[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8849-H8853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the eloquent 1-minute 
speech by my friend, Doug LaMalfa, that it is extraordinary to think 
that the President of the United States--some say he is the leader of 
the free world--would actually say publicly and, even worse, at a 
conference of world leaders that, in effect, the worst blow we could 
hit ISIS with is for the leaders to come together on climate change?
  It is hard to believe the leader of the free world would make such a 
statement. Maybe it was just something that was given to him to read 
and he read, maybe it was in a teleprompter, or maybe he didn't have 
time to think about what he was saying. Because I have talked to too 
many people in all parts of the world who have dealt directly with 
radical Islamist terrorists, and they make clear that radical Islamist 
terrorists know nothing and respect nothing but power. Incredible. Just 
incredible.
  Growing up, it would have been akin to bullies beating up and taking 
from smaller students on the playground and the teacher gathering all 
the students and other teachers together and saying, ``I am going to 
teach the bullies a lesson by just ignoring them and

[[Page H8850]]

reading you a lovely story from our library.'' Who wouldn't understand 
that the next day the bullies would be beating people up again and 
robbing again? It is incredible.
  Such insanity followed a terrible event, a shooting in Colorado 
Springs. As a judge, a former judge, a former prosecutor, the man that 
did this needs to be punished. It is wrong, and no one should use any 
excuse to go in and shoot other people, whether it is an Islamic 
terrorist or whether it is a deranged, mentally unstable person 
thinking they have some kind of score to even with people they don't 
even know, shooting people about whom they know nothing.
  This story from November 30, Fox News, about the three people killed 
in Colorado, FoxNews.com:
  ``The two civilians killed in Friday's shooting at a Colorado Planned 
Parenthood clinic were identified by authorities and family members on 
Sunday.
  ``Jennifer Markovsky, 35, was accompanying a friend to the Colorado 
Springs Planned Parenthood clinic when she was killed in the shooting 
rampage, her father told The Denver Post.
  ``John Ah-King said she grew up in Hawaii and met her husband, Paul, 
before the couple moved to Colorado when he was stationed here for the 
military.
  ``Ah-King told the Post from his home in Hawaii that Markovsky was a 
kind-hearted, lovable person with two children.
  ``The second civilian killed was identified as Ke'Arre Stewart, 29, 
Amburh Butler, a lifelong friend and family spokeswoman told the 
Associated Press.
  ``Butler said that Stewart was accompanying someone to the clinic, 
and leaves behind two girls, 11 and 5, who live in Texas.
  ``Stewart served in the Army's Fourth Infantry Division and was 
deployed to Iraq, where Butler said he would often send her letters 
describing the horrors he saw on the front lines.
  `` `He would tell me how terrible it was, how many guys he watched 
die. It was terrible for him,' Butler told the Associated Press. The 
Army stationed Stewart at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs in 2013 
before he was discharged from the military the following year. `He went 
someplace where people expect to die, only to come back . . . and be 
killed.' ''
  She also said, ``He was just a standup guy, he would take a bullet 
for you. He was the most sincere person I'd ever met.''
  ``Markovsky and Stewart's identities were confirmed by officials, who 
said a full identification would be provided once autopsies were 
completed Monday.
  ``The third victim was Garrett Swasey, who worked as a police officer 
at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and was called to 
assist with an active shooter at the nearby clinic.
  ``Swasey was married with two children and a co-pastor at Hope 
Chapel, where he was remembered Sunday by parishioners who watched a 
video of him ice skating.
  `` `We are learning that eyewitnesses confirm that the man who will 
be charged with the tragic and senseless shooting that resulted in the 
deaths of three people and injuries to nine others at Planned 
Parenthood's health center in Colorado Springs was motivated by 
opposition to safe and legal abortion,' Planned Parenthood Rocky 
Mountain CEO Vicki Cowart said.''
  Well, that is from Vicki Cowart. That does not appear to be official. 
And it always seems if it works better--for example, I would hope that 
the President has learned by now that he shouldn't give opinions about 
shootings until he knows more about them. Don't condemn a policeman 
when it turns out the policeman was entirely justified because, by 
doing so, you help stir up and divide this Nation that needs to come 
together.

  So there are so many questions. When I was a prosecutor, when I was a 
judge, I wanted to know motive. I wanted to know what caused people to 
do what they did.
  We know why Islamic terrorists do what they do. They think that that 
is contributing to the caliphate. If they happen to die, just as Thomas 
Jefferson was told--it was reported that Jefferson asked why the 
Barbary pirates kept attacking American ships when they weren't a 
threat to that Muslim area. He was reportedly told, ``We believe we go 
to paradise if we are killed while we are fighting infidels like you.''
  So we know what motivates most Islamic terrorists. Either they think 
they are going to go to paradise--what a surprise they are going to 
get--or they think they are contributing to bringing the world under a 
totalitarian domination by one theocrat, like the Ayatollah Khamenei or 
al-Baghdadi, who is head of ISIS.
  So, with that tragedy just in our rearview mirror, unfortunately, 
once again, the President, in front of a massive group, spoke without 
thinking about what he was saying.
  I don't know whether it was on a teleprompter again and he just 
hadn't thought about what he was reading to the public, maybe somebody 
put something in front of him, or maybe he was talking off the cuff and 
hadn't really thought about what he was saying.
  But this article from Alex Griswold, dated today, says, ``While 
giving a press conference in Paris, President Barack Obama told 
reporters that the mass shootings that plague the United States just 
never happen in other countries. `With respect to Planned Parenthood, 
obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted,' Obama 
said in response to a reporter's question. `I mean, I say this every 
time we've got one of these mass shootings; this just doesn't happen in 
other countries.' ''
  He is in Paris, France, where they have just buried one of the 130 
people, mostly from mass shootings. I mean, they probably just finished 
the funeral services for the victims of the Islamic terrorists, and the 
President says in front of the world so insensitively that these 
shootings, like the three people in Colorado Springs, never happens in 
any other countries, as he is standing in a country where it just had 
130 people killed, mainly in mass shootings.
  In fact, the article says that ``the majority of the 130 deaths were 
in mass shooting attacks, where the ISIS-affiliated terrorists attacked 
public places with automatic rifles. Nearly one hundred people alone 
were killed in just one mass shooting at the Bataclan Theater.''
  ``Earlier this year, Paris was also the victim of a terrorist attack 
targeting the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The Al Qaeda-affiliated 
terrorists wielded assault rifles, killing 11 innocent people.'' That 
was in Paris.

                              {time}  1930

  Now, I do realize this article says the 11 people with Charlie Hebdo, 
the publisher of the magazine, that those 11 people, it says here, were 
innocent. But, obviously, again, a leader of the United States, our 
Secretary of State, John Kerry, addressed on video for the world to see 
this issue and basically was saying we can understand why the Charlie 
Hebdo people were killed.
  I mean, for goodness' sake, those people used the idea that they had 
the freedom to speak any way they wanted to; and, apparently, radical 
Islamic terrorists were insulted, even though the President has said 
repeatedly and John Kerry has said repeatedly and Hillary Clinton has 
said repeatedly, and continues to say, that these terrorist attacks by 
radical Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.
  Well, that is a head-scratcher, because if the terrorist attacks on 
Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with Islam, then why did John Kerry 
think there may have been some justification for Islamic terrorists to 
kill these satirists, these magazine employees, because they said 
something offensive about Islam? If it wasn't about Islam, then why 
were the terrorists killing these magazine employees because they said 
something about Islam? That is a head-scratcher.
  And then when we look at what the media is saying about the Colorado 
Springs shooting and we look at what people in the mainstream media, 
whether it is ``The View'' or other places, talk about, yeah, Hitler 
was a Christian. No, he wasn't. And, yeah, McVeigh, was a Christian. 
Well, I am sure that would be a surprise to him. He seemed to brag late 
in life about being agnostic. Hitler certainly wasn't a Christian.
  So if the President, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry are right that, 
gee, we need to worry as much about Christians--actually, our State 
Department

[[Page H8851]]

seems to think, in their reports, that we need to worry more about 
Christians than we do about Islamic terrorists, even though there is no 
indication that the Colorado Springs shooter was a Christian.
  I can absolutely assure you, Mr. Speaker, no matter what he says his 
religious affiliation is, he certainly was not a Christian, because he 
certainly was not following the teachings of Christ. The Bible makes 
clear that we are known by our fruits, and if he has gone in and killed 
other people in this way, illegally, then he is certainly not following 
the teachings of Christ. He is not part of the government. There is no 
justification. There has been no trial.
  But it does also raise issues about the effects of the lawlessness of 
this administration, having had whistleblowers come to me, law-abiding, 
moral, ethical people you want to know. We have seen that the Justice 
Department will go after and destroy any honest, moral, ethical 
whistleblower that may reflect poorly on the administration. We have 
seen reports of the acting inspector general at Homeland Security 
changing IG reports. We get word that in the intelligence community 
reports have been changed from truth to something that would not make 
the administration look bad, reports now coming out about, and 
apparently former intelligence leader Flynn talking about this, how the 
truth that was coming from intelligence in 2012 did not match up with 
this administration's reelection campaign so they just changed the 
reports.
  I mean, what effect does an administration lying and being lawless 
have on what traditionally has been a majority law-abiding country? Can 
it create helplessness, a feeling, or a need that perhaps we need to 
take the law into our own hands? I would tell anyone that is never 
justified. You do it through lawful means, through the government. Of 
course, Thomas Jefferson might say otherwise.
  But what effect does it have when the law of the land, the Federal 
administration governing, ruling over the country, required by the 
Constitution to follow the laws that have been passed by Congress and 
signed by other Presidents, this President may not agree with and he 
just disregards the laws, say, on amnesty, disregards the laws about 
governing the EPA, so they just make up new regulations, and you just 
create 79,000 pages of new regulations as if you are a dictator in 
chief? I mean, if, hypothetically, that were happening, what effect 
would it have on people who believed in having a law-abiding country 
when the administration over the country becomes so lawless? It seems 
surely it would create a feeling of desperation.
  What do you do? I have talked to whistleblowers who had that feeling. 
What do you do? I can't go to the Justice Department with the truth 
about what is going on because they will prosecute me. They will 
destroy my family. I will never be able to make a living again. I have 
seen what they do to whistleblowers who just want the administration to 
be honest and follow the law. What do you do? Where do you go?
  I would submit that the place you go is not to Russia to give away 
our utmost secrets because that is treason, but it is bound to be 
mitigating when an administration makes it so tough to just come 
forward and state the truth.
  We found out that this administration had known about General 
Petraeus' affair for most of a year, but they waited until General 
Petraeus was in a position to destroy the election possibilities, 
reelection possibilities for President Obama, and they flowed out about 
the affair they have known about for most of the year, and he is 
destroyed. They prosecute him because apparently, as I understand it, 
he provided a calendar to his biographer and searched as they might for 
anything that they could hang around his neck of being a lawless 
activity. As I understand it, they found something in his calendar that 
could have been said to be classified, so he agreed to plead to that.
  And we find out yesterday there apparently have been 1,000, around 
1,000 Hillary Clinton emails so far that contain classified 
information. If Chuck Colson gets a year and a half for having 
information he is not supposed to, Petraeus' life, his livelihood, is 
ruined because they are finally able to find something that might have 
been classified that he pleads guilty to having turned over to his 
biographer. How long do you get for doing that a thousand times? I am 
just asking, Mr. Speaker.
  But if, let's say, hypothetically, it were true what President Obama, 
John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton keep saying, that you should not say 
anything negative about the terrorists who claim to be Islamic and who 
say, Praise be to Allah, ``Allahu Akbar,'' and then they kill innocent 
people, you can't say anything that that is related to radical Islam 
because that only makes matters worse. Well, if they really believe 
those things they have been saying, and if it were even true, and if 
Homeland Security is right that we need to worry about evangelical 
Christians or people that belong in the authority of the United States 
Constitution, then shouldn't the President, Hillary Clinton, and John 
Kerry, be worried that they are going to stir up another crusade by 
besmirching and maligning Christianity and Christians as routinely as 
they do, saying these Christian terrorists are so bad or pointing out 
we have got bad Christians, we have got the Crusades?
  Well, if Christianity is as big a threat to commit violence as people 
who say they are Islamic terrorists or jihadists, then I am just 
asking, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't that indicate that the President, Hillary 
Clinton, and John Kerry are actually going to be responsible if a 
Christian goes and does something violent? I mean, using their own 
logic, if they are out there running down Christians as a threat to 
violence while saying you can't say anything negative about radical 
Islam and a Christian has done something wrong, well, if you are saying 
we stir up radical Islamic terrorists by talking about them, then 
wouldn't you be responsible if you--generic indefinite ``you''--be 
responsible for saying bad things about a Christian if a Christian then 
does something violent? I am just asking, applying the President's own 
logic or lack thereof.

  There is an article from 4 months ago by Kyle Becker that said, after 
the tragic Charleston shooting that left nine Americans dead, President 
Obama said the following: ``But let's be clear: At some point, we as a 
country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass 
violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen 
in other places with this kind of frequency.''

                              {time}  1945

  The President said that 4 months or so ago, and he says it again now, 
while he is in Paris, where 130 people were just killed in a mass 
attack.
  But this article was written 4 months ago, and it actually charts it. 
And it reads, ``Since most statistics on mass shootings in the world 
compare apples and oranges by not correcting for population, let's get 
a chart that makes sense, shall we?'' Between 2009 and 2013, the author 
goes through and charts.
  The loss of even one life should not be occurring. As someone who has 
looked a defendant in the eye and has ordered him to be taken and held 
by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice until he is put to death 
and has signed the order requiring a multiple-murderer or a kidnapping 
murderer-torturer be put to death, I know every life matters. Every 
life matters. Every little baby who is cut up and sold for parts 
matters.
  How about the lawlessness of seeing the Planned Parenthood videos and 
not only not be offended or finding those grotesque and inhumane but 
actually having the Department of Justice stand ready to be the 
criminal defense firm for Planned Parenthood and stand by Planned 
Parenthood in these alleged horribly egregious violations of humanity? 
Would that invoke helplessness? It shouldn't invoke anybody to 
violence, but could it?
  According to this article by Kyle Becker, between 2009 through 2013--
these are rampage shooting fatalities per 1 million people--Norway had 
15.3, Finland had 1.85, Slovakia had 1.47, Israel had 1.38, Switzerland 
had .75, and the United States had .72.
  Even one is too many, and the perpetrator should and must be 
punished. But if someone has committed crimes in Planned Parenthood, 
shouldn't we have an administration that believes in enforcing the laws 
and in at least doing

[[Page H8852]]

a proper investigation on whether what was said in the videos were 
true, which certainly indicated orally that there were apparent crimes 
committed?
  Since every life matters, every Black life matters, not just the 
Black lives that are needlessly taken by a White person, but every 
Black life matters no matter who takes the life.
  This article from the Chicago Tribune reports, ``Holiday toll: 8 
killed, 20 wounded over Thanksgiving weekend.'' It seems rather 
callous.
  The article reads, ``Eight people were killed, including a 16-year-
old boy, and at least 20 others were wounded in shootings over the 
Thanksgiving weekend in Chicago, an increase over last year as the 
number of gunshot victims rose above 2,700 for the year.''
  There were 2,700 gunshot victims in Chicago, when Chicago has such 
strong gun control laws in place? How could that be? Is it possible 
that having the toughest gun control laws, like Washington, D.C., has 
had, doesn't stop violent murders?
  In fact, is it possible that places that have the strictest gun 
control have become murder capitals? It certainly appears so in Chicago 
and in Washington, D.C.
  This article from the Chicago Tribune reads:
  ``Mysean Dunnin, 16, was among the first victims of the long holiday 
weekend. He was shot in the head a few minutes before midnight just 
west of Kedzie Avenue on Van Buren Street in East Garfield Park, about 
a block from his home.
  ``Police said two people walked up and fired at Dunnin. He was 
pronounced dead at the scene.
  ``Four other people were wounded between 3 p.m. Wednesday and 2:30 
a.m. Thursday.
  ``Two men were killed and four others were wounded from 1:20 p.m. on 
Thanksgiving Day to 3:15 a.m. Friday.
  ``A 36-year-old man was killed and two people, including a 14-year-
old boy, were wounded between Friday afternoon and early Saturday 
morning.
  ``The most violent stretch occurred Saturday into Sunday, when three 
men were fatally shot and at least four other people were wounded.
  ``Father of three, home for the holidays, dies in Back of the Yards 
shooting.
  ``Between Sunday afternoon and early Monday, an eighth person was 
killed and six other people were wounded.
  ``The toll during last year's Thanksgiving weekend'' in Chicago ``was 
5 killed and 14 wounded. That included a fatal shooting inside the 
Nordstrom's store on North Michigan Avenue.''
  With the President's precious ideas on gun control that certainly his 
former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would have in place in Chicago 
since he has such power to effectuate the passage through the city 
leaders of ordinances for tough gun control, how could this be?
  The number of homicides is 444. ``So far this year, there have been 
at least 2,740 shootings in Chicago, up more than 400 from the same 
time last year. The number of homicides is 444, an increase of 42 from 
last year.'' That is tragic.
  An article by Charles C.W. Cooke on November 23, 2015, reads, 
``Anyone who would use terror as an excuse to subvert the Second 
Amendment should be tarred and feathered.'' A rather interesting 
position.

  An article from Charlie Spiering of 30 November 2015 reads, ``In his 
inaugural speech at the COP21 climate change summit in Paris, President 
Obama acknowledged the terrorist attacks that occurred in the city 
earlier this month, but warned his fellow leaders not to be distracted 
from focusing on the looming threat of global warming.''
  The President was quoted as saying, ``What greater rejection of those 
who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save 
it.''
  Ignoring the violent terrorism that the Islamic jihadists are 
infecting upon the world and talking about climate change--and, 
obviously, I mean, most thinking people know it is called ``climate 
change'' now because ``global warming'' hasn't really been supported 
for many years now, and, certainly, it is not provable that it was 
manmade.
  I do believe in climate change. We have it four times a year in east 
Texas, where I live, so I know climate change is a fact. We know that 
the weather normally works in cycles.
  We had a witness before our Natural Resources Committee who knows a 
great deal about the climate, and I asked him, is it true that planet 
Earth had to have been warmer during the days of Leif Eriksson's 
crossing the North Atlantic when the Norse came to Greenland? Is it 
true that planet Earth was warmer then? It turns out, according to his 
testimony, the planet was much warmer then.
  Now, we don't know what kind of fuel, what kind of carbon emissions 
those Norse boats were putting into the atmosphere, but I guess you 
would have to figure those Norse must have really been putting out some 
pollution from those ships with the sails on them to have created a 
warmer planet back then than we have now.
  Apparently, they were growing crops in places on Greenland where you 
can't anymore.
  My friend Ben Shapiro has an article in the Daily Wire entitled, 
``Five Reasons Obama's Climate Change Agenda is Dangerous--'', and part 
of the words are blacked out after that.
  One reason he has highlighted is because ``we have no idea to what 
extent the Earth is warming.'' And he sets out some data and facts 
there, resources there or other.
  Two, ``We have no clue how much human activity causes climate 
change,'' and I would add ``if any.''
  Of course, we call it ``climate change'' now because the data did not 
support the ``global warming'' that was being used in a fear-mongering 
fashion to scare people. By changing from ``global warming'' to 
``climate change,'' that would allow them to say in the seventies, as 
they did, that we are at the beginning of a new ice age and then 30 
years later say that we are heading toward cataclysmic global warming 
that will destroy all life on planet Earth.
  Now, after the long pause in warming that seems to be inexplicable to 
scientists and after the release of private emails and information from 
the University of East Anglia some years back, it indicated data was 
being manipulated so that it reflected things that weren't true about 
so-called global warming or climate change.
  Ben Shapiro's third point: ``We have no idea how much climate change 
impacts human life.'' It has discussions and references there.
  Then, the fourth: ``We have no idea what level of de-development 
would be necessary to maintain our current climate.''
  The fifth: ``The solution--destroying carbon-based fuels and 
capitalism--is the problem.'' He writes, ``The left is in an all-out 
war with the two greatest forces for fighting poverty in history: 
cheap, carbon-based energy and capitalism.

                              {time}  2000

  ``The same people celebrating the end of the Industrial Revolution 
economic model seem to forget that that economic model, boosted by 
carbon-based fuels, have led to a massive drop in global poverty; in 
1990, 1.9 billion people lived under $1.25 per day, as opposed to 836 
million in 2015. That's because of the dominance of capitalism and the 
increased efficiency of technology. It's certainly not because of 
governmental environmental regulations.
  ``Some on the left seem eager to try out their theory that we can 
maintain our current standard of living while hopping in a time machine 
back to less usage of carbon, without reference to market efficiencies. 
This is foolishness. We have time machines; they're called airplanes. 
Folks on the left ought to fly to countries where people don't have 
coal or oil or natural gas or free markets, and watch them burn cow 
chips for heat to see how lovely and natural that lifestyle actually 
is.
  ``But President Obama has his goals. How many people will have to 
suffer or die globally because of them isn't really the issue. After 
all, to question him would make us 'cynical,' he assures us. If 
cynicism means saving lives, then perhaps we all ought to be cynical of 
his world-conquering, unscientific, redistributionist nonsense.''
  Going back to February 7, 2015, an article from Christopher Booker 
from The Telegraph titled ``The fiddling with temperature data is the 
biggest science scandal ever,'' he said: ``Two weeks ago, under the 
headline `How we are being tricked by flawed data on

[[Page H8853]]

global warming,' I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotof
peopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for 
three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had 
originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 
years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend 
was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
  ``This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long 
recognised by expert observers around the world--one that raises an 
ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature 
record.
  ``Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South 
American weather stations around the original three. In each case he 
found the same suspicious one-way `adjustments.' First these were made 
by the U.S. government's Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They 
were then amplified by two of the main official service records, the 
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate 
Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate 
temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements 
are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and 
politicians rely for their belief in `global warming.'
  ``Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations 
across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart 
of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-
way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or 
more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. 
This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in 
charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom 
Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new 
version completely `disappears' Iceland's `sea ice years' around 1970, 
when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country's 
economy.
  ``One of the first examples of these `adjustments' was exposed in 
2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper 
published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned 
fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss''--or the 
Goddard Institute for Space Studies--``Hansen's original graph showed 
temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than 
at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, 
`Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history.''
  Wow, Mr. Speaker, I need to read that again. I had not seen that.
  ``Hansen's original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having 
been much higher around 1940 than at any time since.''
  ``Homewood's interest in the Arctic is partly because the `vanishing' 
of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child 
for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway 
warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it 
is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts 
in a major Atlantic current--this last peaked at just the time 75 years 
ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. 
The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
  ``Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this 
wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record--for reasons 
GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained--has become the real 
elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world 
has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest 
scientific scandals of all time.''

  Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if it might be possible that there is a 
mainstream media reporter out there--with the New York Times, 
Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, one of those that have lost so 
many of their viewers and readers--that might someday, against all of 
the criticism like Galileo got and others received, pick up that mantle 
and do a true investigation from a mainstream media outlet, facing the 
belittling and the criticism of all of the Chicken Littles that are in 
the mainstream media currently and actually gather accurate data, show 
the fraud, show the wasted money, show the lost lives, show the 
suffering by running up the price of energy so high, and show just what 
Christopher Booker talks about as he finished his article. This really 
does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all 
time.
  As the great philosopher Rush Limbaugh once said, ``Follow the 
money.'' Many others have said it. If you hear someone saying, ``Let's 
bring Syrian refugees in'' when we know there is no adequate data to be 
assured of who they are, where they are really from, follow the money. 
See if they are part of those dividing up the 1 billion-plus dollars 
being paid to people to bring refugees into the United States.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, when this administration goes about driving up the 
prices of energy as it has, despite its best efforts, gasoline prices 
came down. The last I saw, they had dropped their approval of 
production from Federal land to about 40 percent of grants that had 
been approved during the Bush administration's 8 years.
  Less production is being authorized by this administration. They are 
siccing the EPA now with these new regulations on the oil and gas 
industry, which will ultimately--if they are successful and Congress 
isn't able to stop them as we should, the price of gasoline will 
skyrocket as the President said he wanted coal-produced power to 
skyrocket.
  As one of my senior citizen constituents had told me--I think she 
said she was 80--she was born in a home that only had a wood-burning 
stove. Because of the way the cost of energy has gone up, she is 
worried that she may leave this world in a home that only has a wood-
burning stove. The trouble for her is, if this administration has its 
way, she can't have a wood-burning stove even.
  You see the cost of home energy going up as dramatically as this 
administration has forced it and you realize that doesn't really hurt 
the rich in America to have higher prices for energy. It does hurt 
business. It absolutely does. It means they can't give raises because 
they are spending that money on higher bills. So people are not keeping 
up with what they should.
  Then we found out during this administration the unthinkable 
occurred, and the President even admitted it on camera. For the first 
time in the history of this country ever, after this President's 
policies had been fully implemented for 5 years, 95 percent of the 
Nation's income went to the top 1 percent.
  The President, who had talked so much about helping the middle class 
and helping the poor, has presided over policies that have made the 
rich--put them in a position where 95 percent of income is going to the 
top 1 percent. It had never happened before this President's policies, 
which have made life difficult for people in America.
  I mean not for the people that have all the cronyism, crony 
capitalism, General Electric and all those friends of the President. I 
am talking about the distance between the rich and the poor has gotten 
farther with fewer people in between. That is tragic.
  So countries swarm to the global warming conferences. Just watch. 
Follow the money. They hope to leave with an agreement by the United 
States that will punish American residents and cause them to have to 
pay more taxes that will be paid to countries around the world.
  Of course, they flock to these global warming climate change 
conferences because they think the President is going to do what he is 
hoping to do and start sending checks from the American taxpayers to 
all of these other countries, places where their policies have stifled 
growth or they don't have the energy we do. How about sending them some 
energy? Send them some coal. They will be far better off.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just remind that you don't have to 
pay people to hate you. They will do it for free. We don't have to be 
sending that money overseas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________