give them authority to 
win and bring them home. That should be the lesson of Vietnam.

                              {time}  1900

  It should be the lesson of Iraq. It should be the lesson of 
Afghanistan, and yet, we still have people in Afghanistan who don't 
really understand why they are there, but don't want to be the last 
American to die in Afghanistan.
  As we see surveys around the world indicating that the United States 
has lost tremendous respect--and in areas where our President, along 
with many of the rest of us thought, okay, we have a President who did 
a lot of growing and learning in an Islamic country as he has 
indicated.
  So surely, he will help our relationships with and in Muslim 
countries; and yet, as you look at surveys in Muslim countries around 
the world, we are less respected now than we were under President and 
Commander in Chief George W. Bush, especially when you are dealing with 
radical Islamic leaders.
  There are so many people in Iran. I have met some of them in 
surrounding countries, refugees from Iran, who verify that there are so 
many Iranian people--they love Americans, but clearly, their leadership 
does not.
  It is a slap in the face for the Iranian leadership to think that 
they could get away--to think that we have such a weak Commander in 
Chief that they could send over someone who is a participant in an act 
of war, an international crime against humanity, attacking an embassy 
and taking hostages and mistreating those hostages; yet they thought 
they could get away with it.
  If you look at what has been happening around the world, perhaps it 
is not that difficult to understand why Iran thought they could get 
away with something so heinous as to send a participant of the original 
international crime, an act of war of attacking our Embassy and holding 
hostages.
  Well, some may say: this guy, we don't know that he was there when 
the Embassy was actually attacked.
  But as I know from my judge days and prosecutor days--the Federal 
law, State laws I am aware of, and in the international circles--anyone 
who aids, encourages, and abets is considered a principal of the crime.
  So that is what we have here, an arrogant, condescending slap in the 
face of the United States President, Congress, everyone who has any 
leadership

[[Page H3046]]

in this country, a show of no respect to send someone who is well-known 
to have participated, despite the efforts to minimize roles he may have 
had.
  So why would they think they could do that? You look, gee, the 
Russians and the Chinese have taken the measure of our President. They 
know he is the Commander in Chief. They know how our government 
functions. Iran has done the same thing. Syria has done the same thing.
  Others around the world have looked, and they saw, and I have even 
had some world leaders say: look, Mubarak--none of us really liked 
him--but he was your ally, and he gave you a longer period of peace on 
the Israeli border with Egypt than any other time; so we couldn't 
believe when you turned on your ally, you have written agreements with 
Mubarak. We don't understand how you could just toss aside an ally who 
has helped you so much.
  People in other countries have said: we couldn't believe Qadhafi had 
blood on his hands; and yet, after 2003, he had some kind of conversion 
experience after he saw the U.S. go into Iraq.
  He said: look, I am giving up my nukes, you can take them, you can 
come in and inspect whatever you want, and I will be your best friend 
in fighting terrorism.
  As some other moderate Muslim leaders in the Middle East have said: 
he was your friend. As other leaders in the Middle East have said: he 
provided you more help and more information on terrorists than any 
other country but Israel.
  So what did we do? We came after Qadhafi. We bombed his forces, and 
it seems pretty clear, without the United States' assistance, Qadhafi 
would have stayed in power. We would still be getting information on 
terrorism in the Middle East from Qadhafi and his people.
  We would have four people that didn't die in Benghazi, and terrorism 
wouldn't be so profoundly manifesting itself in north Africa and the 
Middle East, but this administration turned on someone who had turned 
into a friend to the United States, an enemy of terrorism.
  We have moderate Muslim friends in Afghanistan who actually defeated 
the Taliban for us. My heart breaks for my friend Masood and others who 
risked their lives to fight the Taliban, who defeated the Taliban under 
the leadership of General Dostum, who some now in this administration 
call a war criminal. He fought the Taliban like the Taliban fights. He 
defeated them. He did us a great favor.
  The Taliban was acknowledged to have been in disarray and completely 
defeated, and then we decide to nation-build. I know this is not the 
fault of President Obama, it was done before he came in, but we decided 
to nation-build.
  We sent tens of thousands of troops into Iran, whereas we had only 
had less than 500 there at the time that the Taliban was routed.
  How could we do that? Well, we provided them weapons, we gave them 
air cover, we gave them intel. We had embedded special ops and 
intelligence, and we let them do the fighting, and we whipped the 
Taliban by letting the enemy of our enemy defeat our enemy.
  Now, this administration refers to them as war criminals? They were 
our allies, they were our friends. They defeated the Taliban. So we 
mistreat our friends who risked their lives fighting our enemy for us--
and for themselves, make no mistake.
  Then this administration is constantly reaching out to the Taliban: 
we want to talk, we want to sit down with you--and offered at one time 
to buy them luxurious offices, international offices--if you will just 
sit down, you don't even have to agree to reach an agreement, just to 
sit down with us and talk; we may let a lot of your people who have 
murdered Americans go free if you just sit down and talk with us.
  Then the Chinese have seen how we have turned on allies and reached 
out to our enemies. They have had their eyes on certain places near 
China, South China Sea, other places surrounding China, they have had 
their eye on places, just like Russia has.
  Now, they see the United States turning on allies, embracing enemies. 
They ask the same questions. They are bound to ask the same questions 
some of our allies have expressed: Are you still fighting against 
terror? Because they are still fighting you and we can't tell that you 
are helping in the fight anymore.
  So China starts making moves they never would have made 5 years ago 
because they wouldn't have wanted to risk a U.S. response; and Russia 
wouldn't have made the move 5 years ago, but they have counted the 
cost, they have measured the leader of the United States of America, 
just like Khrushchev did in the early 1960s. They have figured: we can 
move on Crimea, and the United States will do nothing.
  That is why they laughed when the President announced that he was 
going to put sanctions on some of the Russian leaders. They were 
shocked. That is all you are going to do? That is it? Wow. Let's move 
some more troops to Ukrainian border. Maybe we can grab some more of 
Ukraine, and the U.S. will continue to do nothing.
  Weakness is provocative. It has always been; it will always be. I 
knew I owed 4 years to the Army, and I would do that before I did 
anything else, so I majored in what I loved, history. There are so many 
lessons repeated over and over in history.

  That is why, Mr. Speaker, it was shocking to hear an educated 
Secretary of State that knew that you pronounced Genghis Khan as 
``Genghis Khan'' actually make the statement that the Russians were 
making a 19th century move on Crimea, when history dictates that what 
the Russians did in moving on Crimea, an area they have had their eyes 
on and wanted to take is--yes, it is 19th century, it is 20th century, 
it is 21st century, it will be 22nd century if the Lord tarries. It was 
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13. It has been in every century.
  You go back to the Dark Ages, whether you say that is 500 to a 1000 
A.D. or whether you say it is specifically 476 to 800 A.D., whatever 
you call the Dark Ages, these were the kind of moves that were made 
then. People made moves--assaultive moves on other people, places, and 
things because there is evil in this world.
  Mr. Speaker, there is the good that our Founders acknowledged, that 
God put there. It is why they said we are endowed by the Creator with 
certain inalienable rights because they knew there was a Creator, that 
they knew there was evil in the world, and they set up as many 
obstacles to power grabs in this country as they could.
  They felt pretty comfortable that Congress would never allow either 
the Supreme Court or the President to usurp legislative power without 
reining them in. It is time that we did that.
  My dear friend, Doug Lamborn, produced H.R. 4357. It says this:

       The purpose is to deny admission to the United States to 
     any representative to the United Nations who has engaged in 
     espionage activities against the United States, poses a 
     threat to the United States, and other purposes.

  It goes on to say:

       A bill to deny admission to the United States to any 
     representative to the United Nations who has engaged in 
     espionage activities against the United States, poses a 
     threat to United States national security interests, or has 
     engaged in a terrorist activity against the United States.

  Then it goes on in detail, as far as changing section 407(a) of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, in order to make it possible where 
we could deny entrance to Iran's proposed U.N. Ambassador. It is time 
we did that.
  There was a story from Fox News, dated March 31, that is entitled, 
``One-time hostage of Iranian militants urges denial of visa to new 
Iran envoy involved in siege.''

                              {time}  1915

  This was written by Eric Shawn. It says:

       Hostages captured after the 1979 siege on the U.S. Embassy 
     in Tehran are seen in this undated file photo.
       Former American hostage Barry Rosen, held by student 
     extremists at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than a 
     year, said Monday it would be an ``outrage'' and ``disgrace'' 
     if Washington gave a visa to one of the militants recently 
     named by Iran as its new U.N. Ambassador.
       ``It may be a precedent, but if the President and the 
     Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then 
     our captivity and suffering for 444 days at the hands of Iran 
     was for nothing,'' Rosen said. ``He can never set foot on 
     American soil.''

  This is a quote from Rosen.
  He also said:

       It's a disgrace if the United States Government accepts 
     Aboutalebi's visa as Iranian Ambassador to the U.N.

[[Page H3047]]

       Rosen was the Embassy's press attache who was blindfolded 
     and held at gunpoint, along with 51 fellow Americans taken 
     hostage. In a statement to FOX News, Rosen demanded that the 
     Obama administration deny a visa to Aboutalebi to prevent him 
     from taking up Tehran's U.N. post.

  We need to take action. We hold the purse strings. We need to cut off 
any funding for any effort that might be undertaken to grant this 
international terrorist a visa so that he can come on American soil and 
have diplomatic immunity.
  So I am quite proud of my friend from Colorado. Mr. Lamborn and I 
have traveled to Israel together. I have seen him conduct himself in 
international settings in ways that should make Colorado proud of him, 
as well as the United States.
  My friend Ted Cruz got a bill through the Senate that passed 100-0. 
As reported by the AP April 7:

       The Senate approved a bill Monday to bar a man with ties to 
     the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis who's been tapped to be 
     Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations from entering the 
     United States.
       By voice vote, Republicans and Democrats united behind the 
     legislation sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of 
     Texas, that reflected congressional animosity toward Tehran 
     and its selection of Hamid Aboutalebi. Iran's envoy's choice 
     was a member of a Muslim student group that held 52 American 
     hostages for 444 days in the 1979 seizure of the Embassy in 
     Tehran.
       The ``nomination is a deliberate and unambiguous insult to 
     the United States,'' Cruz said in remarks on the Senate floor 
     in which he describes Iran's anti-Americanism since 1979, and 
     added, ``This is not the moment for diplomatic niceties.''

  I am very proud of my friend Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas. This 
is the way we need to respond to Iran's slap in the face of the United 
States.
  Again, if you look at the way this administration has reached out to 
Iran, they have laughed openly and said yes, they were negotiating, and 
yes, they reached a preliminary agreement with this White House, but 
they are not stopping anything in the way of developing nuclear 
weapons. They made that clear. They are not abandoning their nukes.
  So what have we done? We gave them a free space in which to keep 
developing nukes. We don't know what they have been doing behind the 
scenes because there have not even been inspections in all the 
facilities that we know of, and they brag that they are not abandoning 
anything.
  And what else did the administration do? The administration eased up 
and allowed them billions of dollars in relief from the sanctions 
which, no doubt, would help them pursue nuclear weapons as they move 
forward.
  It is just tragic why and how this administration is giving the 
impression to nations like Iran that we will not stand up to them. But, 
again, look at what we did as a nation. We reelected President Obama, 
knowing that before the election he had turned to the leader from 
Russia and basically said: Tell Vladimir Putin that I will have a lot 
more flexibility after the election.
  People elected the President, knowing that he had telegraphed to the 
Russians that he would show a lot more weakness and would be able to 
give the Russians a lot more of what they wanted after the election in 
2012.
  If you look at this administration's activities after the election in 
2008, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent over with a goofy-
looking button that they thought had, in Russian, ``reset,'' when, 
actually, I don't know what that says. She thought it said ``reset.'' 
It didn't say that. And we embarrassed ourselves.
  But the message was very clear because the Russians, and Putin in 
particular, knew that the reason that relationships have been strained 
was that, toward the end of the Bush administration, the Russians moved 
on Georgia, and the reaction was swift from President Bush. He didn't 
do as much as I might have thought should be done, but he was 
embarrassed. He was bound to have been embarrassed because he said he 
looked to this man and knew that he was a man of peace, or words to 
that effect, and it had to feel like a bit of a betrayal to President 
Bush when he moved on Georgia.
  The Russian activities of moving on Georgia, totally abandoning and 
betraying the outreach by the Bush administration, put a significant 
chill on U.S.-Russian relations. That is why they were chilled. That is 
why diplomatic relations were so stiff at the time that this 
administration took over.
  So when you know that it was the Russian invasion and move on Georgia 
that caused a strain in relations, to the Russians, when this 
administration says, Hey, we are really sorry for the way we acted in 
the past; we want a new relationship; we want to hit a reset button or 
whatever we put in Russian on this thing, we want to start over, the 
message was clear to Vladimir Putin: we're sorry that we were offended 
when you broke your word to us and invaded Georgia; we're sorry that 
you were an aggressor, you attacked and invaded and went into a 
neighboring country. This administration was apologizing for the 
Russians being that aggressive, and the message was clear that we are 
not the country we once were. And the message was sent to go ahead and 
take what you think you can, and he has.

  Countries around the world are looking at us. We know we still have 
the greatest military. Despite all the cuts, it is still the greatest 
military in the world. And yet, if you don't have leaders willing to 
show strength, then people will take advantage. It is not a 19th 
century historical action; it is a 21st and every century since man has 
been on this planet.
  Some have asked, gee, if these inalienable rights to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness really are inalienable, why do all people 
around the world not have them? And the answer, I think, is because 
yes, they were an inheritance bequeathed to us by our Creator; but just 
as any inheritance, if the heir does not claim that inheritance and 
have a willingness to protect it and fight for it and maintain it, then 
you won't keep it.
  Thus, when Ben Franklin was purportedly asked, ``What have you given 
us?'' he replied, ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
  Muslim moderates are concerned because they see the United States 
trying to embrace radicals. Again, I am so proud of the moderate 
Muslims in Egypt in joining, literally and figuratively, arm in arm, 
hand in hand with Christians and secularists in Egypt and coming to the 
street in millions and millions and millions and demanding a leader who 
would not usurp power that was not his in the constitution, demanding 
his removal, demanding a constitution that would allow them to impeach 
a leader like Morsi had become as a Muslim Brother. They made clear: we 
don't want radical Islamist leaders or people in our government because 
they have one goal, and that is taking overall power, subjugating 
everyone else, including moderate Muslims and Christians.
  That is why it was so ironic to hear one of the Justices of the 
Supreme Court, in effect, saying just pay the tax and then you have got 
your religious beliefs, because that is a shari'a law belief. And I 
know she is not aware of that. But actually, under shari'a law, if you 
are a Christian, you can pay a tax and subjugate yourself humbly before 
the Muslim government and they will allow you to practice your religion 
so long as you remain subjugated to shari'a and to the Muslim leaders.
  But in this Nation, you are not supposed to have to pay a tax or a 
fine in order to practice your religious beliefs. In Egypt--God bless 
those people--they didn't want to do that either, so they got rid of 
the Muslim Brother leaders.
  What else did they do, Mr. Speaker? They declared the Muslim 
Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. And if one reads the opinion 
from the Dallas Federal court and also from the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, it seems pretty clear the 
evidence is there that Muslim Brotherhood should be accepted as a 
terrorist organization.

                              {time}  1930

  And groups like CAIR, who have such a powerful influence in this 
administration, who can call and have an intelligence briefing shut 
down at Langley, as they have, who can call and complain that the 
training materials at the FBI offend them and have them purged so those 
FBI training materials no longer offend a front organization for the 
Muslim Brotherhood, as found by the Dallas court and the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Now there is a story from England. The BBC news reports ``David 
Cameron Orders Review of Muslim Brotherhood'':


[[Page H3048]]


       Prime Minister David Cameron has commissioned a review of 
     the Muslim Brotherhood's UK activity, No. 10 says.
       The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement which has 
     been declared a terrorist group by Egypt's government.
       Recent press reports have suggested members have moved to 
     London to escape a crackdown in Cairo, where the group backs 
     ousted President Mohammed Morsi.

  Well, they had that in common with at least one or two of our U.S. 
Senators who went over there to back Morsi.
  In any event, the article goes on:

       Number 10 said the review would examine the group's 
     philosophy and activities, and the government's policy toward 
     it.
       According to the Times, it was prompted by evidence 
     received by the government that Muslim Brotherhood leaders 
     met in London last year to plan their response to events in 
     Egypt.
       The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that the 
     ``main conclusions'' of the review, which is due to be 
     completed by the summer, would be made public.
       Asked what had triggered the review, he said the government 
     had received a succession of reports from its Embassies in 
     the region, building up a picture which the Prime Minister 
     believed should be examined.
       But No. 10 does not provide any details on which bodies are 
     to be involved in the review.
       The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, but now 
     operates in many states and has influenced other Islamic 
     movements around the world with its model of political 
     activism combined with Islamic charity work.
       While the Brotherhood--and it has the Arabic name--says it 
     supports democratic principles, one of its stated aims is to 
     create a state ruled by Islamic law or shari'a.
       Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is ``Islam is the 
     solution.''
       The organization's backing installed Mr. Morsi as Egypt's 
     first civilian president in 2012, but he was ousted--and this 
     is the same mistake that CNN and this administration makes; 
     they called it a military coup last year--after widespread 
     street protests.

  As the millions and millions and millions of people in Egypt made 
clear, millions more than even Morsi claimed voted for him, it was not 
a military coup. This was an uprising by the people of Egypt demanding 
the Constitution be followed, and the ouster of a president who was 
grabbing power at scary speed, and many knew if they didn't move at the 
time they did, a year later would be too late. He would be like 
dictators often are, elected, then seize all power, and you can't ever 
get rid of them.
  In any event, this article says:

       In December, the new Egyptian government declared the 
     Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group after blaming it for an 
     attack on a police station that killed 16 people.
       A Downing Street spokesman said in a statement: ``The Prime 
     Minister has commissioned an internal government review into 
     the philosophy and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and 
     the government's policy toward the organization.''

  So, anyway, it is interesting, Egypt has declared the Muslim 
Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, and they should know better 
than any nation in the world.
  I thank God for the Egyptians that rose up. Estimates are a third of 
the population went to the streets to demand removal. And I didn't know 
till I was over there last fall, they didn't have any provision in 
their Constitution for impeachment, so they needed a constitution where 
they could impeach a president who usurps power that is not his under 
the Constitution.
  Now, England is taking a look to see if they shouldn't declare them 
terrorist organizations.
  The reason we can anticipate that, in the near future, this 
administration will not declare the Muslim Brotherhood to be a 
terrorist organization is because they get advice from two front 
organizations, as the courts have said, of the Muslim Brotherhood. That 
would be the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, and I can see 
them, their building from my window, so they have got a good spot to 
keep watch over Capitol Hill, and also, ISNA, the Islamic Society of 
North America. And its leader is Imam Magid, who, as far as I know, is 
frequently giving advice, continued advice to the State Department, the 
White House on anything to do with Islam.

  We know that the Egyptian paper had reported in December of 2012, 
when the Muslim Brotherhood was running the government, that six Muslim 
Brothers were in very key and top positions of power and advice within 
the Obama administration. They heralded that as a great thing for the 
Muslim Brothers to have that much influence in Washington.
  So there shouldn't be a great deal of wonder at why this 
administration, with one of those individuals, reported an Egyptian 
paper, being a top adviser in homeland security, charged with keeping 
us safe, that we have, according to the Egyptian paper, a Muslim 
Brother, Mr. Elibiary, who was given a secret clearance by Janet 
Napolitano, and given access to confidential material or secret 
material. And we, apparently, get advice from this man, whose business 
started a foundation, or he started a foundation called the Freedom and 
Justice Foundation.
  Most of us would say freedom and justice? That is great. He believes 
in freedom and justice. Until you look up the meaning of freedom and 
justice. Under shari'a law, freedom and justice means freedom to 
worship Allah only, and justice only under shari'a law. And so it is no 
big surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood political party in Egypt 
called itself the Freedom and Justice Party.
  But if there are enough leaders here in the United States that know 
what is good for us, we will see what Egypt has done, what England is 
doing. And even Russia has noticed that radical Islam is an enemy. They 
have even tried to warn us, but found we don't take warnings well.
  We should declare the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist 
organization.


          Thoughts On The Causation of the Fort Hood Shootings

  Now, that brings me to another point about the first Fort Hood 
shooting that was clearly an act of terrorism by an enemy combatant.
  Even though this administration calls it workplace violence, it was 
an act of war by a warrior for radical Islam. And he was able to kill 
the 13 people, Nadal Hasan, for more than one reason. One was, 
political correctness kept superior commissioned officers from calling 
it like they saw it because they didn't want to be called some racist 
or Islamaphobe, the term that the OIC, the Islamic council, had put 
together to try to intimidate people from recognizing the danger that 
radical Islam was.
  They didn't want to be called Islamaphobe, and they knew, going all 
the way up the chain of command, that they might be looked upon badly 
if they reported this man for what they saw, not a moderate Muslim, but 
a man that was a potential problem, a person who was being radicalized.
  Another problem was that the people we entrust with rocket-propelled 
grenades, with tanks, with all kinds of weapons, with helicopters that 
can fire blistering rounds thousands of meters away and kill hundreds 
and thousands of people, they have that much authority, that much 
ability, that much power, we trust them with these tremendous weapons 
that kill people, and yet, we tell them, but we don't trust you to have 
a pistol with you on a military installation.
  So just as when a killer walked into a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, 
that adjoins Fort Hood years ago, he knew no one would have a gun 
there, and so he killed a lot of people, including a woman's parents. 
She had put her gun in her glove compartment, and knew she could have 
saved her parents if she had been able to keep her weapon.
  So she fought for and obtained passage, as a new State 
representative, for a concealed-carry permit. So we now have concealed-
carry because of that first shooting incident in Killeen.
  But this administration didn't learn anything when they called that 
shooting workplace violence, didn't learn anything about reporting 
potential threats, and so more people died at Fort Hood.
  I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we said, you know what?
  Military Members, men and women who are putting your lives at risk 
for us, with whom we have entrusted weapons of mass destruction, we are 
going to trust you with a firearm. So if you will get a permit, and 
they show they are qualified--I know my 4 years in the Army, every year 
we had to go qualify--make sure they are qualified with the firearm 
they have, and let them carry firearms.
  I started to put it in the bill that I drafted, that they would be 
concealed, but I think we should leave that to the

[[Page H3049]]

commanders. So we, just as I was coming over here, got the draft from 
legislative counsel and will be filing it this week.
  It is a bill to authorize qualified members of the Armed Forces to 
carry firearms on military bases and installations, and for other 
purposes. And this act may be cited as the Save Our Soldiers Act, or 
the SOS Act.
  It does apply, would apply to all soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, 
Coast Guard. It applies to all of our uniformed military. And it says, 
in general, any qualified member of the Armed Forces may carry a 
firearm on a military base or installation. Then it goes through to set 
forth how you go about applying for the permit to do that.
  If we can trust them with weapons of mass destruction, we ought to be 
able to trust them with a pistol, with a firearm.

                              {time}  1945

  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this gets legs and that we will get this 
passed through the House with widespread bipartisan support. Especially 
in this election year, people seem to be more acutely attentive to what 
their constituents think, so that is why I know it would be a 
bipartisanly-passed bill if we will bring it up this year and then send 
it to the Senate.
  Our friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, may not want to bring it up; 
but then if he won't bring it up, then the only other alternative would 
be for voters to turn out members of Mr. Reid's party, so he wouldn't 
be the Majority Leader.
  Then we could get someone who would bring that bill to the floor, so 
that we don't have another attack at Fort Hood or another Navy Yard or 
somewhere else and have to go: Gee, what could we have done?
  Some of the rest of us would repeat, for the umpteenth time: you 
should let people who are qualified to carry firearms carry firearms.
  We have seen, over and over, killers go to where they know firearms 
are prohibited, like the Colorado shooter going to a theater farther 
away than one close because those that were closer allowed firearms to 
be carried inside.
  It would be terrific if we could do that for our military, and I know 
there are some commanders who take the nod from our Commander in Chief 
and say: oh, we don't think that is a good idea.
  But it is a good idea. It is something we should do, and it is time 
we moved in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________