[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 62 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1916-H1920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE WEEK IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I so much appreciate my colleague and 
friend talking about the Georgia election. We should be encouraging 
fair elections everywhere and, when they are not fair, calling those to 
account.
  Not that we are the policemen of the world, but it becomes so much 
more unfortunate when you have a nation like Egypt that gets pushed 
into elections before they are ready, the Muslim Brotherhood takes over 
the country, as in Egypt when Morsi became President.
  He began shredding the Constitution and taking more and more power as 
it happened in Venezuela with Chavez and other countries. He had taken 
a lesson: This is the way you do it. You get elected, and then you 
start seizing more and more power.
  To the credit of the Egyptian people, their story in recent years is 
the greatest peaceful uprising in the history of the world. It wasn't 
entirely peaceful because of the violence of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  They want a world caliphate, and they want to start with something 
resembling the old Ottoman Empire, that caliphate that came around 
North Africa and on around the Mediterranean, and they need Egypt in 
order to make the beginning of the caliphate work.
  And so they were quite happy when radical Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, 
took over Egypt through Morsi. But when the Egyptian people, a third of 
the population, basically--30 million or so of the 90 million there in 
the nation of Egypt--rose up together, yes, you had Muslims marching 
with Christians.

[[Page H1917]]

  The Coptic Christian Pope himself has told me more than once how 
moving it was to have Muslims and Christians and Jews and secularists 
walking together through the streets in Egypt demanding an end to 
radical Islamic control, demanding that the President, who was 
constantly violating the Constitution, be removed.
  The Coptic Pope told me that it was moving when Muslims, who just 
wanted peace in Egypt--they didn't want radical Islamic control--would 
come up to him and apologize for the way that Morsi and the Muslim 
Brotherhood and radical Islamists were acting.
  And, yes, among Muslims, they are able to recognize that there is a 
part of Islam--the radical Islamists--that they don't like, but it is a 
part of Islam.
  When the administration in this country tells the world that there is 
no such thing as radical Islam, then they are demeaning and degrading 
those courageous Muslims who stand up and say: We need to stop radical 
Islam within Muslims, within the Islamic movement. They actually do 
damage to the people who want to live in peace.
  So we are grateful to the people of Egypt for stopping the caliphate 
before it could be really set in concrete around North Africa and, of 
course, Syria, all the way around. They want to get back to the old 
Ottoman Empire and spread and cover the world under the caliphate.
  It is really most interesting. We have a President who went to 
elementary school in Muslim school and was trained in Islam in 
elementary school, and that is the main part of his training on Islam. 
Because, as we know, he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching in church 
for 20 years or so.
  So the basic teaching on Islam was in elementary school, whereas 
there is the ultimate world expert on what is or is not Islam that most 
of the world recognizes.
  They don't down the street here, down Pennsylvania Avenue. They don't 
at the State Department under Secretary Kerry. But most of the world 
recognizes that a man who got degrees, including his doctor of 
philosophy, his Ph.D., in Islamic studies from the University of 
Baghdad, is an expert on Islam.
  He says radical Islam is Islam. He didn't just get a little 
elementary school training on Islam. He studied Islam his whole life, 
has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, and has continued to pour himself into 
study of the Koran, and he happens to be the head of the Islamic State.

                              {time}  1215

  It would seem that if somebody who spent his life studying--rather 
than just studying Islam in elementary school--says the Islamic State 
is truly Islam, perhaps the so-called experts in our State Department 
and our White House ought to listen to that and take notice as well 
that perhaps maybe it is not as they have been saying, that it is not 
Islam. It is Islam, but it is a part of Islam, the radical Islamists, 
and we should be standing against it.
  So, again, the Iran treaty clearly is a treaty. It needs to be called 
for what it is: a treaty. And we need to have people in the Senate with 
courage to step up and say we need a vote on the Iran treaty, because 
it is a treaty. The Corker bill doesn't apply because it is a treaty. 
Take the vote. Two-thirds will not vote for it. It will not be 
confirmed. Then we can call the Iran treaty at an end, because it never 
was properly agreed to.
  But in the meantime, since this administration put so much of what 
credibility it has on the table and at risk by backing the Iran deal, 
Iran--it may be the run-in leaders, their radical Islamic leaders, want 
to take over the world. They may be crazy in that regard, they may be 
power crazy in that regard, but they are very intelligent. You can be 
crazy and still be highly intelligent. That is how you can be crazy 
enough to fly a plane into a building and kill thousands of innocent 
people, but you are intelligent enough to have your engineers look at 
the plans and figure out what kind of load it would take to bring down 
a building like the World Trade Center.
  An article by Joel Pollak from last year--this is last year--and he 
says: ``In his State of the Union address'' last year, ``President 
Barack Obama claimed: `Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, 
where, for the first time in a decade, we've halted the progress of its 
nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Between 
now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive 
agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our 
allies, including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East 
conflict.' ''
  Mr. Pollak's article says: ``None of that is true. The chances of an 
agreement have dropped sharply, and even the most optimistic analysts 
do not expect a deal that `prevents a nuclear-armed Iran,' but only one 
that puts nuclear `breakout' out of reach for a while. Most important 
of all, we have not `halted the progress' of Iran's nuclear program. 
Earlier this month, the Tehran regime announced that it was building 
two new reactors, and is thought to be behind a suspected facility 
planned in Syria as well.
  ``In a lengthy essay in Commentary magazine, the invaluable Omri 
Ceren summarizes the history of President Obama's appeasement of the 
Iranian's, from the first failed `suckers deal,' as the French called 
it, through the new veto threats against congressional sanctions.
  ``The scale of the Obama administration's incompetence is simply 
daunting. Far from rallying international unity against Iran, President 
Obama has destroyed it by giving away global demands decades in the 
making.
  ``Suddenly, the reason for . . . invitation to Israeli Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress--without consultation from the White 
House--becomes clear . . . it is not the pro-Israel nature of Congress 
that drove the Bibi''--Netanyahu--``invitation. It is the fact that 
Obama''--
  Well, it says he misrepresented things, but that is this article.
  But it goes on to point out that ``there at least five ways in which 
Iran has explicitly violated the interim agreement'' and spells those 
out.
  This is over a year old. They have never stopped violating the 
agreement--not the interim agreement--they were violating it, the 
executive agreement that this President entered with Iran.
  They so much sank their reputation into the Iran treaty that has not 
been ratified that these constant violations by Iran have the 
administration defending Iran, sending them money, covering for Iran, 
making excuses for Iran.
  This article was from less than a year ago by Cory Bennett from The 
Hill: ``A diplomatic deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program could 
inadvertently jumpstart the country's cyber warfare efforts.
  ``Experts say Tehran might use the economic sanctions relief from the 
nuclear pact to buttress its growing cyber program, which has already 
infiltrated critical networks in over a dozen countries, including the 
U.S.''
  So the article goes on to point out: ``We are in a lose-lose 
situation.''
  It is clear to most of us that the Iranian agreement was a huge 
mistake. They are the largest state supporters of terrorism in the 
world, and this administration is ongoing right now in giving billions 
and billions of dollars.
  And though the Iranian leaders have lied about so many things, when 
they say that the money that President Obama gives to them, which they 
don't currently have--the $100 billion to $150 billion in the first 
year, perhaps $100 billion or so each year after that; it remains to be 
seen--their Iranian leaders say:

       We are going to be able to fund more terrorist 
     organizations.

  That is a statement we should take seriously. That is something that 
we should believe when they tell us these things.
  So the President is giving them the money. This article says this 
week that, of the $3 billion that was recently provided to Iran, this 
administration can't really tell if they have used it to support 
additional terrorism or not.
  But this article that was written in May of last year that the Iran 
deal could help fund Iran's cyber war, I bring that up now--it is from 
May 10 of last year from Mr. Bennett--because it was just in the last 4 
or 5 months that John Hayward wrote the article: ``Iran Hacks State 
Department Social Media Accounts.''
  We know they have hacked a New York dam Web site. They have explored 
defenses of the United States Government's Internet.

[[Page H1918]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look back and see that, wow, in May 
of last year, there were reporters that were warning that this deal 
with Iran may help them in their cyber warfare against us greater than 
we even know. Then we find out that this administration put a hold on 
charges against the Iranians that hacked into our government system 
until after the deal was made so that people didn't raise more of a 
fuss to try to stop the Iranian treaty.
  Well, it is still not too late. The Senate could go ahead and take a 
vote. We know that Harry Reid had said:

       Gee, there are some low-level confirmations that are so 
     important to the country, we are going to set aside the 
     cloture rule. It only takes 51 votes to do that.

  Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this Iranian treaty--I keep saying 
it because it is so critical to the world and to any chance at a 
semblance of world peace--has to be stopped because it is enriching the 
largest supporter of terrorism in the world.
  The Iranian leaders have made clear to the Iranian people that they 
have no intention of being bound by any agreement with President Obama, 
John Kerry, or the people here in the U.S. They are still going to do 
what they want to.

  So all the Senate has to do is take a vote--51 votes; there are 
plenty of Republicans to do that--and they might just get some 
Democrats that are too afraid to be seen as supportive of Iran and this 
nuclear deal that they may get some Democrat votes. Vote with 51 votes 
to set aside the cloture rule so you can bring treaty to the floor, 
have a vote on confirmation--it won't get the two-thirds--and then you 
would have all kinds of people that should have standing to go into 
Federal court and put a stop to the billions of dollars that this 
administration is releasing illegally to Iran. That is, funding--this 
administration says they know not what--it could be terrorism, they are 
not sure. I would submit they would--Iran would be supporting 
terrorism.
  But here are five things that the article pointed out that they 
were--even a year ago--breaking the interim agreement: ``Trying to buy 
equipment for plutonium reactor at Arak, breaking commitment to suspend 
work. The Obama administration actually complained about the purchases 
to the U.N. Security Council, even as it told the world that Iran had 
`lived up to its end of the bargain.' ''
  They are ``feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into a plant where it had 
agreed to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Institute for Science and 
International Security noted that Iran had begun enrichment at the 
Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. It notified the Obama 
administration, which complained to the Iranians, which then claimed to 
have stop the enrichment activity.''
  Three: ``Withholding camera footage of nuclear facilities, defying 
the International Atomic Energy Agency. A leading International Atomic 
Energy Agency official recently said the agency was `not in a position 
to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear 
material and activities in Iran' . . . The interim deal was to provide 
surveillance footage of Iranian nuclear facilities, but Iran has only 
provided would what it wants to reveal.''
  And that is consistent with what Steve King and I and a couple of 
other Members were told by the IAEA inspectors who were in charge of 
inspecting Iran, that they can only go by what they are given. They are 
not given access to military facilities. They are not being given this 
footage.
  I am very proud to yield to my dear friend from Kentucky (Mr. 
Massie), a proud graduate of MIT on the floor.
  Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me.
  This is a very interesting topic that you are speaking on, and I have 
never had the chance on the floor to explain my feelings on this vote 
nor the reason why I voted as I did on the Iran bill. So I appreciate 
the opportunity to say a little bit about this.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Texas is 
basically qualifying the Iran deal as a treaty, and I agree with that 
position. In fact, I believe I was the only Congressman to vote 
``present'' on that bill. And the reason that I did vote ``present''--I 
just wanted a chance to clarify this--is that I felt that it was a 
treaty.
  I know a lot of us felt that way and we had different ways of dealing 
with that vote, but I voted ``present'' to indicate it was a treaty and 
that it really shouldn't have even been here in the House of 
Representatives.

                              {time}  1230

  According to the Constitution, only the Senate shall agree to the 
treaties, and not the House. We shouldn't really have a say in that. So 
I just wanted the opportunity, and I appreciate the gentleman from 
Texas giving me this opportunity, to explain the reason that I voted 
``present.'' I think it was only the second time since I have been in 
Congress, and it was for a constitutional reason. I felt strongly that 
was a treaty.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for this opportunity.
  Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would hang on for a moment, I voted for 
the bill, but I did not feel like it adequately dealt with the issue 
that my friend from Kentucky raised, but I completely respect that 
position.
  Since the gentleman from Kentucky and I have had a lot of discussions 
about Iran and the Iranian treaty and his feelings, I have always felt 
that his vote, ``present,'' made eminent sense, was consistent with our 
position.
  Really, the vote on what we took didn't really matter so much as the 
point that the gentleman has just made. This is a treaty. The Senate 
needs to vote on it. Our vote, though nice, was not particularly 
relevant to the fact that it is a treaty.
  I would like to ask, if the gentleman would yield for a question, 
because I saw that there was a handsome young man in a blue shirt that 
came in with him, and wondered if he might identify who has accompanied 
him onto the floor.
  Mr. MASSIE. As the gentleman from Texas knows, we are allowed to 
bring younger constituents and visitors, and we have a visitor from 
Kentucky; that is true. His name is Joe.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thought perhaps he might be from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. His name is Joe.
  Mr. GOHMERT. That is wonderful. He looks quite comfortable here on 
the floor, looks like he would be a good fit some day.
  I thank my friend for making that point.
  The vote that we took last year pointed out that the Iranians had not 
complied; the administration had not complied, as I recall, with the 
requirements to provide proper information.
  But the gentleman from Kentucky is exactly right. The real issue was 
a vote in the Senate on it being a treaty. The Senate has not yet voted 
on the Iranian treaty as a treaty, and if they would do that, when it 
didn't get the two-thirds votes, then we could stop the outrage of 
sending billions of dollars to a country that has a massive amount of 
American, precious American blood on its hands because of the way in 
which they have funded terrorism.
  They were the largest provider of IEDs when Americans were fighting 
for Muslim freedom in Iraq, and yet Iran continued to build and furnish 
IEDs. It needs to be dealt with. People are suffering in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Egypt, and what a great day for world 
history when a third of the population rose up, 30 million people that 
had never risen up in the history of the world, in peaceful 
demonstration, despite the Muslim Brotherhood's violence to try to make 
it appear otherwise. They had never risen up like those people did in 
Egypt. They are to be commended.
  I would humbly submit that if this administration would help Egypt 
and be the friend to Egypt that it is being in helping Iran and 
providing money to Iran, then the world would be a far better place 
than it is with all the help that this administration is providing to 
Iran.
  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ultimate result of 
the Clinton, Wendy Sherman deal with North Korea, in which, in essence, 
the Clinton administration says: Hey, we will give you nuclear--we will 
let you have nuclear power. We will give you what you need to have if 
you will just sign and say you won't ever use it to develop nukes.
  And then, big shocker for some in the Democratic administration--it 
wasn't

[[Page H1919]]

to most of us that were watching from afar in different places in the 
United States--North Korea lied. They did use what we provided to 
create nuclear weapons, and now the world is a much less safe place.
  So I have no doubt that someday, maybe, some Iranian will kill me; 
but somebody will be here on the floor, if the Capitol still exists, 
and will point out that this deal that Obama and Kerry and Wendy 
Sherman did with Iran, in allowing them to move forward with nuclear 
activity, providing them with $100 billion or so to start off, hundreds 
of billions in the future, that they ended up lying when they said they 
agreed, initially, to the agreement--even though they have said 
publicly: We are not going to abide by it--that they ended up using 
results from the Obama administration's treaty to develop nuclear 
weapons, and that, just like the Clinton-Albright-Sherman deal with 
North Korea, the Obama-Kerry-Sherman deal with Iran has resulted in 
Iran having nukes sooner than they would have otherwise, despite the 
promises previously by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from 
having nukes. Actually, they helped them get the nukes.


                North Carolina's Passage of House Bill 2

  Mr. GOHMERT. I want to turn to one other subject that has been very 
controversial--North Carolina has gotten a bad rap--and this article 
from ABC News, ``North Carolina's Controversial `Anti-LGBT' Bill 
Explained.''
  The article says: ``Several civil rights groups and LGBTQ advocates 
are organizing a rally tonight in Raleigh''--this is from March 24 of 
this year--``North Carolina, to protest the State's controversial 
passage of its House Bill 2, which critics have called `the most anti-
LGBT bill in the country.' ''
  The article says: ``Here's everything you need to know about the 
bill, also known as The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, 
which was signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory on Wednesday.
  ``What does it do?
  ``House Bill 2 declares that State law overrides all local ordinances 
concerning wages, employment, and public accommodations.''
  ``Thus, the law now bars local municipalities from creating their own 
rules prohibiting discrimination in public places based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity. Though North Carolina does have a 
statewide nondiscrimination law, it does not include specific 
protections for LGBTQ people.''
  We keep adding letters, you know. We kept adding letters until we got 
to LGBT, and now we have added Q.
  ``The law also directs all public schools, government agencies, and 
public college campuses to require that multiple-occupancy bathrooms 
and changing facilities, such as locker rooms, be designated for use 
only by people based on their `biological sex' stated on their birth 
certificate. Transgender people can use the bathrooms and changing 
facilities that correspond to their gender identity only if they get 
the biological sex on their birth certificate changed.''
  ``Under the law, public institutions can still offer single-occupancy 
facilities.''
  And nobody has a problem with that. If you have got a single bathroom 
facility that has just got one facility for going to the bathroom, that 
is fine. It can be for whoever needs to use it.
  But they are saying, as has been consistent with the history of the 
world for most of the world's existence, that if you, according to 
documentation, are a female, you use the female restroom when it is for 
multiple people's use at the same time; and if, by documentation, you 
are a male, you use the male facilities.
  It has really been shocking to see how many people, including singers 
and entertainers and different groups--I understand Target now wants to 
make sure that boys can use girls restrooms as they please.
  But it has been amazing that such people have been demanding that we 
have to let boys who want to go in little girls bathrooms go in there. 
If a man wants to go in a little girls bathroom, according to the big 
popular movement now, for heaven's sake, let's let the man go in the 
little girls bathroom.
  North Carolina has taken action consistent with the position of the 
world since the world began. If you are going to have a multiple-use 
restroom, normally, you have a female go to a female multiuse restroom, 
a male go to a male multiuse restroom.
  This article goes on. It says: ``Republican lawmakers, who make up 
the majority of North Carolina's General Assembly, publicly unveiled 
the language of the bill Wednesday morning.''
  It goes on and talks about its passage: ``In less than 12 hours''--I 
am talking about after its passage--``the bill was approved by the 
house and senate''--or after it was brought forward, the bill was 
passed, signed by the Governor.

       Lawmakers in the House voted 83-25 to pass the bill. The 
     Senate approved the bill, 32-0 after Democrats, who make up 
     the minority, walked out of the Chamber in protest.

  Obviously, they want men to go to little girls restrooms, too.
  ``Republicans and allies supporting the bill argued that it was 
necessary to protect the safety of women and children from `radical' 
action by Charlotte.''
  ``Critics of Charlotte's ordinance said it could have allowed men who 
may be sexual offenders to enter a woman's restroom or locker room by 
claiming a transgender identity.''
  Well, critics of the Charlotte ordinance is what the article says, 
but actually, that is not just a claim; that is a fact.
  Under what North Carolina was objecting to, if someone who is a 
sexual offender has decided he wants to go in and meddle in a little 
girls restroom where he has no business, people like the entertainer 
that doesn't want to go to North Carolina, they are saying, by golly, 
you have got to let that man go in that little girls restroom.
  What has happened to the sense that used to be such a prominent part 
of this country?
  I mean, there was a very intelligent man on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, 
who actually asked a lawyer on a panel with him on the show: So they 
passed this law. They don't want men going into the women's restroom, 
basically, was the crux of it, or boys going in where little girls go. 
He asked the question, actually: Who are they trying to protect?
  I couldn't believe that we have come to the point where an 
intelligent person would have to ask such a stupid question. Whether 
you agree or disagree with what North Carolina did, whom they were 
trying to protect, it is almost rhetorical. Clearly, whether you agree 
or disagree, they were trying to protect the little girls.

                              {time}  1245

  It is shocking that anybody would have to ask such a question: Gee, 
whom are they trying to protect by saying men can't go into girls' 
restrooms? Incredible. The outrage aimed at North Carolina has just 
been incredible.
  I see an article today by Ryan Lovelace from the Washington Examiner: 
Trump slams North Carolina bathroom law, says state should ``leave it 
the way it is.''
  The way, apparently, Charlotte was going to have it was that men 
could go in little girls' restrooms. Of course, sexual predators who 
are male, all they have to do is say they are transgender and they get 
to go in the little girls' restrooms and wreak the havoc that made them 
a sexual predator.
  Whom are they trying to protect in North Carolina? They are trying to 
protect innocent kids who cannot protect themselves. They count on 
adults to keep them from harm. It is incredible that people are 
outraged at North Carolina.
  Anyone who has children who are female, do you really want men to 
say: I am transgender and get to go in where your little girl is going 
to the bathroom, where you can't go because you are not transgender? 
You are the girl's father.
  This article says ``What Do Proponents of the Bill Argue?'' It says: 
``Republicans and allies supporting the bill argued that it was 
necessary to protect the safety of women and children from `radical' 
action by Charlotte.''
  ``John Rustin, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council, 
testified before the Senate, saying that the Charlotte ordinance `means 
men could enter women restrooms and locker rooms--placing the privacy, 
safety, and

[[Page H1920]]

dignity of women and the elderly at great risk.' ''
  Parenthetically, I noticed an article in recent days, last week, that 
indicated that one of the leading colleges in pushing for transgender 
restrooms has had a problem--and it has come up a couple of times--
where men would come in where women were showering, go into the 
restroom and use their cell phone, hold it up over the stall so they 
can film or take pictures of the female who was trying to have some 
privacy in a very personal act of showering or going to the bathroom.
  What is wrong with saying: Do you know what? When it comes to going 
to the restroom, females will go to female, males will go to male, and, 
look, if you want to have a single facility for one person at a time to 
use or families to use to change diapers or whatever, those are really 
handy? Those are very helpful. My wife and I have used them ourselves 
raising girls. It is a handy thing to have.
  But why condemn North Carolina when they are just trying to protect 
the privacy of girls? It has already been shown that, if you give guys 
a chance to say: I am transgender, and I can get to go in and film a 
girl in a shower, there will be people that do that.
  Why not let the transgender LGBTQRST--whatever the initials are--let 
them have their activities where they don't impose upon the privacy of 
someone who wants to go to the restroom or shower without someone from 
the opposite sex being there with them?
  Governor McCrory wrote this statement: ``The basic expectation of 
privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, 
for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by 
the mayor and city council of Charlotte . . . As a result, I have 
signed legislation passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach 
of basic privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1.''
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I understand Target may now be changing 
their restrooms. I will have to double-check because, if they are going 
to be having women come to men's restrooms, I won't be going to Target 
to shop unless and until that changes.
  Usually, Target is great. They have the restroom right there where 
you go in the door to the store, normally. You don't have to go clear 
to the back of the store. It is a handy thing.
  If you have to go shopping, it is handy, but not anymore. Anybody 
that wants to go to the restroom and have privacy from the opposite sex 
may need to shop elsewhere. We will have to look at what they have 
actually done.
  Anyway, this article seems to make the point that it is not such a 
crazy thing that North Carolina has done, and that is why for 99.999 
percent of human history, since civilization exists since we got past 
the caveman era, when there have been public restrooms, you recognize 
there is a difference between males and females.
  Some day it will be written in the ``Rise and Fall of the United 
States'' that the greatest, freest, and most powerful country in the 
history of the world showed symptoms of insanity when it reached the 
pinnacle of its greatness and success--and this will be one of the 
symptoms that was written about--that they thought they were so much 
smarter than civilization for most of our history of the world that a 
difference was recognized between men and women for purposes of 
facilities. It is a sad day for the country.
  Now, I see this article from yesterday that Curt Schilling, an ESPN 
analyst, was fired over what they deemed as an offensive social media 
post. Here is what Schilling said:

       The post showed an overweight man wearing a wig and women's 
     clothing with parts of the T-shirt cut out to expose his 
     chest. It says, ``Let him into the restroom with your 
     daughter or else you are a narrow-minded, judgmental, 
     unloving racist bigot who needs to die.''

  Apparently, this kind of thing offends ESPN. Although at one time 
their job was covering sports, now their job is being social managers, 
apparently, in making sure that, if men want to go to little girls' 
restrooms, then we let the men go to little girls' restrooms.
  This article from yesterday talking about Target stores says: 
``Target says transgender customers may use the bathroom of the gender 
with which they identify.''
  How about that. Et tu, Target?
  So here we are at the place in our history where insanity in the name 
of political correctness rules the day, common sense is no longer 
common, and to the point that the current leader in the Republican 
campaign for President even says that North Carolina should not have 
taken action that, in essence, says men--which would include sexual 
predators--should not be allowed to go in women's restrooms. He wanted 
it left like it was.
  So if Charlotte wants to say that, if you are a man and you are a 
sexual predator and you say you are transgender and want to go into the 
restroom where little girls are, go ahead.
  That is the position of the leading Republican candidate? I don't 
know. Hopefully, that will be another one of the positions he will 
change.
  But, in the meantime, we need to get common sense back in charge in 
America while we are still the great country we have been.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Members are reminded not to 
make reference to guests on the floor of the House.

                          ____________________