[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3924-H3926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an important day for people who knew 
and loved the three individuals who were being held improperly by North 
Korea. They have now been released due to the negotiations with our 
prior colleague Mike Pompeo--our, now, Secretary of State--and also 
President Trump.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, for those who have not spent a lot of 
time studying American history, they have not realized what a benefit 
it can be to have an American President who is deemed to be a person 
who cannot be properly accounted for. His actions may be of interest to 
foreign leaders.
  Frankly, I enjoy hearing people in other countries say they are just 
not sure what to make of President Trump. They are not sure if he is 
crazy; they are not sure if he might push the button to launch 
missiles; they are just--he is so unpredictable. But, actually, I think 
he is very predictable. The man knows how to negotiate.
  As I pointed out to him a couple of times, if you look through our 
history, people who were considered to be the most educated, some said 
the highest intellect, greatest intellectual ability--you have people 
like John Quincy Adams, who is a hero of mine because of his dedication 
to bringing an end to slavery. It didn't happen during his 4 years of 
being President. It didn't happen during his 16, 17 years in the House 
of Representatives, but he was so dedicated to his purpose that he 
materially affected the young freshmen who sat at the back of the room 
for 2 years, overlapping about a year with Adams before his fatal 
stroke on the House floor just down the hall.
  John Quincy Adams, when he was President, for all his education, 
intellectual ability, I mean, the man wrote books in German, loved the 
French language, read books in other languages like French and German, 
probably kept the best journal of anyone who was ever elected 
President, but he really didn't accomplish much of anything at all when 
he was President. Some of that had to do with the election controversy 
surrounding that.
  Look at people like Woodrow Wilson, a former college president, 
supposedly high intellectual ability, but, yes, he did get us involved 
in World War I. He drug his feet. There were things that could have 
been done, but nobody had any concern worldwide for Woodrow Wilson. He 
was considered very predictable, and it got us into some trouble 
because people didn't think he had the nerve to stand up when it was 
needed.

  Jimmy Carter was touted as being some sort of nuclear engineer, went 
to the Naval Academy, but the fiascos in which he was involved as 
President showed a man who was a nice man but rather inept when it came 
to foreign affairs. Obviously, the Iranians had no fear of him. He had 
such poor judgment that he encouraged the removal of the Shah of Iran. 
Not a nice man, but he was an ally. And Carter didn't have the 
foresight to see, kind of like President Obama when he was dealing with 
Qadhafi--Obama with Qadhafi, Carter with the Shah of Iran, they figure: 
Well, he is not a nice guy, so we will run him off. We will encourage 
him being run off.
  In the case of Qadhafi, if it weren't for Obama's planes and the 
missions to take out those defending Qadhafi, Qadhafi would probably 
still be in charge in Libya, and ISIS and al-Qaida elements would not 
have gained the incredible foothold they have had. There wouldn't be 
the chaos there is today in Libya.
  President Obama was touted as being of high intellectual capacity, 
yet just one fiasco after another when it came to foreign affairs as we 
have seen in the news recently, President Obama's efforts to get $100 
billion to $150 billion, some of it on pallets with just cash, American 
dollars on pallets with forklifts, moving those from the United States 
into the hands of the Ayatollah Khamenei and his bloodthirsty religious 
zealots in Iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. So 
deemed to be an intellectual President Obama was, and yet just 
incredible malfeasance when it came to foreign relations. People were 
not afraid of him.
  It was interesting to see polls, while President Obama was our Chief 
Executive Officer, showing that, although nations where Muslims were 
the majority, they didn't have much respect for President George W. 
Bush, but there were polls indicating that they had even less respect 
for President Obama.
  How could that be?
  They didn't see him as being very decisive. Indicative of that was, 
when he drew a line in the sand, had a red line, and Syria crossed that 
line, he did nothing about it, in essence. So that encouraged our 
enemies.
  I know there are those who said that things that happened at 
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, other places, actually hurt America badly 
because it inflamed our enemies, whereas, actually, nothing inspires 
our enemies like the showing of weakness. As President Reagan once 
said:

       Of all the wars that occurred during my lifetime in which 
     America was involved, none of them occurred because America 
     was too strong.

  So when other nations perceive weakness, it is provocative, and that 
is what has happened in our 200-plus-year history. If we are perceived 
as being weak, it is provocative.
  President Obama oversaw a number of such weak, provacative incidents. 
Some weren't weak, they were just foolish, like encouraging the taking 
out of Qadhafi. He was not a good man, had blood on his hands from back 
in the 1980s, and yet when President George W. Bush sent troops into 
Iraq, Qadhafi had an epiphany and invited us to come in and tell him 
what weapons he could keep and what he had to get rid of because he was 
afraid that he would be the next nation to be invaded.
  When it comes to North Korea, President Clinton, educated in what are 
considered by some to be quite elite schools, Ivy League schools, and 
yet he oversaw, as President, negotiations with North Korea. This is 
just a rather short summary, but basically Madeleine Albright as 
Secretary of State and President Clinton's approach to North Korea was: 
Look, we will make sure that you get all the nuclear material you need 
to make nuclear weapons; we will make sure you get all the technology 
you need to create nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1330

  We will get you in a better situation as far as the ability to have 
nukes than you could ever have possibly done on your own. And all we 
ask in return, in essence, is you sign a document saying that you won't 
use the technology and the materials to make nuclear weapons.
  I can just envision the glee, the celebrations behind the scenes in 
North Korea over how crazy and foolish American leaders are, during the 
Clinton administration, because they are going to give us everything we 
need to have nuclear weapons, and all we have got to do is put a 
signature on a document.
  Then we saw history repeat itself when John Kerry played the role of 
Madeleine Albright, this time with Iran; and, of course, we did have

[[Page H3925]]

Wendy, who was so helpful in getting North Korea what they needed to 
make nuclear weapons, had her as the lead negotiator, with John Kerry, 
with Iran, to make sure Iran had an agreement that would enable them to 
have nuclear weapons.
  And if they lived up to every part of the agreement, this disastrous 
agreement, as President Trump described it repeatedly during the 
election and since, they would still have nuclear weapons in 10 years 
from when the agreement started.
  We know--and I went down to the SCIF and reviewed things there. It 
shouldn't have been classified. It should have been available for the 
whole country to read. Eventually it was available. But it appeared 
very clear that the agreement that was enabled by Senator Corker, yes, 
he is a Republican, but just wasn't familiar enough with the 
Constitution as he needed to be, because he thought you could take a 
treaty, which the Iran deal definitely was because it modified other 
treaty terms, and you can't do that unless it is in a treaty.
  The Constitution requires that a treaty is not valid, a deal such as 
the Iran agreement, until it is confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. 
And I am not saying anything that we didn't say back at the time. I was 
trying to get the Senate to wake up; that you can't ratify a treaty, 
which the Iran agreement is, unless you have two-thirds of the Senators 
voting to ratify, confirm the agreement.
  Without two-thirds voting in support of the agreement, there is no 
agreement. All you have is something on paper that might as well be a 
memo.
  But they acted like it was a deal, and that is why President Obama 
and John Kerry made sure that the Ayatollah, these radical Islamists 
that want to end America's existence on the planet as a country in 
which there is self-representation through a Republican form of 
government--yet they sent $100 billion to $150 billion in cash. And my 
friend  Steve King from Iowa, Dana Rohrabacher, it may have been 
somebody else, but we went and met with the two lead inspectors in Iran 
from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA people talk about 
so much. Oh, yeah, we can be comfortable that the Iran deal is a great 
deal because those inspectors are carefully inspecting the facilities 
and any nuclear efforts in Iran.
  I even heard one of my friends, whom I have a great deal of respect 
for, on FOX News this week, saying that: Look, you can't do anything 
with nuclear material without being detected because there are isotopes 
that are easily detectable, so the Iranians can't do anything in the 
way of creating nuclear weapons, moving nuclear material, without us 
knowing.
  I am not sure the source for those comments, but I am sure of the 
source of my comments. I was asking the two lead inspectors of Iran 
with the IAEA: Gee, we just sent $100 billion or more to Iran. If Iran 
were to take some of that money, or all of it, and buy ready-made 
nuclear weapons from Pakistan, which has them, from North Korea, can 
you guarantee us that they could not get those nuclear weapons into 
Iran without your knowing?
  And the answer was: Of course we cannot guarantee that.
  In fact, I was told that the IAEA could set up detection equipment in 
Iran, say, at an airport or wherever, but they could not set up the 
detection equipment anywhere without Iran knowing exactly where the 
detection equipment was; and unless Iran was foolish enough to either 
bring nuclear material or a nuclear weapon right beside their detection 
equipment, then no, they would have no way to know whether Iran was 
bringing nuclear weapons or even nuclear material into Iran.
  So I am not sure where this other information comes from, that you 
can't do anything with nuclear material or weapons without the IAEA 
knowing, because that is news to the IAEA. They don't know what they 
don't know, but they know that they don't know if somebody is trying to 
evade their detection equipment. It is that simple.
  So when you have an agreement with people who go out before, after, 
and during the negotiations and stir up crowds with chants like ``Death 
to America,'' and you tell people in your country that you want to see 
America gone, that it is the Great Satan, Israel is the Little Satan, 
you want them both wiped off the map, wiped off the face of the Earth, 
you want any evidence that we ever existed eliminated, then you are 
dealing with a country that cannot be trusted.
  Whether you call the radical Islamic leaders in Iran crazy, or just 
dogmatic jihadists, either way, they are a threat to America. And you 
send them money, they are likely going to spend it in a way that hurts 
America, kills Americans, kills Israelis, and makes Iran more dominant 
in the world.
  So all of us who took an oath to support and defend the United States 
Constitution, if we are sending money to Iran, my opinion, we are 
grievously violating that oath because they are going to do all they 
can to subvert our Constitution and, they hope, be able to wipe us out.
  Of course, one of their points that was discussed in their 
Philadelphia meeting over 25 years ago--the FBI had evidence of the 
meeting and evidence of the things, their goals, what they wanted to 
accomplish. Well, one of their goals, over 25 years ago, these radical 
Islamists in America--one of their goals was to subvert the U.S. 
Constitution to sharia law.
  They believed the easiest way to subjugate the U.S. Constitution to 
their radicalized version of sharia law was to get--either through the 
courts, through the legislature, or through the U.N., and force 
countries to adopt what the U.N. passed as criminal laws in their own 
countries. There are people here who keep advocating for that. But get 
a law passed, one way or another, that, in essence, says you cannot say 
anything negative about radical Islam, and make that a crime, 
punishable by jail, prison, fine.

  So we have been moving that way; that is, in essence, what hate 
crimes are. Hate crimes, as I said back in 2007, `08, `09, when we were 
bringing this issue up, I said, really, you don't need a hate crime 
statute. We were told: Oh, yes, you do, because look at what happened 
outside of Jasper, Texas. Well, that is just south of my district. None 
of the people involved were constituents.
  But when I heard about what happened, three White men took an African 
American, had him drug behind their truck, tortured the poor man to 
death, I wouldn't have a problem if Texas passed a law that said, in a 
situation like that, somebody is found guilty; then the victim's 
family, in that case, the Jasper victim, have their family select the 
manner that the defendant is to be drug and the terrain over which he 
is to be drug, and who will be dragging him across that terrain.
  If we passed a law like that, basically, capital punishment, with a 
different way of inflicting the capital punishment, I would not object. 
It is so outrageous what those three defendants did.
  But the ridiculous remedy that is proposed here in Congress was: We 
will fix that situation by providing punishment for hate in somebody's 
heart, and we will be able to sentence you to life in prison. There is 
no death penalty for any Federal hate crime.
  Actually, this is how ludicrous the law was that was passed here in 
Congress. If someone were being tried for a hate crime because of the 
physical assault on someone else, the defendant would be totally, 
completely exonerated and held not guilty if he raises a reasonable 
doubt that, no, no, I didn't choose somebody because of their race, 
gender, any type of group they were part of. No, I just wanted to 
arbitrarily kill somebody, abuse somebody. I didn't care what group 
they were part of.
  Under the Federal law, that person would have to be acquitted of the 
Federal hate crime because they chose their victim randomly, or at 
least raised reasonable doubt that they may have chosen the victim 
randomly so they are not guilty of this heinous crime.
  Whereas, under Texas law, if you harm somebody, it is not nearly as 
important the feelings you have in your heart as what you did. And 
under Texas law, the two most culpable defendants in that case, in my 
opinion, properly got the death penalty, and the least culpable person 
got life in prison.
  So this case, which was heralded as the great poster case for why we 
need a

[[Page H3926]]

Federal hate crime, actually would diminish the punishment that the 
defendants in a hate crime case would get. They couldn't get the death 
penalty anymore. Oh, no; they will get life in a Federal prison instead 
of death under Texas law.
  We did not need that hate crime. And as I said years ago when this 
bill was being pushed, ultimately, what this hate crime bill will be 
used for is to punish Christians, Christian ministers, for reading 
verses directly out of the Bible, as has been done in Congress, in the 
House and Senate since the very beginning of this Nation.

                              {time}  1345

  And now we are starting to see it being used as a threat against 
Christians. We hear more and more people say the biggest hate group 
threat is Evangelical Christians.
  Well, if they are real Christians, they cannot have hate in their 
heart for others, and yet they are being called the biggest threat as 
potential hate criminals.
  It needs to be changed. We need to punish people for what they do 
wrong, and not whether or not they had some improper thought in their 
head.
  But I am grateful that countries look at Donald Trump the way they 
looked at Ronald Reagan, because it is helpful historically.
  ``Saturday Night Live,'' seems like I recall Reagan's character being 
portrayed as walking around with a finger out wanting to push the red 
button so he could launch missiles with nuclear weapons on them, and 
the world said: Wow, this Reagan guy is really crazy.
  It is invaluable for foreign leaders to not be sure about the 
American President, because that gives them more negotiating power.
  It is kind of like a great poker player, except that Donald Trump 
indicates clearly he doesn't bluff. And as he pointed out to North 
Korea, he is not bluffing. And though he would rather not take the 
actions that are required, he will take them, and I believe he will, 
and apparently Kim Jong-un believed he would as well.
  So if you look historically, Teddy Roosevelt has his Navy go around 
the world. People are going: This guy is crazy. Look, he just sent his 
Navy around the world. You don't know what this guy is going to do. Run 
up San Juan Hill? Who knows? This guy is a little bit crazy. And it 
always was helpful in foreign relations.
  Now, Khrushchev took the measure of John F. Kennedy, very intelligent 
man, who wanted to protect America, but he was not decisive in his 
early days. Khrushchev scared him out of following through on his 
promise to provide air cover to those going into Cuba to try to 
eliminate Castro. Scared him off. Backed him off of his promise to 
provide him air support. So people were killed who were relying on 
President Kennedy's promise.
  President Kennedy gave a speech and said, in essence: We are not 
going to let anybody build a wall and wall off part of Germany, Eastern 
Europe. And it was just, as I recall, a couple of weeks or so before 
Khrushchev ensured that the bricks were being laid and the wall was 
started.
  They had a meeting in Vienna, and President Kennedy told people he 
didn't do well in the negotiating, that Khrushchev scared him and he 
didn't represent America well.
  Well, that is not going to happen to Donald Trump. He is not going to 
go to into a negotiation with Kim Jong-un or the Ayatollah or anybody 
else and go in and come back out as President Kennedy did and confide: 
Wow, I really showed weakness. I didn't do a good job. He scared me. 
That is not going to be our problem under President Donald Trump, and 
our country is going to be better off because of it.
  So I applaud President Trump for rightfully taking the step to 
discount and discontinue the farce that was the Iran treaty. It was not 
properly ratified.
  And even though I wish we had had President Trump in place to stop 
the hundred-plus billion dollars that President Obama and John Kerry 
sent to the biggest suppliers of terrorism, no doubt that money will be 
used or has been used to kill Americans, but there is a new sheriff in 
town, and President Trump is going to make sure that doesn't happen 
again. God bless him for stopping the Iranian farce.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________