[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20284-20286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          REINING IN SPENDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is so much going on these days. We 
have the responsibility of reining in spending, if we will just simply 
live up to it.
  We know that our friends at the other end of the hall, the majority 
in the Senate, want to spend, want to tax more, not interested in 
making serious cuts.
  It's rather amazing that this President could come into office and 
Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid could bump up the spending by $1 
trillion, and when it becomes apparent to the whole world, not just the 
U.S. but the whole world, that we've got to rein back in that extra 
trillion they began to spend, not only do they not want to cut that 
extra trillion that is bankrupting us, but they want to add taxes on 
Americans so that they can justify even more spending. It shouldn't 
work that way.
  We're running a deficit. We have been for a number of years. And to 
have Speaker Pelosi take over this Chamber and take a $160 billion 
deficit, which we shouldn't have run when the Republicans had the House 
in '06, and then parlay that into 10 times more deficit spending is 
just unfathomable. But it has happened, and it's got to stop. We owe 
that to future generations.
  At the same time, we also know, and I think Joel Rosenberg, the 
author, referred to it in his book, ``Inside the Revolution,'' that 
Osama bin Laden didn't just rejoice in the killing of 3,000 or so 
Americans on 9/11. He also actually said that one of the great things 
about 9/11, from Osama bin Laden's standpoint, was that they spent 
maybe half a million dollars in setting up and carrying out the 9/11 
murders, but that also they were costing the United States billions and 
billions of dollars, and it may run into trillions of dollars.
  But we have to defend ourselves. We have to keep with our commitment 
and our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. So not 
only do we have the responsibility of trying to regain some maturity as 
a Congress in controlling our spending and not doing further damage to 
the economy by rewarding the, as the President called them, the ``fat 
cats on Wall Street,'' those people that gave to his campaign by a 4:1 
margin, the executives on Wall Street and their families, 4:1 Democrat 
over Republican, it's time to quit bailing out people who got 
themselves into those messes. We should never have done it for Wall 
Street. We should not have done it for the automakers.
  If we had had a real payroll tax holiday--holiday, meaning you don't 
do something. I can't imagine having a school holiday and you only get 
2 percent of the day off. I know kids that went to school with me, 
growing up, would never have considered a 2 percent holiday a real 
holiday.
  The President's payroll tax holiday at 2 percent is going to go 
forward. We passed that out of the House, unless the Senate, down under 
Harry Reid, kills the bill and doesn't allow that payroll tax cut to 
continue.

                              {time}  1540

  But it's not a holiday. A real payroll tax holiday would have been to 
do what I proposed 3 years ago. Art Laffer said it would have been the 
best stimulus we could have done at the time, and that's the genius 
behind Ronald Reagan's economic policies in the early eighties. But 
that would have been to say you earned the money, you're going to keep 
it for at least a couple months in your own paycheck, and then you 
decide which car manufacturer you want to bail out by deciding what car 
you're going to buy with the extra money you've gotten in your 
paycheck. That would have been a great thing to do.
  Instead, we had a Presidential administration decide who they wanted 
to bail out, how they wanted to bail them out. We had a secret society 
set up by the President in the White House decide which dealers, how 
many dealers were going to have to be shut down, and we ended up having 
the unthinkable occur, a violation of the Constitution, and that is a 
Federal taking of property, a Federal order to take property without 
any due process, without any remuneration. People even had borrowed 
money to buy dealerships. They still owed the banks for the money they 
borrowed to pay for those dealerships.
  Yet we had an administration that said close them. It's amazing. As I 
understand, most of those that were ordered closed were Republican, 
which started feeding into the belief that we had crony capitalism 
going on. If you were friends of the President, you were going to do 
well. If you weren't, you could lose your business without any 
remuneration, without any due process.
  Now we have an administration that is in office in the executive 
branch. They've filled the positions in the Justice Department, in the 
top positions in the intelligence department, the State Department. 
They're running things from the executive branch. And they know, 
they've read the 9/11 Commission report, I certainly hope they have. 
It's interesting if we look back and see what the 9/11 Commission said. 
It was a very bipartisan report. Some things I didn't terribly agree 
with. But I knew that the people who wrote the report were doing the 
very best they could and doing the best to the best of their beliefs. 
And they had to account for how 9/11 came about, how we had 3,000-plus 
people killed, the worst attack on American soil on our history, how 
that came about.
  They did the study. They found out all of the people that were 
involved were crying out, ``Allah akbar.'' They were people who 
believed that their religion required them or encouraged them to kill 
innocent people, and that somehow they would be rewarded in paradise 
for killing innocent people. They have taken their religion, this small 
percentage of Islamists, and they actually believe that there is a God 
entity out there that will reward the devastation and killing of 
innocent people.
  So the 9/11 Commission did a very candid report, and when you take a 
look at the things in that report and compare them to what this 
administration has done in the last 3 years to whitewash that part of 
history, to completely distort what really happened on 9/11, to blind, 
as one of our officers has said, to blind our own law enforcement, 
intelligence, justice people so they cannot see the enemy who has 
declared war on us, blind those that we have called upon to risk their 
lives to protect us, blind them from really seeing the risks and really 
being able to predict what will happen, it is staggering.

[[Page 20285]]

  We've got the blind leading the blind.
  I don't think it's any better depicted than in just a numerical 
analysis from the 9/11 Commission. I have a poster here. And of course 
as this writing says, the terminology is important in defining our 
goals as well as removing roadblocks in the hearts and minds. The 9/11 
Commission identifies Islamist terrorism as the threat. The Muslim 
Public Affairs Council recommends that the U.S. government find other 
terminology.
  The OIC, the organization of all of the Islamic states, all 57 
Islamic states in the world, that organization came up with a term 
called Islamaphobia, the word Islamaphobe, so that if anybody bothers 
to do the research and find out that there is a small percentage of 
Muslims who are radicals and who believe the Koran directs them to 
destroy Israel, to destroy the United States, then let's label them 
Islamaphobe, even though they make very clear, like I have repeatedly, 
that we have Muslim patriots in America, we have Muslim business people 
who have done great good. The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving 
people.
  Nonetheless, people like me who would bother to point out this small 
percentage that want to destroy our way of life and are doing 
everything they can to get in a position to do that, we're 
Islamaphobes. That directive is straight from this OIC, this 
organization of Islamic nations, all 57 States.
  That's been the directive. Scare people, intimidate people so that 
they will not speak the truth. It's unbelievable. Because if the OIC 
really wanted to help themselves, they could show the world that they 
were about peace, not about hatred, not about killing innocent people, 
by encouraging people to recognize it is only a small percentage of 
Islamists who believe that they need to destroy Israel and to destroy 
the United States.
  But instead, they try to intimidate, try their name-calling. 
Amazingly, though, they have been very effective with this 
administration. If this administration had thoughts of clearly speaking 
truth, then they would not hesitate to call a shovel a shovel, to call 
things just as they are.
  But instead, this administration has blinded those in the State 
Department, in the intelligence department, in the Justice Department 
so that they don't really understand the enemy, cannot understand the 
enemy, until the enemy, those who've declared war on us, can be 
accurately identified.
  So you read in the 9/11 Commission report--there are three times that 
violent extremism is referred to in the
9/11 Commission report. But that has to be considered in light of the 
other things in the 9/11 Commission report because also in the 9/11 
Commission report, there are 39 references to the enemy.
  Well, for those of us who have been in military service, there was 
never a question. The enemy were those who wanted to destroy us, to 
kill us. And it's very easy to understand when a group calling 
themselves Islamists, calling themselves jihadists, want to kill 
everybody who does not believe as they do, they're the enemy. Not that 
difficult to understand.

                              {time}  1550

  But in this administration, these are bad words because, in the 9/11 
Commission Report, 126 times the word ``jihad'' is used. Well, under 
this administration, you've got the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon. Those 
are the words to train our FBI. They're used to train our intelligence. 
They're used to train law enforcement.
  One of the things the Federal Government also does is train local law 
enforcement. So many local law enforcement make the journey here. 
Federal law enforcement as well as local and State law enforcement make 
the journey to Washington, D.C. They make the journey to Federal 
facilities to have Federal officers instruct them and teach them about 
different issues that are threats to our country. So it's important 
that people be properly educated about the threat.
  Yet under this administration--forget what the 9/11 Commission Report 
saw as the real threat--there are 29 times that ``violent extremism'' 
can be found in the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon and nine times that it 
can be found in the National Intelligence Strategy from 2009, which 
lays out our strategy as to how we're going to face and defeat the 
enemy that has declared war on us, that wants to destroy us.
  There are 39 times that the 9/11 Commission Report referred to 
``enemy.'' Yet the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon and National 
Intelligence Strategy from this administration thinks the word 
``enemy'' may, perhaps, hurt the feelings of those who want to kill us. 
Because they want to kill us, let's not hurt their feelings by calling 
them the ``enemy.''
  We had an actual bill that changed the Military Commission Act of 
2006, done in 2009 under Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, and that was 
probably some of the thinking behind changing it. They were afraid the 
term ``enemy combatant'' might offend those who want to cut off our 
heads, blow us up, nuke us. They didn't want to offend them; but here 
again, the word ``enemy'' is hard to replace, so they left the word 
``enemy'' in there but softened it up. Instead of calling them ``enemy 
combatants,'' they changed the wording of the Military Commission Act 
so that it's now ``unprivileged alien enemy belligerent.''
  Hopefully, by softening the language, those who want to cut off our 
heads and nuke our Nation will feel better about those they want to 
kill and destroy.
  The 9/11 Commission Report refers 126 times to ``jihad.'' Clearly, 
that's what we're facing--jihadists who want to commit jihad, which is 
a holy war, the way these people see it, against those of us they see 
as infidels. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed references in his own pleading 
in the 9/11 case, they reference a provision in the Koran that says 
they're justified in killing those who would combine any entity with 
Allah, because Allah gives no permission to combine him.
  So, if anyone thinks that there is a Holy Trinity, which are the 
words that start off the Treaty of Paris, 1783, with Great Britain--you 
can find it over at the State Department. The first words are in big, 
bold type: ``In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity''--
that's how our treaty started that recognized this country. Well, 
according to those Islamic jihadists, who are at holy war with us, that 
document, itself, is a declaration that we are infidels and need to be 
destroyed. Yet, under this administration, the FBI is not being taught 
what ``jihad'' means. It's eliminated from the Lexicon. It's eliminated 
from the National Intelligence Strategy in this administration.
  Even the word ``Muslim'' is found 145 times in the 9/11 report 
because you could not do an assessment of the 9/11 attack without 
discussing Muslim and Islam. Yes, it's only a small, tiny percentage of 
Muslims who believe this way--thank God for that--but let's don't kid 
ourselves that they believe that they were holy Muslims who came and 
killed 3,000-plus people on 9/11.
  Not only has this administration whitewashed--completely eliminated--
the word ``Muslim'' from our Lexicon and from our Strategy, but also 
the word ``Islam,'' which is mentioned 322 times in the 9/11 Commission 
Report by these bipartisan people, who were concerned like we all were 
after 9/11 that we might lose this country--that people might nuke us, 
that they might destroy Washington, New York, Chicago, an area down 
near Houston where 70 percent of our oil is refined. There are places 
we were afraid we would get hit--and we would not have energy; we would 
not have a government; we would not have commerce; our seats of 
commerce.
  That's when the 9/11 Commission Report came out, because they knew 
they had to be honest and candid in their assessment. Whether we agree 
or disagree with their findings, they were working in the best of good 
faith in trying to make their assessment. That's why they used these 
terms as many times as they did--322 times. It's not Islam. It's not 
the 1.5 billion people who proclaim Islam is their religion, their way 
of life. It's a small percentage.

[[Page 20286]]

  But how can we expect to defeat the enemy that has declared war on us 
unless we recognize who it is?
  There are a number of other references.
  The Muslim Brotherhood is a national organization that is working 
toward an international caliphate. In the Holy Land Foundation trial, 
tried down in Dallas, there were 105 counts. They were found guilty, 
five defendants. It was about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Holy Land 
Foundation and the Palestine Committees that were raising money and 
were certainly giving some to some charities. They could point to those 
and say, Look, we gave money to charity--but they were also funneling 
money to Hamas. They were funneling money to terrorism. That's against 
our law.
  There are 65 times that ``religious'' is used in the 9/11 Commission 
Report because these Islamic jihadist nutcases considered themselves 
religious in what they were doing in killing so many innocent people.
  There are 36 times ``al Qaeda'' is referenced in the 9/11 Commission 
Report--but in the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon, zero; in the National 
Intelligence Strategy, one time.
  ``Sharia law'' was referenced twice in the 9/11 Commission Report. 
It's not even mentioned in the new Lexicon or the Strategy.
  How can we win a war declared by others upon us unless we can 
recognize our enemy?
  This administration has done--not everything--but it has done so much 
that it can blind us so we can't see our enemy. There is nothing more 
vivid than to see the complete eradication of the terminology that 
would allow our people to recognize their enemy.
  There's not even a reference to ``Hamas.'' Hamas is a terrorist 
organization. We've recognized them as a terrorist organization. 
They're responsible for killing innocent people. Yet, in the new 
Lexicon, we're not even telling people who are being trained to defend 
us about Hamas.
  How do we expect to win a war like that, not one of our making, not 
one we want but one declared on us, unless we are willing to recognize 
those who are at war with us and to recognize their motivation?
  These folks are extremely predictable if you understand their mind-
set, if you understand how they take provisions from the Koran and 
twist them and what they believe with them. Unless you can study that 
and understand that, you can never say, as General Patton did after he 
defeated Rommel and stood up looking over the devastation that his 
tankers had caused--and he used a little colorful language--``I read 
your book.''
  However, nowadays we're preventing our law enforcement, our 
intelligence, our State Department from reading the book--those who 
have put books together and studied books--of those who are trying to 
create a way to wipe out the Little Satan, Israel; Zionism--and the 
Great Satan, the United States of America.

                              {time}  1600

  We in this body and those at the other end of this Hall in the Senate 
took an oath; and unless an oath means nothing, we have a duty to 
perform. I have come to know very personally some with whom I hardly 
ever agree on political issues on the other side of the aisle, but I've 
come to know their hearts, and we have gotten to be good friends. And I 
know people on both sides of the aisle here who, with all their heart, 
want to live up to their oath and do the right thing.
  But no matter which side of the aisle we're on--or if we don't even 
care about aisles--it is critical that historically for a nation to 
survive, it must recognize those who have sworn the destruction of that 
nation and are doing everything they can to gather the means to do 
that.
  We have a Private Abdo. This is a young man, Private Abdo, who did an 
interview on al-Jazeera. He was seen on al-Jazeera. We have people in 
our administration's intelligence and Justice who see him on al-
Jazeera, basically laying out--and of course this news program was done 
in Arabic. It was not done in English. If you listen to the program on 
YouTube, you can hear some of the things that Private Abdo said.
  But he made clear, Hey, I'm a Muslim. I cannot deploy. The same 
things that Major Hasan said before he went and killed 13 of our 
military at Fort Hood and another, which was the unborn child of one of 
our pregnant servicemembers. He made clear, just like Private Abdo, I 
can't both deploy and be a Muslim. I will have to go kill Americans. I 
can do that without violating my religion, at least in their beliefs. 
But I cannot be deployed into a Muslim country because of the risk I 
might kill a Muslim without that person that I kill meeting one of the 
requirements to be allowed to be killed and, therefore, that would send 
me basically to hell. So I can't do that. But it's okay to kill 
Americans.
  This Justice Department ought to be getting these words back in its 
lexicon. Our intelligence should get them back in their lexicon so that 
when you have a private go on al-Jazeera and say these things, that our 
intelligence and our Justice Department are allowed to put that in a 
memo and say, This guy has sworn that he cannot go to a Muslim country; 
and, therefore, he's better off killing our own soldiers than he is 
being deployed.
  We need to recognize when people are saying they're going to have to 
kill us. But instead, even though he was seen on al-Jazeera and it was 
clear he was setting things up, just like Major Hasan did, the only 
reason that people were not killed by the bombs he was wanting to 
create and he was buying material to produce was because a local gun 
dealer got suspicious and reported him, not because the intelligence or 
Justice Department acted on seeing this private putting himself in 
Major Hasan's same pattern.
  If I could see that other poster. We've got another soldier in 
uniform who has been on al-Jazeera. And yet now, because of the changed 
lexicon, people are not able to properly pursue this kind of problem so 
that one of our own soldiers starts defaming our own military and using 
the OIC term that Islamophobia is evident within the military. The 
overwhelming sentiment was that Islamophobia was present in the U.S. 
military.
  It's time that this administration wake up; and if it's not willing 
to wake up, this Congress must wake it up. That's why the Founders 
created three separate branches and created two Houses within this 
branch so that they hoped that there would be adequate responses to 
threats, they hoped that it would be difficult to pass laws that would 
hurt the country. Their hope was that they were setting up a system 
that would protect itself. But until we take the blinders off, those 
who are sworn to protect us, we're in some big trouble. Or as folks at 
Fort Benning, where I served for 4 years, used to say, We'll be in some 
deep kimchi.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________