[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 42 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2045-H2050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THERE ARE RADICAL ISLAMISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is the end of another week in session.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit an important issue. It seems that what 
some of us were trying to point out for 8 years under the Obama 
administration fell on deaf ears, that there really are radical 
Islamists who want to destroy our way of life in the United States, who 
look at us as infidels, and not just Christians, Jews, secularists, and 
others, but even Muslims who do not adapt and accept the radical 
Islamic ways.
  That works to the advantage of some because we have seen for 8 years 
CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups, groups that were listed as 
co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial

[[Page H2046]]

back in 2008, where the named defendants were convicted of many counts, 
and they were supporting terrorism. They have ties all over the United 
States and they have ties to people who constantly had access to 
President Obama's White House, the State Department, and so many other 
areas.
  We saw time and time again the Obama administration looking the other 
way as serious matters arose involving radical Islamists, both in the 
United States and abroad. The Obama administration's approach was: If 
we can just teach these racist, bigoted, Americans to love all 
Islamists. Because they wouldn't point out that some are radicals, as 
my Muslim friends don't hesitate to point out.
  But this administration didn't want to point out that there are 
radical Islamists, that they are part of Islam, that many of them are 
experts in Islam, like Baghdadi, who heads up the Islamic State. He has 
a Ph.D. in Islamic studies, so it is kind of difficult to say that he 
has nothing to do with Islam when that is the basis for everything he 
said and did.
  If one goes and looks at the pleading that the judge declassified 
from 2008 of testimony given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a court at 
Guantanamo Bay, he makes very clear that he is not insane, that he is 
very lucid. He files a very impressive document explaining himself.
  For everything that he said, for example, about the need to kill 
Christians and Jews, he had a direct quote, not from the Koran. Like 
where often Members of Congress, if you bring something up on the floor 
about Islam or the Koran, then it is amazing. It hasn't happened in a 
while, but Members who bring something like that up, they frequently 
find themselves being presented a Koran. Somebody drops off a Koran.
  But, as an expert in the field pointed out to me when I showed him 
the Koran that was dropped off at my House, he says, that is a Koran, 
it is not a Holy Koran; because what they have done is they have taken 
what they call the Holy Koran and they have eliminated the verses that 
support terrorism and the killing of Jews and Christians. So if you 
read from cover to cover this Koran, you don't see any of the verses 
that the most radical Islamists rely on for their killing, their 
beheading, their betraying, their lies. And it is okay, they believe, 
to lie if it ends up supporting the cause of their radical beliefs 
about Islam.
  One of the reasons that I contend with so many others here that Egypt 
ought to be one of our dearest friends is because they have an elected 
president. Yes, he was a former general, like Eisenhower, like George 
Washington, like Andrew Jackson, like so many who had been generals 
before they became President. They understand warfare.
  But the radical Islamists in the United States, so many of them, 
Muslim Brotherhood-related groups, they pointed out time and again: 
Look, we know we are going to have to get to violence at some point. 
But for now, we are making so much progress in taking over the United 
States without using violence that right now violence distracts from 
what we are trying to do.
  Some of us continue to point out that what the Obama administration 
constantly used as their fight against, not radical Islam--they 
couldn't say that like President Trump does--but they would say against 
violent extremism: We have got to spend millions and millions, and 
hundreds of millions of dollars fighting violent extremism.
  They believed what the often Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated 
individuals would say: Yes, if we spend that money teaching people to 
love and accept Islam, then the problem goes away and there is no more 
violence.
  Which is, in and of itself, a complete lie.
  So the Obama administration has been spending money on things. I am 
told by someone who was looking at the ways that the Obama 
administration spent hard-earned taxpayer dollars paid to the 
government, and then the Obama administration would turn around and 
spend it. I am told by someone in Homeland Security--I haven't seen 
it--but they even had a project spending taxpayer dollars to fight 
radical Islam by teaching schoolchildren pro-Islamic songs to sing. It 
is one of the reasons I am so glad we have had a change of President.

  I know that there are so many people across the aisle, not 
necessarily people here in this body, but across the country, who keep 
saying: Oh, there is so much prejudice against Muslims, and that is the 
whole problem. If we can eliminate the prejudice against Islam, against 
Muslims, there will be no more violence.
  There are those that are in this body here who have gone so far to 
show how open-minded they are and how much they embrace the ideals of 
Islam, and are in no way bigoted, that they have exposed this body to 
criminals, to hacking; and who knows just how far the security breaches 
go.
  Mr. Speaker, we brought this up, but it is important to take note 
that this body--there were no Republicans that hired them, but Imran 
Awan seemed to be the ring leader, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, 
Natalia Sova, each making $160,000-plus from the House of 
Representatives. The Awan brothers are of Pakistani descent. I am told 
the leader is now back in Pakistan while they are being investigated, 
but their immigration status appears unclear right now. They had been 
hired as IT specialists, computer specialists, to help some of my 
Democratic friends with their computer systems. And as suspicious 
activity continued to mount over the last 12 years, it was dismissed.
  And I am reading from an article that Luke Rosiak, March 8, from The 
Daily Caller wrote.

                              {time}  1230

  I'm reading from an article that Luke Rosiak, March 8, of the Daily 
Caller wrote:

       It was dismissed because these five individuals were being 
     unfairly picked on because they are Muslim.

  Well, some of us don't care what their religious beliefs are unless 
their religious beliefs happen to cause them to believe that our 
Constitution needed to be eliminated and replaced by nothing but sharia 
law, and our elected leaders needed to be replaced by what they believe 
is a holy appointment of a caliph or an imam.
  This article from March 8 says that congressional staffers suspected 
of improperly accessing sensitive data allegedly controlled their 
stepmother with violent threats in a plan to use her to access assets 
stored in the Middle East in their father's name.
  So just when we thought this whole matter could not get any more 
bizarre, these five, according to one of their employers here in this 
House, he says--and I have no reason to doubt him--that they are 
Muslim. But I know my friends. They don't want to ever be perceived as 
being bigoted because they are not. But they have gone so far overboard 
in trying to show how open-minded they are, they have exposed this body 
to security breaches that are really unbelievable.
  I understand from my friend, Devin Nunes, that these individuals were 
not, best they can tell, ever given access to the classified material 
in the separate classified system that the intel community has.
  Talking about running the Democratic House Members' computer 
networks, this article says: ``Days before U.S. Capitol Police told 
House Members three Pakistani brothers who ran their computer networks 
may have stolen congressional data, their stepmother called Fairfax 
County, Virginia, police to say the Democratic staffers were keeping 
her from her husband's deathbed.''
  A relative described her situation as being kept in captivity by the 
brothers for months while they schemed to take their father's life 
insurance.
  The brothers, as IT professionals--computer experts--for Congress, 
could read House Members' emails and also had full access to their 
calendars: who they were meeting with and where they were meeting.
  Anyway, the article says they ``allegedly used wiretapping devices on 
their own stepmother and threatened to abduct loved ones in Pakistan if 
she didn't give them access to money stowed away in that country.
  ``On February 2, House officials banned Imran, Abid, and Jamal Awan 
from the House of Representatives network as part of a Capitol Police 
criminal investigation into House computer security.''
  But longtime employers, including--and it has been in the news--our 
friend, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman

[[Page H2047]]

Schultz, and others are named have stood by these suspected criminals. 
But they did say they had access to their data.
  They say we have `` `seen no evidence that they were doing anything 
that was nefarious' like steal or hack, and were being unfairly picked 
on for being Muslim.
  ``But a Fairfax police report obtained by The Daily Caller News 
Foundation Investigative Group says that separately from that 
investigation, on Thursday, on January 5 at 2 p.m., `Samani Galani 
called police after her stepchildren were denying her access to her 
husband of 8 years, Muhammad Shah, who is currently hospitalized,' and 
police responded to the Springfield home she shared with him.
  `` `I made contact with her stepson, Abid, who responded to location 
and was obviously upset with the situation. He stated he has full power 
of attorney over his father and produced an unsigned, undated document 
as proof,' officers wrote.''
  Then the officer said: ``He refused to disclose his father's 
location.''
  So he didn't even have a signed power of attorney yet continued to 
assert--and, again, this is someone who is given access to the 
privileged computer material of people here on Capitol Hill. I am told 
by other IT professionals that do work here that, if you know what you 
are doing and you have access to even one Congress Member's computer, 
which means their calendar, their emails, and notes taken and stored on 
the computer about meetings, then it is very easy--you are good--to 
access virtually anybody else's information here in Congress.
  I was told some time back by one of my friends in Intelligence that 
at one time there was concern about positions I had taken like in 
support of Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood and that there were 
those who were monitoring people that came to my office. I was told 
that they know everybody that walks into your office.
  So when you see these kinds of reports, Mr. Speaker, it is a little 
disconcerting. It is disconcerting that people are not more concerned 
here in this body about the potential for the kind of breach that is 
being stated here.
  Anyway the article goes on: ``The father died days later, with his 
children denying him a final moment with his loved one, and the body 
was taken to Pakistan, where there were significant assets in their 
father's name. Galani was shocked to learn that his death 
certificate''--that of her husband--``listed him as divorced, according 
to a relative of Galani's. The relative spoke only on condition of 
anonymity.
  `` `They kept their stepmother in sort of illegal captivity from 
October 16, 2016, to February 2,' the relative said, telling her they 
were in charge of her life and said she was not allowed to speak to 
anyone. The fact that she did not speak English made it easy for them 
to take advantage of her.
  ``As Shah laid hospitalized, `they would not let the father 
communicate with the wife, they would say he'd be meeting her when they 
said so.'
  ``The brothers bugged her house with hidden listening devices and 
told her `her movements were under constant surveillance and 
conversations within the house and over the telephone were being 
listened to. They would repeat what she had told people to prove that 
they were really listening.'
  ```This happened in the United States of America, can you believe 
it?' the relative asked.

  ``Galani obtained a secret cellphone and stood in the yard to 
communicate with relatives, who encouraged her to call the police. . . 
.
  ``After she did, Abid `threatened her very severely, made her 
fearful, they told her they are going to abduct or kidnap her family 
back in Pakistan, and she had to apologize.' ''
  Imran is the individual who had done computer work here for so many 
of our Democratic friends here in the House.
  ``Imran then tried `to manipulate her. She said to him, ``if you say 
you are my son, then why are you keeping my phone conversations 
listened to?'' So he said he would remove the devices. He came into the 
house and she saw him remove a couple,' including under the kitchen 
counter.''
  So it is interesting. We have these guys who Members of Congress 
said: They don't need a background check. We can trust them. We are 
open-minded. They are Muslims, but we are not prejudiced. We don't even 
require a background check because we know we can trust them.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't know what they did here in the House, but in 
their stepmother's house they planted listening devices. Apparently, 
they knew where to get them, and they knew how to use them in the home. 
It still leads one to wonder: What all did they do during the 12 years 
they were working on computer systems here on Capitol Hill?
  Still, we know the allegations have been talked about at length in 
the media about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, but I 
keep asking: Are these the guys that set up the Democratic National 
Committee's computers, guys that are good at planting listening devices 
and who are good at setting up cameras to monitor movement and what is 
going on? Did these guys help the Democratic National Committee set up 
their system without any background checks? Are these the guys that 
made it so vulnerable to being hacked by Russians or most anyone else 
who cared to try?
  ``Galani learned from a life insurance executive that `a few days 
before the father's death, the beneficiary was changed and Abid became 
the beneficiary,' the relative said. On top of that, the Springfield 
house where she lived would go to Abid.
  ``Galani fled from the brothers and has filed a second police 
complaint with Fairfax County over insurance fraud and other abuses.
  ``Abid did not return a request for comment from'' the Daily Caller.
  It also pointed out that, after Mr. Shah passed away, these people 
that were doing computer work for Members of Congress without 
background checks came into her house. She said that whatever documents 
were there they stole, along with a couple of laptops that were their 
father's property, and they left for Pakistan.
  Now, I heard somebody that should have known that the ringleader here 
that headed up the computer company that serviced so many of the--well, 
this article talks about a handful of Democrats, but I have been 
hearing that at one time, over the years, over the last 12 years, they 
may have serviced as many as 80 different Democratic Members of 
Congress' computers.
  But the relatives are coming forward now, according to the article, 
because Members of Congress have attempted to downplay the brothers' 
potential crimes and have limited the investigation to just the Capitol 
Police, who lack the ability to investigate cyber breaches and 
international crimes, and despite naming the brothers as suspects, have 
not even arrested them. This is, apparently, a Muslim woman who says 
that she is fighting to protect the country--talking about the United 
States--these are very bad people.
  This kind of reminds one of the father who came forward to point out 
that his son had become radicalized and was a terrorist threat because, 
under the Obama administration, they purged the training documents so 
FBI agents, State Department officials, and intelligence officials 
would not know what to look for to spot radical Islamists.
  We know most Muslims are not terrorists. They are not radicalized. 
Most are loving people and want to live in peace. That includes friends 
of mine who have lived all their lives in Afghanistan and were glad to 
fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan because they didn't want 
radical Islam. They are Muslim. They didn't want radical Islamists 
running the country.

                              {time}  1245

  Radical Islamists hate moderate Muslims as much as they do Christians 
and Jews.
  So, this lady says she is trying to protect our country because 
Members are not realizing how exposed Congress has been. As she says--
she is the stepmother: These are very bad people.
  Politico reported that Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi, are personal 
friends with the former DNC chair, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when she was 
subject to an email hack that was blamed on the Russians.
  This article is dated March 8. Apparently, Imran still hasn't been 
fired, even though he was banned from the House network, but that has 
been circumvented by having him serving as an adviser.

[[Page H2048]]

  Well, Imran began working for her in 2005, the article says, and soon 
after, his two brothers and two of their wives all appeared on the 
congressional payroll, collecting more than $4 million. That is over 
this period of time, of course.
  The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which 
seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, 
the brothers were running a car dealership full time that didn't pay 
its vendors. After one Rao Abbas threatened to sue them, he began 
receiving a paycheck from another Democratic member of the House of 
Representatives, also from Florida.
  While they were working for House Members--and it should be pointed 
out, not any Republican Members--they were working for House Members, 
including members of the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs 
Committees--the dealership took and never repaid a $100,000 loan from 
Dr. Ali Al-Attar, who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities and is linked 
to Hezbollah.
  This is perfectly consistent with what was going on for 8 years under 
President Obama. You had Imam Majid, who had been president of an 
organization that was listed as a coconspirator.
  So, whatever happened to all of those coconspirators named by the 
U.S. Department of Justice?
  Well, I understood from a former member of DOJ under the Bush 
administration that they took this first case, and if they were 
successful in getting convictions, then they would turn around and go 
after the other coconspirators.
  But the interesting thing that happened immediately after that 
conviction in late 2008, we had a new President, and Eric Holder became 
Attorney General. Eric Holder had no interest in prosecuting the named 
coconspirators of those convicted of supporting terrorism.
  So, we spent 8 years with the Obama administration listening to 
people who identified not just being part of, but leading coconspirator 
groups and supporting terrorism.
  Of course, he was an American citizen by birth. His parents were both 
from Yemen. They came here on visas. He was born. They went back and 
trained him to hate America, as I first pointed out, had been occurring 
7 years ago, after a friend in an international setting advised me that 
this person knew of radical Islamic leaders who sent their wives to the 
United States to have babies so they can bring them back, teach them to 
hate America, and they would be American citizens. They could come in 
and out at will.
  I know CNN refused to do a proper investigation. They like name 
calling better than doing proper investigations.
  Our Nation is threatened by people that hate us. Different countries 
had what many referred to as birth right travel programs.
  China was bragging that they had the best birth right travel 
programs. You pay money to this travel group, they would get you a visa 
to come to the United States. Of course, you would want to come during 
the third trimester of pregnancy so you can have a child in the United 
States.
  Then, some of them would advise: We will even help you make sure your 
child has an American passport before he or she leaves the U.S. so that 
your child can never be denied entrance, whether it is for college, for 
work, for whatever, they can come in and out as they pleased.
  That is how a man named Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, helped 
the Clinton administration, helped the Bush administration.
  I had someone who was working at one time for the administration 
advise me that the Obama administration was really upset because they 
thought Anwar al-Awlaki was helping them as kind of a double or maybe 
triple agent. When they found out that he was not actually helping the 
United States, he was still helping radicalize individuals, was behind 
some of the radicalization of people that went on to kill Americans in 
the United States.
  With all of those ties, in fact, there are photographs of him leading 
right here in this building in which I stand, Mr. Speaker, Friday 
prayers with Muslim staffers here on Capitol Hill; leading those 
prayers.
  President Obama thinks that with all his ties to people in his 
administration, to people on Capitol Hill, this guy, an American 
citizen, free to come in and go as he wishes, was so dangerous, we 
could not possibly allow him to come back and have a trial where he 
could testify about all his connections to people in the Obama 
administration, or Bush or Clinton administration. This guy is so 
dangerous, we better blow him up in Yemen; silence him forever. We 
don't want to give this guy a trial. Silence him forever--the first 
American citizen to be ordered killed by a President without a trial, 
with a drone strike. That was Anwar Al-Awlaki. There are so many 
others.
  A Muslim brother, the former President of Egypt who was ordered 
removed by the largest gathering of peaceable demonstrators in the 
history of the world, these were incredible Egyptian people--Muslims, 
Christians, Jews, secularists--all joined together to demand the 
removal of this corrupt, evil Morsi.
  Even though we did have Senator McCain fly over there and demand the 
Egyptians release this Muslim brother and put him back in charge, he 
was on his way to becoming what Chavez was to Venezuela, he was about 
to be to Egypt.

  So it wasn't just Democrats that were fooled. But thank God--I do 
thank God--that the Egyptian people would not have it. Morsi claimed to 
have had 13 million or so votes, but the Egyptians tell me, when I have 
been over there visiting with friends, that they knew there was a lot 
of fraud and that he probably did not get elected with a majority of 
the votes. But the Muslim Brotherhood made clear to his opponents and 
those who wanted him removed: If you try to remove Morsi, we will burn 
this country down.
  When Morsi was removed, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to do that. They 
burned many churches--dozens of them--attacked synagogues, and then 
they tried to blame this on the army and others in Egypt, but it was 
very clear it was the Muslim Brotherhood carrying out their threat 
that, if you remove the Muslim brother leader Morsi from Presidency 
before he took all control, all while he was taking his commands from 
an imam, a religious, holy, radicalized Islam. I am told they had him 
on video taking orders from such an imam.
  Well, he didn't get back into power, and they recognized the Muslim 
Brotherhood as a terrorist group.
  My friend, Ted Cruz, has filed a bill with many cosponsors, as I 
understand, and we filed one here in the House, to recognize the Muslim 
Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is.
  I know that replacing ObamaCare as a system for taking care of 
people's health is a priority for so many of us, but we have got to 
multitask and not lose sight of the fact that we are still under the 
threat of radical Islam. They still want to kill us. They still want to 
eliminate our way of life here in the United States.
  So, while we are, hopefully, about to create a better healthcare 
system in the United States, we have got to make sure the United States 
is protected. And for those who are so open-minded that they want to 
make sure that no Muslim ever suspects them of being prejudiced, they 
would allow people to get into our computer system constantly, without 
a background check, we are being put at risk.
  We were put at risk when the Obama administration listened to CAIR, 
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the group you hear from 
immediately after there is a terrorist attack, basically challenging 
people: How dare you say this was a Muslim. Well, it was a radical 
Islamic. Oh, so you are an Islamophobe.
  I kept hearing from people inside homeland security that we were 
spending more time and effort training our officers to spot 
Islamophobes than we were training them to understand radical Islam. 
But that is exactly why Tsarnaev was never stopped, was never picked up 
and prevented from killing and maiming people in Boston.
  The FBI agents, doing the best that they could, being deprived of Kim 
Jensen's 700-plus pages of radical Islam that the Obama administration 
did not want FBI trainees to see and to know.
  They finally brought it back toward the end, but most FBI trainees 
never got any training on what radical Islam looks like. They never 
knew what questions to ask. They never knew what

[[Page H2049]]

questions to ask at a mosque. And yes, if somebody is suspected of 
being a radical Islamist, you should go to the mosque and talk to their 
friends, find out how they were acting, find out what their new 
religious practices were. There are people that understood and have 
studied radical Islam. They knew. Kim Jensen knew.

                              {time}  1300

  So I am very hopeful that people like Kim Jensen will be given free 
rein to once again fully train our Justice Department officials, people 
like Phil Haney. I am hopeful and prayerful that Phil, after he had so 
much information that was deleted under Secretary Napolitano 
establishing ties to terrorism--they wanted them deleted because many 
of them had ties with the White House and it would make the White House 
look bad.
  But when Secretary Napolitano talked about, Yeah, we get pinged and 
then we connect the dots, well, she oversaw the elimination of dots, 
she oversaw the elimination of the ability to ping, as she said, and 
she exposed our country to dangers that were completely unnecessary if 
proper training had been given to our people in the Justice Department, 
in our Homeland Security Department, in our intelligence agencies and 
groups.
  It really is clear from what has been going on. I have only been here 
under two Presidents--President George W. Bush, President Obama--and 
now the third, President Trump. But under the first two administrations 
that I served with, we were told repeatedly that use of the section 215 
program or the 702 program that allows wiretapping of foreign agents, 
we were assured that if an American citizen were picked up, nobody 
knows the name, it is immediately masked, the conversation is 
minimized, so you don't have access to that.
  We were told a lot of things that turned out to be lies. And it does 
appear that Snowden was guilty of treason from what we have seen. He 
should be tried and, if convicted, punished severely. But I sure 
learned a lot from what got released. I learned that we were lied to 
during the Obama years about what was or wasn't being done in 
surveilling American citizens, and at least the last part of the Bush 
administration. It could be the Presidents didn't know. But somebody 
knew. If we do not, in this body, give President Trump the ability to 
do what he became famous for--and that is say ``You're fired''--then 
this country is not going to get back on a sound basis. There will 
continue to be people who will monitor others illegally, improperly, 
unconstitutionally, and use that information to get rid of leaders who 
don't play ball with them. That is dangerous.
  We hear of foreign intelligence people who are corrupt spy on their 
own people, and they are impressed with what was going on under the 
Obama administration and feel like that was a dream come true for 
anyone in intelligence, to be able to monitor the people of a country, 
like has been going on. I mean, it has got to be cleaned up or we lose 
our freedoms. Once you have the ability to reach in to people's private 
lives, that completely--you don't even have to have a case. You can 
destroy their lives.
  A good example was Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Somebody should 
have gone to prison for what happened to that man. As a former 
prosecutor, judge, and chief justice--I prosecuted people as a 
prosecutor, I sentenced people who were convicted when I was a judge, I 
ruled on convictions when I was a Chief Justice--I had to make sure due 
process was followed and the people got a fair trial, evidence was not 
obtained illegally. But in Ted Stevens' case, I know when I read that 
he had had this addition--I can't remember now; I am going strictly off 
recollection, but like 700,000 or so improvements to his home, and I 
thought, oh, come on, you have got to know, Senator, you can't have 
that kind of improvement free to your home. You can't do that.
  But they came in with search warrants, took all of his documentation. 
They got all of his bank records, they got all of his computers, his 
flash drives, anything that had memory on it. They took all of his 
documentation. The man could not defend himself. He had, as it turns 
out, proof that he overpaid, maybe by half a million dollars, and that 
the prosecutor had material--a note, as I recall--from the contractor 
saying something like: Look, you are overpaying me.
  Senator Stevens said: Yeah, I have got to overpay you because they 
will look closely at everything I do. I guess I am overpaying you, but 
I want the addition, and I have got to do this so I never get in 
trouble. Don't even cause the least suspicion. I have got to overpay 
you, so just take the overpayment.
  He didn't have those documents, and he was not allowed to testify 
about documents that were not producible. He couldn't produce them 
because the prosecutors or the FBI, somebody kept those and refused to 
turn them over, which is a violation of the law, and it is a crime to 
unfairly prosecute somebody when you know they have evidence to prove 
they are innocent.
  You don't even give it back to him so he can use it and show the 
truth?
  Thank God there was a whistleblower who finally exposed--if I recall 
correctly, I believe it was an FBI agent. The judge hit the roof, of 
course. Any judge. I would have. You deceived us? You caused this 
prosecution, had the trial right before the election so he would lose? 
You changed the election?
  You talk about the Russians, for heaven's sake. That was an 
intentional invasion, and it wasn't by Russians. It was by Americans. 
They ran that Republican Senator out of his office, basically destroyed 
his life. If he had been in the Senate, he wouldn't have been in that 
airplane when it went down.
  But that is what a corrupt government can do. They can come after 
anybody. We have got to clean out the Federal Government of people who 
have become dizzy with their power. I always thought it interesting, 
one of the most powerful dictators in history responsible for killing, 
starving millions of people, Stalin, one of his quotes was: With power, 
dizziness.
  We have got a lot of dizzy people working in the Federal Government. 
Thank God that there are not more of those than there are people who 
love America, who really do keep their oath to the Constitution. But it 
has become very dangerous, and we have got to get to the bottom of 
this.
  I have had people say: Louie, aren't you worried? I mean, you are 
talking about people who can destroy a Senator, can destroy all kinds 
of people. Aren't you worried they will come after you, try to destroy 
you the same way?

  I am more concerned about my country. We have got to salvage this 
country's freedoms from the brink that it came to under the Obama 
administration
  Then we have a report, March 6, Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner: 300 
Refugees Probed As Terrorists.
  ``In a bid to bolster President Trump's new executive order 
suspending travelers from six nations into the U.S., federal law 
enforcement officials revealed that they are investigating 300 refugees 
for terrorist ties.
  ``While U.S. officials would not provide details on the FBI 
investigations, they did say that they are refugees `who either 
infiltrated with hostile intent or radicalized' since coming into the 
United States.''
  So these investigations are ongoing. I heard yet again this week a 
number of times, some of my friends across the aisle would say: Look, 
these refugees are not a problem. They are vetted for 2 years. We don't 
have to worry about them.
  Yes, we do. We have already seen people who came in as refugees, 
people who were granted asylum. A couple of them, I believe it was 
Tennessee or Kentucky where they got asylum. They had not bothered to 
check or notice that their fingerprints were on IEDs that were set up 
to kill Americans.
  So this 2-year vetting, oh, no, no, it is a long, tedious process to 
make sure they are okay. Well, I found out this week from an official 
with Homeland Security who said he wanted to know just how thorough the 
2-year investigation and vetting was by the U.N. because he knew 
Homeland Security didn't do 2 years of vetting on these refugees. And, 
of course, the judges--who don't know ``sic `em'' from ``come here''--
out in the 9th Circuit think they have the right under the Constitution 
to be dictators, and for them, without proper knowledge of what is and 
isn't a threat to this country, to

[[Page H2050]]

just dismiss orders that the President had the authority to make and 
just say, oh, they are unconstitutional, even though from their own 
statements they proved their own ignorance.
  So we have got refugees coming in. Thank God somebody at the Homeland 
Security Department wanted to get to the bottom of exactly what occurs 
during the 2 years that the United Nations refugee program does in 
vetting people. So he went straight to the person in charge of the 
refugee program at that time. He said: I would like to get a 
description of the processes of vetting that refugees go through from 
these countries they allege they are coming from. What all does the 
U.N. do to vet these refugees?
  And the answer came back: Well, actually, we don't do any vetting of 
the refugees. It is a long 2-year process most of the time, as we are 
trying to convince countries to take these people. We are not spending 
any of that time looking into their background. The 2 years is what it 
usually takes to get a country to accept them, figure out where they 
are going to go. No, somebody else must do that. We don't worry about 
that. We are just trying to find a place for them.
  Mr. Speaker, the next time you hear somebody say, Oh, no, this is a 
very thorough 2-year process of vetting these refugees of making sure 
they are not a threat, then I hope it will come to your mind that a 
representative of the U.N. talking to one of our top Homeland Security 
people--and I am not going to give his name, but he was told: We don't 
do any vetting. We are just trying to find a place to put them. When we 
find somebody who will take them, we feel like we have done a great 
thing.
  Well, maybe, if they are not terrorists.

                              {time}  1315

  But we have seen the data that indicates that for the amount of money 
it costs to bring a refugee from the Middle East to the United States 
and take care of them for a year, what happens to the money actually 
spent, you could take care of 12 refugees if they were kept in the area 
and provided a safe area. That is what the Obama administration should 
have done. Instead of drawing red lines that it couldn't find after it 
drew them, the Obama administration should have said: We are going to 
participate in creating a safe area, provide flyover and provide people 
there. We are going to provide a safe area for refugees to come to 
until the war is over and people can return to their homes.
  Rather than create a system that will allow our enemies, the Islamic 
State and others, to do as they promised us they have been doing and 
will continue to do, and that is putting their terrorists in amongst 
the refugees, instead of doing that, putting our country at risk, let's 
let them stay near to their home, provide them safety, help provide 
them with what they need. Because when the greatest country, strongest 
country, most charitable country in the history of the world becomes so 
self-righteous that they feel like they don't need to do vetting, when 
they become so taken with appearing to be open-minded that they don't 
even protect themselves by doing what used to be called due diligence 
and checking on people to make sure they are not a threat to others 
around them, instead of doing that, we show irresponsibility when it 
comes to protecting America as when you are at risk of losing the 
country.
  But Americans, by a huge majority of electors, electoral college, 
elected President Trump. They wanted a change. When you look at a map 
that shows all of the counties that voted for President Trump and those 
that voted for Hillary Clinton, you see that our friends across the 
aisle, part of a party that has really become a fringe party, has the 
fringes of the country. But the massive interior--most, except for some 
big cities here and there--is people that want to preserve and protect 
the most blessed place to raise a family that there has ever been.
  I am sure Solomon's Israel was apparently an amazing place, but the 
people didn't have our freedoms. But we are in danger of losing them 
when we become so cocky that we think we don't have to check on people 
to make sure they are not a threat. That actually is a form of bias. 
They are so afraid that people might say that you are closed-minded 
that they don't even do a background check, but they would for someone 
who is not Muslim, then that is a form of bias.
  We have got to use commonsense, we have got to protect America, or we 
will be cursed when we are gone and our children see what we have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________