[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 178 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9201-H9204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2000
                        TERROR WATCH LIST ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my friend from 
Georgia's thoughts and observations.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really intriguing that our friends across the 
aisle have been joining with the President in demanding that we in 
Congress give this administration, with its abuses and unaccountability 
of the IRS, using it as a political weapon to help win an election, 
that used the ATF to sell weapons, 2,000 or so, to get them in the 
hands of criminals, and then tried to use that violence that came from 
the weapons they forced into the hands of people that shouldn't have 
had them as a reason to try to take away Second Amendment rights of 
law-abiding Americans.
  This administration is one of the most arbitrary and capricious 
administrations in history. Executive orders have been used for things 
that, from the top to the bottom of this administration, they have said 
they could not use executive orders for, including forms of amnesty. I 
think, over 20 times, the President himself said he did not have 
authority to just grant amnesty, and yet he turned around and did it 
anyway.
  This administration, with that kind of history over the last 7 years, 
of being so arbitrary and in some cases being very intentional in going 
after enemies, far beyond anything Nixon might have ever dreamed he 
might be able to do, the thought of giving this administration the 
power to just make a list of all the people that you don't want to ever 
fly or have a gun, just make a list, we don't know exactly how you are 
making this list. There is no due process in creating the no-fly list. 
There is no due process in getting oneself off the no-fly list once the 
name is on the no-fly list.
  Katie Pavlich with townhall.com, talking of the President's speech, 
said:
  ``President Obama called on Congress to pass legislation stripping 
anyone, including American citizens, on the terrorism no-fly list of 
the ability to purchase a firearm in the United States. Sounds pretty 
reasonable, right? Nobody wants terrorists to have easy access to guns, 
and it certainly sounds bad when the argument is made that those 
currently on the terror watch list have the ability to do so. But 
here's the problem: The terror no-fly list is a mangled, bureaucratic 
mess of over 700,000 names. Yes, there are names on the list that are 
connected to terrorism, but nearly half of those names belong to people 
who have zero links'' to terrorism.
  Further down she said:
  ``That list, which contained 47,000 names at the end of George W. 
Bush's

[[Page H9202]]

presidency, has grown to nearly 700,000 people on President Obama's 
watch. The fact that they are names, not identities, has led to 
misidentifications and confusion, ensnaring many innocent people. But 
surely those names are there for good reason, right?
  ``Not really. According to the technology website TechDirt.com, 40 
percent of those on the FBI's watch list--280,000 people--are 
considered to have no affiliation with recognized terrorist groups. All 
it takes is for the government to declare it has `reasonable suspicion' 
that someone could be a terrorist. There is no hard evidence required, 
and the standard is notoriously vague and elastic.
  ``So who ends up on the list who shouldn't and why? Take for example 
Weekly Standard Senior Writer and Fox News Contributor Steve Hayes, who 
was put on the no-fly list after a cruise.
  ``Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard . . . was 
informed Tuesday that he had been placed on the Department of Homeland 
Security's Terrorist Watchlist.
  ``Hayes, who spoke to POLITICO by phone on Tuesday, suspects that the 
decision stems from U.S. concerns over Syria. Hayes and his wife 
recently booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and returned 
to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens.''
  But the trouble is, nobody can say for sure why they are on the list, 
why they are not on the list, why they should not be on the list, the 
article says, but travel to certain regions isn't the only way you can 
get put on the list without due process.
  ``The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the 
government's guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of 
terror watch lists.''
  I just can't help but say, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to fathom that, 
once the wonderful American people think about what the President is 
proposing, they are going to realize you can't trust this 
administration with your health care, you can't trust this 
administration to keep their promises that if you like your health 
insurance policy you can keep it, because those promises from this 
administration weren't true. The promise: If you like your doctor, you 
can keep your doctor wasn't true. It turns out people in the 
administration knew all along that it wasn't true, yet they promised 
people those things anyway.
  So there are issues of trust. We know, even when we are not talking 
about issues of intentional misrepresentation but just mismanagement 
and terrible policies, look at the rules of engagement of our military. 
Under President Bush, there were just over 500 precious American lives 
that were lost in the war in Afghanistan over 7\1/4\ years' time. 
Though the war had wound down, we were told by the President, 
basically, one, things were contained in Afghanistan.
  Nonetheless, during this wound-down war of the last less than 7 
years, this President's rules of engagement have contributed, not 
intentionally, but the mismanagement has helped create an environment 
for our military members, men and women, where we have lost three to 
four times more lives under Commander Obama than were lost under 
Commander Bush, and more time that Commander Bush was over the 
operation.
  This is not the administration you want to trust to say: You just 
make out a list, even though the standards are vague; we don't know how 
somebody gets on; it is kind of up to you, judgment call on your part; 
and there is not a clear way to get off.
  I read an article where somebody had been trying for 8 years to get 
off of that list. Nonetheless, you just go ahead, Obama administration, 
bureaucrats in cubicles, people like Lois Lerner that hate 
conservatives, you just make out your list of people you don't want to 
ever be able to defend themselves or their homes or their loved ones 
with a weapon. You make out the list, and we will keep them from 
flying, and we won't let them have a gun.
  That would be a disaster, because when most Americans realized what 
the President was asking for, just carte blanche to put anybody he 
wanted to on the list and they could never get a gun, the American 
people are fair. The majority pull for an underdog, and they are not 
going to pull for an overly abusive, bureaucratic, Kafkaesque 
administration to take out its revenge on someone it doesn't like and 
prevent them from being able to defend themselves and their loved ones.
  Of course, The New York Times, never an organization to let hypocrisy 
get in the way of being hypocritical, this article from Breitbart by 
AWR Hawkins points out:
  ``On April 18, 2014, The New York Times published a scathing 
editorial on the no-fly list, describing it as `a violation of basic 
rights,' and a list unsuitable for a `democratic society premised on 
due process.'

  ``Moreover, The New York Times addressed the imprecision of the list 
by explaining that a 2007 audit showed that half the names on the list 
`were wrongly included.' Adding insult to injury, there were `71,000 
names' on the list in 2007, which means 35,500 people were facing a 
denial of their constitutional rights for being on a list due to 
oversight or some similar mistake.''
  That seems to be pretty clear. The New York Times got it right in 
2014, got it wrong now. But it is interesting. I reflect on what my 
friend, former Member of Congress Barney Frank told me one day when we 
were on the same side of an issue. He shrugged and said: Well, even a 
broken clock is right twice a day. I know my friend Barney Frank could 
prove that.
  There was an article entitled, ``FBI Investigates If Terror Group 
Arranged California Killers' Marriage.'' It is by Marisa Schultz and 
Yaron Steinbuch, dated December 9, 2015. It pointed out:
  ``The FBI is investigating whether the online courtship of the future 
San Bernardino mass murderers was a match made in hell by a terror 
group--to set in motion the radicalized duo's evil plan, Director James 
Comey said on Wednesday.
  ``Comey told a Senate Judiciary Committee that investigators do not 
yet know if a group like ISIS hatched the love-and-hate match between 
jihadists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.''
  Further down it says:
  ``The top G-man also said that Farook, 28, and Malik, 29, were 
radicalized at least 2 years ago and planned their evil martyrdom 
scheme long before they were engaged and before she applied for her 
visa.
  ``The couple--who lived in a two-bedroom townhouse with their 6-
month-old daughter and Farook's mother--killed 14 people and wounded 21 
during a holiday party December 2 at the Inland Regional Center in San 
Bernardino. They were killed about 4 hours later in a shootout with 
police . . . `Our investigation to date shows that they were 
radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, 
and as early as the end of 2013, were talking to each other about jihad 
and martyrdom before they became engaged and married and were living in 
the U.S.'. . . A U.S. Government source familiar with the shooting 
probe said Farook may have been plotting an attack in the U.S. as early 
as 2011.''
  That is hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, because this administration was 
doing all these things, reaching out, not helping Christians who were 
being persecuted in greater numbers than ever in the history of the 
world. No, not reaching out to specifically help Christians and Jews, 
who were the primary targets of these radical Islamists, these people 
who perpetrate hate crimes that this administration won't even call 
hate crimes. This is the administration that, every time it seems that 
they reach out overseas or even, for heaven's sake, with our NASA space 
program, the President is directing that we have got to protect Muslims 
above all other things.

                              {time}  2015

  This is the same administration who appointed an Attorney General 
who, after this mass murder spree in San Bernardino, came out--while 
others like local police and other good, clear-thinking people are 
saying, ``If you see something, say something,'' after knowing that 
neighbors saw suspicious activity by what they knew to be Muslims, 
apparently, in the garage, but they were afraid of saying something 
because it was politically incorrect, and now, Mr. Speaker, it has been 
made clear by the Attorney General that, if you are a neighbor in a 
position like those of Farook and Malik and you see something you think 
is suspicious that someone with an Islamic background is doing and you 
call that in,

[[Page H9203]]

our Attorney General just may, according to what she said, decide not 
to go after the Islamist terrorists, but to come after you for being a 
bigot and for showing bias or prejudice.
  I can't imagine a more ridiculous thing to say after radical 
jihadists kill Christians and Jews. Yes, apparently, there was at least 
one Muslim shot, but the killing occurred because of the hate for 
Christians and Jews and the desire to create terror in the hearts of 
infidels. So no Muslims were actually targeted by these radical 
Islamists. They were collateral damage. They should never have been 
shot.
  Anybody that had anything to do with the shooting of a Muslim, 
Christian, Jew, atheist, Buddhist, or anything else, should be brought 
not just to justice. But when it is an act of war like this, they ought 
to be taken out.
  The Attorney General, on the other hand, in the immediate aftermath 
of this bloody massacre--tragic--at a Christmas party--threatens 
American citizens that, if you become--in effect, what she is saying--
not the words, but, in effect, she is saying, if you become suspicious 
of people who are acting in the same way that you have seen on 
television or in the news, acting as radical Islamists, and you report 
that, we will come after you because you are showing bigotry and 
prejudice.
  So, on the one hand, if you see something, say something, but if it 
is about a Muslim, then there is a good chance we will come after you, 
not the Islamists.
  There is a report from CNN's Zachary Cohen: ``Amnesty report: ISIS 
armed with U.S. weapons.'' This is dated today.
  ``A new report from a prominent human rights group has found that 
ISIS has built a substantial arsenal, including U.S.-made weapons 
obtained from the Iraqi army and Syrian opposition groups.
  ``Amnesty International's 44-page report, released late Monday, found 
that much of ISIS' equipment and munitions comes from stockpiles 
captured from the U.S.-allied Iraqi military and Syrian rebels.''
  Further down:
  ``After analyzing thousands of videos and images taken in Iraq and 
Syria, Amnesty determined that a large proportion of ISIS' current 
military arsenal is made up of `weapons and equipment looted, captured 
or illicitly traded from poorly secured Iraqi military stocks.'''
  We saw over and over, Mr. Speaker, that this administration had this 
ridiculous idea--way too late after there were vetted moderate Syrian 
rebels that we could have helped--to get involved.
  Over and over they sent heavy equipment, heavy weapons, to these so-
called vetted moderate Syrian rebels who said they feel a lot closer to 
those members of ISIS than they do the United States. And, lo and 
behold, those heavy weapons that are being used to kill the courageous 
Kurds that are fighting them are United States military weapons.
  To this administration's credit--I have got to give it to them--there 
was a period of about 4 or 5 months where, because the weapons they 
kept sending to the Syrians kept ending up in ISIS' hands, they decided 
to hold up shipping them more weapons because we just were equipping 
ISIS. But for some ridiculous, unknown reason--it has to be 
ridiculous--this administration began sending weapons back again. As 
far as I know, they are still doing so.
  I also think it is important to note that this administration has 
pointed to George W. Bush originally saying that this was not Islamic, 
and this administration has blamed the Bush administration--normally, 
it is quite unfairly--for every problem that has arisen.
  In fact, I believe it was in Iowa where someone told me that they 
understood that the President wanted to have the San Andreas Fault 
renamed for President George W. Bush so that it would be known as 
Bush's fault.
  That is what this administration has done. Yet, they try to blame him 
for them saying that ISIS--which wasn't around when President Bush was 
President. It was only created when this President created a vacuum in 
the Middle East--that these people who claim to be Islamic are not 
Islamic.
  I keep going back to the fact that one of the most internationally 
recognized experts on Islam, Islamic law, Islamic studies, and on the 
Koran, got his degrees, including a Ph.D., I read, from the University 
of Baghdad in Islamic studies. His name is al-Baghdadi. He is the head 
of ISIS. As head of ISIS, he claims that ISIS is indeed Islam.
  The President doesn't have any degrees in Islamic studies, although 
he did apparently study Islam quite clearly as a young child in 
Indonesia. Nonetheless, I think al-Baghdadi's credentials on what is 
Islam and what is not are superior to those of anybody in the White 
House.
  Caroline Glick, a writer for the Jerusalem Post, makes a great point 
in one of her articles from November 24, 2015. She says:
  ``An attempt is being made to assert that there is no pluralism in 
Islam. It is either entirely good or entirely evil.''
  She is making a great point about pluralism because, as she says, 
``This absolutist position is counterproductive for two reasons. First, 
it gets you nowhere good in the war against radical Islam. The fact is 
that Islam, per se, is none of the United States President's business. 
His business is to defeat those who attack the U.S. and to stand with 
America's allies against their common foes.
  ``Radical Islam may be a small component of Islam or a large one, but 
it certainly is a component of Islam. Its adherents believe they are 
good Muslims and they base their actions on their Islamic beliefs.
  ``American politicians, warfighters, and policymakers need to 
identify that form of Islam, study it, and base their strategies for 
fighting the radical Islamic forces on its teachings.''
  That is why my friends like Muslims Massoud and Dostam and others who 
fought and initially defeated the Taliban within about 5 months in 
Afghanistan--courageous--don't want radical Islamists governing 
Afghanistan.
  In Egypt, a very fine, courageous man, President el-Sisi, stood up to 
imams and pointed out that you must take back Islam and denounce the 
radical Islamists that are destroying our religion. They recognize this 
is Islamic. They are claiming to be Islamic. And we have got to clean 
up our own religion.
  Judicial Watch released information today: ``ODNI Confirms Terrorists 
Tried to Enter U.S. As Syrian Refugees.'' They point out that, ``FBI 
Assistant Director Michael Steinbach has also conceded that the 
U.S. Government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees. `The 
concern in Syria is that we don't have systems in place on the ground 
to collect information to vet. That would be the concern, is we would 
be vetting--databases don't hold the information on those individuals. 
You're talking about a country that is a failed state, that is, does 
not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets--the 
police, the intel services--that normally you would go to seek 
information don't exist.'' That is very important.

  Now I know that some people are trying to say that Donald Trump--and 
I did not endorse him. I endorsed Ted Cruz for President--but they are 
trying to vilify Trump because he perhaps overstated it, but he has 
made clear that we need to pause until we figure out our policy.
  Yet, Huma Abedin, wife of Anthony Weiner, our former colleague here, 
denounced Trump. She says Trump wants to literally write racism into 
our law books, his homophobia doesn't reflect our Nation's values, it 
goes far enough to damage our country's reputation, and could even 
threaten our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I pointed out yesterday the information that we obtained 
after letters were sent to departments and just mentioning a couple of 
facts about her family. And then we find out that she has these direct 
ties to Abdullah Omar Naseef, who had ties to Osama bin Laden, and 
really serious issues not just through her mother, who started the 
Muslim Sisterhood, but her late father, deceased for many years now, 
but who is a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a brother 
who had ties--but she had ties herself--to Naseef and others.
  When you find out the contacts and close personal ties she herself 
had, you wonder how in the world a person like this could be attached 
to, at the time,

[[Page H9204]]

First Lady Hillary Clinton in the Clinton years in the Clinton White 
House. How could that happen?
  Of course, over the years, she has become ingratiated to Hillary 
Clinton. She has been her closest confidante. Not much of anything 
happens, as we found from the emails, without Huma Abedin Weiner being 
in the middle of it. Wow.
  I just want to point out something else that has come out in recent 
years. I will just read this. I don't espouse that Wikipedia is all 
that reliable, but here is what they say about Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi: 
He is an American former Muslim activist known for founding the 
American Muslim Council. He was born in Eritrea, raised in Yemen, 
emigrated to the U.S. He formed the Council, whose aim was to inform 
and influence both Republicans and Democrats.
  In 1998, al-Amoudi was involved with the selection of Muslim 
chaplains for the U.S. military, and acted as a consultant to the 
Pentagon for over a decade.

                              {time}  2030

  During this time, al-Amoudi served as an Islamic adviser to President 
Bill Clinton and a fundraiser for both the Republican and Democratic 
parties.
  More recently, al-Amoudi worked with leading conservatives such as 
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
  Al-Amoudi became a U.S. citizen in 1996. Al-Amoudi and other Muslim 
leaders met with the then-presidential candidate George W. Bush in 
Austin in July 2000, offering to support his bid for the White House in 
exchange for Bush's commitment to repeal antiterrorist laws. He even 
spoke at a service for the victims of 9/11.
  He is now doing 23 years in prison for supporting terrorism. He was 
helping the Clinton administration find people for different jobs. I am 
trying to find out, Mr. Speaker, could he have had anything to do, 
before he went to prison, with placing Huma Abedin as an intern with 
Hillary Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I can't get an answer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________