[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6049-6053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              AFGHANISTAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I have an article that is dated today, Monday, May 7, 2012, from the 
Associated Press, Congress's Intelligence Heads: Taliban Has Grown 
Stronger under Obama.
  Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, who I just 
saw outside, a smart guy, former FBI agent, well respected in the areas 
of law enforcement and the security of this country, well, as the 
article points out, and there are other articles as well, I believe 
Human Events also had one, but this article from the AP says:

       The leaders of congressional intelligence committees said 
     Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger 
     since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to 
     Afghanistan in 2010.
       The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., 
     and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., challenges Obama's own 
     assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the ``tide 
     had turned'' and that ``we broke the Taliban's momentum.''
       The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the 
     region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
       ``President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come 
     back. I'm not so sure,'' Feinstein said. ``The Taliban has a 
     shadow system of governors in many provinces.''
       When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded 
     since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, 
     Feinstein said: ``I think we'd both say that what we've found 
     is that the Taliban is stronger.''

  I was in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago. I was in Afghanistan a 
couple months before that. And as one of the Afghans pointed out, 
former ally--well, they are still allies, as far as they are concerned. 
This administration has thrown them under the bus--but they pointed 
out, you know, from the Taliban's perspective, they have said we, the 
Taliban, do not have to win a single battle. All we have to do is be 
here when the United States leaves.
  Now, a couple of weeks ago, of course, the administration, two 
Cabinet members, were requesting that my dear friend, Dana Rohrabacher, 
not go into Afghanistan for one reason--that President Hamid Karzai 
didn't want him to come in. Now, apparently, Karzai, ignorant of what 
is actually going on in Washington, had said that my friend, 
Congressman Rohrabacher, proposed a bill that would partition or divide 
up Afghanistan. Well, I worked with Congressman Rohrabacher on his very 
good bill, and basically it is a sense of Congress that says we support 
the Afghans' right to vote for their leaders.
  Now, I understand Secretary Clinton inherited a State Department and 
a situation in Afghanistan that was not of her making. I get that. And, 
in fact, we sat by and even assisted as Afghanistan created a 
constitution based on sharia law that has now resulted in the last 
public Christian church closing. It's a system where the President gets 
to appoint governors, mayors, chiefs of police, many of the higher-
level teachers, slate of legislators. He gets powerful control over so 
much of the purse strings. So it was amazing to see the President over 
kind of doing what appeared to be a victory lap around Afghanistan and 
back home: gee, the Taliban's back is broken, things are looking good, 
and we now have an agreement going forward with Afghanistan. Great 
news.
  Well, when you find out from Afghans that actually the Afghanistan 
Government has a $12.5 billion budget and all the sources of revenue 
that Afghanistan can come up with provide $1.5 billion of their $12.5 
billion budget, and the rest comes from other countries, you would 
presume largely from the United States, and when one considers the 
billions of dollars that we are spending for humanitarian projects, 
training farmers to farm as I've met with the teachers, American 
teachers teaching Afghans to farm, and they were so depressed because 
the billions we've spent, given basically to Afghanistan to create 
farming projects so the people can maintain themselves when we're gone, 
have not made its way to any of those projects in that region of the 
country. There is one region where apparently some has made it to 
projects, but certainly not all and probably not most of them.
  So it would seem if you're the President of the United States and you 
go to a country whose government has a $12.5 billion budget and they 
can only come up with $1.5 billion of that and you're the big force 
behind all of the other $11 billion, it would seem to me that there 
shouldn't be a whole lot of negotiation that has to take place.

                              {time}  2000

  What kind of person does not understand leverage? The President 
accepted, of course, because it appears that the foreign policy that 
we've run into from President Obama's administration is we've got 
people around the world that hate us, want to destroy us, so we're 
going to give them money. We're going to buy them an office in Qatar, 
as we've offered the Taliban. We're going to be releasing their 
murdering thugs that we've got in detention, and then maybe they will 
like us enough to agree with us. That sounds like somebody that spent 
too much time community organizing and not enough time studying 
history. That's no way to negotiate.
  If one wishes to approach an individual, and like in my situation, 
being a Christian, we're supposed to help the needy--``blessed are the 
meek.'' The Beatitudes are quite compelling.
  The government has a different role. The government is to protect the 
people. As Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, be afraid, because the 
government does not bear the sword in vain. The government's role is to 
protect people so individually they can live the kind of life that so 
much of our heritage embraces. The government is supposed to protect 
the people; it's supposed to punish evil, and it actually is supposed 
to encourage good.
  We've gotten so far off track. Back in the sixties, well-intentioned, 
we began paying young women to have children out of wedlock, born out 
of the best of intentions--deadbeat dads were not helping, so let's 
help them out. Instead, what they did is lure young women away from a 
high school education, in many cases--I've had many of them come before 
my court--and lure them into a rut they couldn't get out of.
  We have senior citizens on Social Security whose religious beliefs 
embrace marriage as being the ultimate living situation between a man 
and a woman. Yet they have guilt because they know they can't live on 
what little they have, and they know that if they marry another person 
that they're living with--I've heard from folks like this--that lives 
on Social Security as well, then their Social Security will be reduced 
if they get married, so they live together.
  The President's own proposal, although he's been out saying he was 
going after millionaires and billionaires, when you look at the 
specific proposals--which he finally put in print so we can see in 
print what he really believes--as he continues to say we're going after 
millionaires and billionaires, the Buffett tax, that kind of thing, you 
look at the specific proposal and he goes after everybody making more 
than $125,000 a year if you're married, $250,000 if you're filing 
jointly. If you're single, it can be $200,000 to $225,000. So, once 
again, the President wants to promote living together rather than being 
married, as evidenced by what he provides money for.

[[Page 6050]]

  Now, we know that we've been told by this administration repeatedly, 
look, if we just show the Taliban how good a people we are and how good 
our motivation is, then they'll fall into line. I've said and will keep 
saying: You don't have to pay people to hate you; they'll do it for 
free. We are wasting billions. We have wasted trillions of dollars over 
all these many years. So this administration continues to try to buy 
the affection of the Taliban.
  Let's see. This article was from CNN, and they reiterate:

       The heads of the Senate and House intelligence Committees 
     Sunday said the Taliban was gaining ground.
       The President added, the administration was in direct 
     discussion with the Taliban, saying the group can be a part 
     of the country's future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce 
     violence, and abide by Afghan laws.

  We saw that same kind of effort by this administration. There was a 
Taliban leader who was released with the consent of this administration 
basically because it was the humanitarian thing to do, to let him go 
die in peace. Well, he was released from detention. As the Afghans, who 
have buried family and friends while fighting with American troops 
against the Taliban initially--before this administration threw them 
under the bus--they've said, hey, that Taliban leader that you 
released, the U.S. authorized the release because he was going to go 
die and this would be the humanitarian thing to do, guess what? He is 
back in Afghanistan, and he was on Afghanistan's biggest television 
station. He said three things. Two of them were that it is very clear 
to the world that the United States has lost, and that's why the United 
States--as everyone in the world knows who's paying attention--the 
United States is begging the Taliban to come just sit down and 
negotiate with us. Please, we know you murdered thousands of Americans. 
We get that. That's okay. Just sit down with us. We'll keep releasing 
your murdering thugs if you will just agree to sit down with us and 
talk. Why, we'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar so you will 
have international prestige to spread whatever goodwill you wish to 
spread. Well, that would be known, Mr. Speaker--if the President would 
pay attention--that would be known as radical jihad. That is what they 
wish to spread.
  Here's a news report today from foxnews.com from Kabul:

       The U.S. has been secretly releasing captured Taliban 
     fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to 
     strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group, 
     the Washington Post reported Monday.

  Who in the world who has ever studied history comes around and says 
we're releasing the murdering thuggish war criminals to strengthen our 
own end? We're letting our enemy have their murdering thugs back to 
strengthen our hand. Perhaps a community organizer would think that.
  The article says:

       The strategic release program of higher-level detainees is 
     designed to give the U.S. a bargaining chip in some areas of 
     Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise 
     control. Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must 
     promise to give up violence and are threatened with further 
     punishment, but there is nothing to stop them from resuming 
     attacks against Afghan and American troops.
       ``Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done 
     and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these 
     are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,'' a U.S. 
     official told the Post.
       In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama 
     confirmed that the U.S. was pursuing peace talks with the 
     Taliban.

  You know, there was once a policy in this country that we did not 
negotiate with terrorists, but that's the old days. This 
administration's policy is, not only do we negotiate with terrorists, 
we give them stuff.

                              {time}  2010

  What do you want? Do you want more of your murdering thugs released 
so maybe they can kill more of our Afghan allies or more American 
troops? Eighteen hundred, is that enough? Do you want to kill more? We 
hope you won't; but if you'll just say, we won't kill if you'll let us 
go, then we'll let you go.
  It reminds me of the naivete of Secretary Madeleine Albright and 
President Bill Clinton who, in essence, told North Korea, look, we will 
give you everything you need to make nuclear weapons if you'll promise 
us that you will only use it to make nuclear power.
  Really? North Korea basically said, really? All we have to do--you 
know we're liars. You've caught us in lies repeatedly. But all we have 
to do is tell you we'll never use it for nukes, and you'll give us all 
this stuff? Well, sure, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you've caught us in so 
many lies? What's one more?
  So, guess who has nuclear weapons now that we worry about? The same 
people the Clinton administration gave nuclear materials and 
information, simply on the promise that they wouldn't use it to make 
nuclear weapons.
  What a lovely world it would be.
  Back to the article from Fox News:

       We have made it clear that they, the Taliban, can be a part 
     of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce 
     violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the 
     Taliban, from foot soldiers to leaders, have indicated an 
     interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before 
     them, Obama said.
       The upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago, the U.S. coalition 
     will set a goal for Afghan forces to take the lead in combat 
     operations across the country next year.

  Look, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that all of us should want peace. 
All of us, I know in this body, want peace. But just as we've seen 
signs around this Capitol since I've been in Congress saying war never 
brought peace, there is a naivete of some people who think if you apply 
individual blessedness, turn the other cheek, those kinds of things, 
from a government standpoint, that other governments controlled by 
terrorists, war criminals, mad men, that they will respond to that, 
when the truth is that's an individual approach.
  The Nation's government must be about providing for the common 
defense, number one, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We 
should be doing that. And that means when there are murdering thugs in 
the world who have sworn to do everything they can to destroy the 
United States of America, we have to take them seriously and take them 
out, if necessary. We have that obligation to the people we were sent 
here to protect.
  When I took an oath to the United States Army, it was the same kind 
of oath. We were supposed to serve and protect. And best of intentions, 
good will does not defeat terrorists who have made clear they will not 
stop until they're dead and, they think, in paradise, or we are dead 
and our government gone.
  Now, we know that the term Islamophobia, Islamophobe have come from--
been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Conference as a way to 
further their goals. Anybody stands up to point out that there are 
radical Islamist jihadists who want to destroy everyone who does not 
believe as they do--we know that those people were behind 9/11, killing 
3,000, over 3,000, innocent people, and that the only regret that those 
individuals had was that more people were not killed. They'd hoped that 
perhaps 50,000-55,000 would have been killed in the two World Trade 
Centers.
  You can't, as the United States Government, just turn the other cheek 
when there are people coming into this country illegally wanting to 
destroy us. They're not just people coming for jobs anymore. There's 
the OTM, as they're classified.
  So some of us who will call radical Islamic jihad what it is, a 
policy of a minority, a small minority of Muslims, they want to call 
some of us Islamophobes. Islamophobes. Give me a break.
  Two weeks ago I was in Afghanistan. Karzai didn't want our friend, 
Dana Rohrabacher, to go in. Dana, ever the patriot, he was persuaded by 
Secretary Clinton not to push the issue because talks were in such 
delicate shape at the time.
  Delicate shape? We pull out, don't give any more money, and Karzai 
collapses. He'll either be out of the country with money he's stowed 
away, or he'll be subjugated by the Taliban if we pull out and don't 
provide any assistance. And we have to go begging him for talks? Excuse 
me? Delicate talks?

[[Page 6051]]

  We know that President Karzai is Pashtun. He can deal with the 
Taliban. It appears he's dealing with them somewhat like Maliki is 
dealing with the Iranians who want to take over Iraq, caving, as 
necessary, to keep his position.
  There are ways to execute foreign policy that don't cost thousands of 
American lives, that don't have to exist on the good intentions of 
people who are sworn to murder and destroy us.
  The enemy of our enemy is our friend. And that was seen, once again, 
a couple of weeks ago in Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher had hoped 
to be at the meeting with our Northern Alliance friends. Most of them 
are part of the National Front now. I would hope that one of them would 
be elected President of Afghanistan.
  My friend, Massoud, his older brother, might have been the one person 
to unite the country; but the day before  9/11 the Taliban knew that, 
so they assassinated him. Massoud's father-in-law, Rabbani, was 
assassinated last September.
  General Dostum, many consider the great hero of late 2001, early 
2002, when the Northern Alliance tribes defeated the Taliban on 
horseback, fearless warriors. And this administration thanks them by 
publicly calling them war criminals. These were our allies. These are 
the enemy of our enemy.
  Yes, Muslim. No Islamophobe here, because I recognize the enemy of my 
enemy is my friend.

                              {time}  2020

  Those people fought with us and for us. There is something very 
strong in the bond--or should be--between the people of the United 
States who fought, buried family or loved ones, and those in the 
Northern Alliance who fought with us and who buried family or loved 
ones, friends. There is a bond there. But instead of embracing that 
bond and utilizing that bond, those who fought for us and with us, who 
did most of the fighting when the Taliban was initially defeated, have 
been thrown under the bus.
  So when they were gathering on Sunday 2 weeks ago and when they 
wanted to meet with someone, three Members of Congress went. At first, 
we were told, Well, gee, there's just not enough security to get you 
there.
  Then I pointed out to the person coordinating the security for our 
five Members of Congress, Sir, do you see that gate out there at the 
embassy? You're going to have to take me down before I get out the 
gate.
  He said, Sir, we're not authorized to take down a Member of Congress.
  I said, Well, then, you will not stop me. I'm going to see our 
friends. Massoud, who is the head of security, has assured me they're 
going to have bulletproof vehicles to pick us up, and I'm going with 
them.
  Amazingly, thirty-or-so minutes after our next meeting, we had 
American security taking us to the meeting. We were quite safe there. 
They made sure of that. They didn't want anything to happen to their 
American visitors.
  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Michael Burgess, we 
would have had to have taken an additional vehicle had more than three 
Members gone. So John Carter, being the gentleman, said, Mike Burgess, 
why don't you go. Mike Burgess and Michele Bachmann and I went to see 
our friends--Mohaqiq and numerous other leaders of the National Front.
  Now, it's interesting. They pointed out--and you've probably heard--
about Karzai saying, Gee, he believes so much in our Constitution--and 
the Constitution says, if you serve two terms, you can't run for a 
third term--that he may resign a year early. He said, Your people, your 
leaders in America seem to be eating that up.
  The truth is that the people who are advising Karzai are all trying 
to figure out--How can we get around that prohibition from running for 
a third term?--and they think they may have it. They think that, if he 
resigns a year early and if somebody else takes over Afghanistan for a 
year, with or without an election, then he could say, Gee, I never 
served two terms. I didn't make it two terms. I resigned before the 
second term was up, so now I can run for a third term. Gee, the U.S. is 
going to have troops out by 2014. Therefore, I could run in 2014. The 
U.S. will not be around with any strength to enforce such an agreement 
of my not running. And, gee, what if the people really want me to run?
  We know there has been corruption in those votes over there, but the 
system that's set up in Afghanistan is a system that creates conduits 
for fraud. We could strengthen Afghanistan if we would simply allow the 
people to elect their regional-provincial governors, elect their 
mayors, let them pick their own chiefs of police, not the President 
Karzai cronies. That's a system that's fraught with the kind of danger 
you found, fraud you found in the old Roman Empire, where they would 
appoint a governor of a region, but of course you had to kick back to 
the one who appointed you. That's the kind of system they have right 
now in Afghanistan.
  In talking, there are some who say, Well, there are some supplies of 
the Taliban's coming through northern Pakistan; but most people are 
saying, We think the Taliban is getting most of their supplies through 
southern Balochistan. The Baloch have been terrorized for decades by 
northern Pakistan. Before 1947-48, when lines seemed to be arbitrarily 
drawn in creating countries, Balochistan had never been a part of 
Pakistan. For decades now, it has. The people have been terrorized.
  After Congressmen Rohrabacher and Steve King also met with Baloch 
leaders, the idea struck me: since these Baloch leaders are tired of 
being terrorized by northern Pakistan, by the leaders in Islamabad, 
they could be quite self-sufficient in having natural resources, which 
is much of what the nation would need to survive on its own; and 
they're our friends. There may be a lot of Muslims. This non-
Islamophobe knows that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. We can 
support them. We can help each other. So that's why Congressman 
Rohrabacher and I proposed a bill that would support the creation of an 
independent Balochistan. As one person in the region over there said, 
Wow, if Balochistan were independent, that would change everything.
  Now, I know this President is not gifted on foreign policy--I get 
that--but it doesn't mean he can't learn. Then you look at Pakistan. 
While this administration is trying to play footsie with Pakistan and 
while they're trying to play footsie with China, who was it they let in 
to see our stealth helicopter? China. Who was it that they harbored in 
their country--the greatest enemy, public enemy number one, of the 
United States--and kept there, supposedly, for years? This 
administration wants to placate them, how they can, just like it's 
trying to do with the Taliban and our other leaders. Maybe we can buy 
them off. Maybe we can do something to show them how sweet and kind we 
are.
  Those types of people see that as weakness. It's like blood to a 
shark. They're drawn to it, and they will devour us if we don't show 
strength rather than weakness.
  So an independent Balochistan gave me an interesting idea. 
Congressman Rohrabacher and I had done an op-ed that was published, and 
it was my conviction that we stick in there a line about the potential 
for an independent Balochistan. Interestingly, after that was 
published, there was an article published in the Pakistan Daily News. I 
thought I had a copy of it here. I must not. Oh, here it is. It was 
published back in January. It says this in the article in the Pakistan 
Daily Times:

       In another interesting development, Louie Gohmert, a U.S. 
     Republican Representative, proposed that, in order to beat 
     the Taliban, the U.S. should carve out a new, friendly state, 
     Balochistan, from within Pakistan, to stabilize Afghanistan's 
     western border.

  The article goes on:

       Even if Mr. Gohmert does not necessarily speak for 
     Washington, it is logical to assume that he made this 
     observation after picking up the buzz in American political 
     circles. The U.S. wants a consulate in Quetta, but so far, 
     Pakistan has resisted this request. The geo-strategic 
     location of Balochistan and its potential in minerals, gas 
     and oil is something that interests the world's sole 
     superpower.


[[Page 6052]]


  So says the Pakistan Daily Times.

                              {time}  2030

  They say the Baloch resistance movement is one of the few, if not the 
only one, that has not been declared a terrorist movement by the U.S. 
The U.S.'s soft attitude towards this resistance movement does not 
necessarily mean that they are enamored of the complaints and 
aspirations of the Baloch, but that the Americans have their own vested 
interest there. They may now want to snip away at the roots of the 
Pakistan military's dual policy in the war on terror by a flanking move 
in Balochistan.
  The Pakistan Daily Times says:

       Before this loud thinking is embraced as policy by 
     Washington, for our own territorial integrity, we should do 
     away with our double game in the war on terror and 
     politically settle Balochistan's issues. By helping the 
     Afghan Taliban and other jihadi groups, we have only weakened 
     our own country. It is time that the military realizes this 
     folly. Indiscriminate killing of the Baloch by the military 
     and its intelligence agencies cannot and must not be 
     tolerated. The political leadership must talk to the Baloch 
     resistance. Only through negotiations and a dialogue can the 
     Balochistan issue be settled peacefully.

  The enemy of our enemy should be our friend. That is why when 
Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess, and I got to the home of 
my friend Massoud, with all these other National Front leaders there 
waiting, and I got out of the vehicle, they knew my heart. They know we 
are friends who have the same enemies. And there was embracing all 
around because it truly was good to see them, to see them alive, and to 
see them in their own country in Massoud's own home. They fought with 
us, they fought for us, and they bore the brunt of the battle against 
the Taliban in late 2001 and early 2002 when they were routed 
initially. We added over 100,000 troops, got over 100,000 under this 
President, and things are not going as well as they were when the 
Northern Alliance was fighting them with simply a matter of hundreds of 
Americans embedded with air support. It's not going as well as it was 
then.
  Occupiers in Afghanistan--Russia for example. Going clear back to 
Alexander the Great, we know he died leaving that area, that things 
didn't go as well as he might have hoped. They've learned that 
occupiers don't do all that well in Afghanistan. Empower the enemy of 
your enemy. Don't try to buy off your enemy that is sworn to destroy 
you. Empower the enemy of your enemy.
  I mentioned earlier about the Taliban leader that we released who is 
now back with the Taliban. I mentioned one of the three things he said. 
He said, It's apparent to everybody that the U.S. has lost because 
they're begging us to come negotiate. Another thing he pointed out, 
which is consistent with sharia law, is that anyone who has not been 
supportive of the Taliban in the past needs to first come to the 
Taliban--and under Karzai they've been able to be more public, and they 
have a public presence. He says, Come to us, ask for forgiveness, ask 
for our protection, and you may be spared. From my understanding of 
sharia law, you can avoid being killed under sharia law if you come ask 
forgiveness and ask for protection in just such a way as this Taliban 
leader--fresh from his U.S. reprieve--is out there saying.
  And again, the Taliban position is, we probably can't defeat the U.S. 
in a single battle. We don't have to--we've just got to be here when 
you leave. And the heartbreaking aspect of that, for those of us who 
have attended too many funerals of Americans who have paid the full 
measure of devotion, is that if we leave and we leave a situation where 
the Taliban is empowered again, other Americans will have to come down 
the road in the future and fight the Taliban, and more American lives 
will be lost. It's not necessary.
  Had President Carter realized in 1979, when he welcomed the Ayatollah 
Khomeini back into Iran as a man of peace, had President Carter 
realized that Americans would be dying in America to protect America 
because radical Islam had then been given a country in which to be 
nourished, you would hope he would not have taken the same steps and 
would not be as bitter toward so many as he is today after his failed 
presidency.
  Perhaps even President Reagan--with the best of intentions--if he had 
realized that we were in a war, but only one side knew we were at war, 
when our precious Marines were killed in an explosion in Beirut, 
perhaps we wouldn't have run out so quickly. But for Heaven's sake, as 
American buildings, embassies, individuals were attacked--and in 1993, 
the first attempt on the World Trade Center, another act of war, was a 
signal letting us know that since 1979 these people had been at war 
with us. There was the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, further acts of 
war. We've been at war; we just didn't know we were. Then we come to 9/
11, and we're totally shocked, totally unprepared because we did not 
realize there was a war going on. We just didn't know we were in a war.
  Now this administration seeks to go back to September 10, and it is 
cleansing its training materials of any reference to Islamic jihad. It 
is bringing in noncitizens. It is bringing in Members of the Muslim 
Brotherhood to advise it. It is bringing in officers of named 
coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial supporting terrorism. 
It's bringing in people who have ties supporting terrorism. It's 
bringing them in to dictate our policy toward radical Islam. What have 
they said? The first thing you've got to do is eliminate any reference 
to Islam, any reference to jihad. So this administration, from the 
Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense, 
intelligence agencies, has been very compliant. That is ongoing. As one 
intelligence official said, we're blinding ourselves from the ability 
to see our enemy.
  What's going on these days will be the subject of historic articles 
that will continue for centuries to ask how this Nation could be so 
naive and/or stupid that we would be at war and not know it for 30-plus 
years, and that in the fight of such a war, we would bring in people 
who support our enemies' actions to tell us how to fight the war. There 
will be articles and history books that will repeat the question: How 
could they not see what they were doing was going to bring either an 
end to America or devastation to America, one or the other?

                              {time}  2040

  Well, we know that in the news this week, we have such people down in 
Guantanamo, the 9/11 detainees, as they're referred to. I have got a 
couple of articles here. The New York Times is talking about the 
detainees showing defiance, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 
detainees: ``9/11 mastermind, four cohorts to be arraigned.'' That was 
last week. ``Mohammed Joined By Four Codefendants in Deferring Pleas,'' 
a couple of days ago. There's another article: ``Outrage as 
9/11 Defense Counsel Insists Women Cover Themselves.'' What happened to 
the freedom the people in our military are fighting for? Amazing. 
``Lawyer Defending 9/11 Suspects Wearing Burqa in Court `Out of 
Respect.' ''
  Well, there is a great article--and it certainly wasn't recent--that 
points out that these detainees are ready to plead guilty. They're 
ready to come in and plead guilty. And this is a New York Times 
article: ``Five Charged in 
9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty.'' Most people had not seen that 
title. All they've been hearing about is how they're disrupting the 
pleadings. This trial could go on for years and years. They're making a 
mockery out of it. And the reason people haven't seen the title of this 
article, ``Five Charged in 
9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty,'' by the New York Times is because 
it was published December 8 and 9 of 2008. In 2008, these detainees 
indicated they were willing to plead guilty.
  These detainees--particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--had been 
through a lengthy questioning by the judge. He had spelled out his role 
in different things, not only in the 9/11 plot but his role in other 
terrorist acts. He had filed a 6-page pleading where he sets out that, 
if we have terrorized you,

[[Page 6053]]

then praise be to Allah. He said, in essence, in that pleading, if you 
are Jewish or American, you deserve to die; you are an infidel. And he 
prayed that Allah would help them to continue to terrorize America.
  But a sad thing happened on the way between those guilty pleas in 
late 2008 and here, going on 4 years later. Virtually nothing has been 
accomplished. In fact, we are further back from where we were in 
December of 2008 because we had the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama 
policy--of, Gee, we're going to give you the chance--this isn't what 
they said. But anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear could 
understand that what the Taliban, what al Qaeda, what radical Islamic 
jihadists would hear is, We're going to give you a show trial. Why 
would you want to plead guilty?
  So these guys, as of December '08 said, Whoa, this guy Eric Holder--
hey, he's represented terrorists. He will identify with us. The 
President, the community organizer he is, he's going to help us. So 
they're going to give us a way that we can have a show trial. In fact, 
the Attorney General wants to give us that show trial in downtown New 
York. Wow. Allah be praised. We're going to get to go back to the scene 
of the crime and create all that chaos and all the heartache for the 
people of Manhattan.
  Well, Congress, fortunately, said, that's not going to happen. They 
are going to be tried at Guantanamo. But the damage had been done by 
the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy to give them a show trial--
had taken hold. It had developed the imaginations of the 9/11 plotters 
and planners. So now we're having a show trial. This time in 
Guantanamo. Fortunately, not in the middle of where so much grief and 
anguish took place in New York City.
  Some had said at the time, Hey, this is New York City. You are an 
outsider. You have no business saying anything about what we do in New 
York City. This was an act of war against our country. The whole 
country suffered together and came together as one on 9/12/2001. It 
does pertain to the whole country.
  As our friend Representative Weiner from New York chastised me, he 
said, We all want to see them put to death in New York, and you have no 
right to say otherwise. Well, having been a judge and chief justice, I 
know those kinds of statements would be exhibit A or B of any motion to 
transfer venue, that they can't possibly get a fair trial. They were 
not well reasoned comments.
  So here we are, going on 4 years later. Justice has not been done. A 
travesty has been done to all the families of the victims of 9/11. They 
can forgive. They can turn the other cheek. But as a government, our 
role is different. We are to provide for the common defense. We are to 
punish evil. We are to encourage good. And that means, any nation in 
the world who has a government that wants to declare war on us, then be 
advised: Many of us don't believe--like in Iran, we don't believe we 
should go to war with Iran, but we'll take out the government that 
wants to go to war with us. Obviously this administration feels like we 
can buy time and has even given hints that they think they can live 
with a nuclear Iran. Well, a lot of people would not live with a 
nuclear Iran. A lot of people would die because of a nuclear Iran. It 
does not need to be allowed to happen.
  One other comment, though. There is a great article today out about 
one of the banes of my existence, and that was TARP. George W. Bush is 
a great man. He got a bad rap, was accused of lying when he did no such 
thing. He didn't bother to defend himself when truckloads of yellow 
cake uranium were taken out of Iraq, feeling that history would judge 
him fairly. But he trusted a pitiful Secretary of the Treasury, Hank 
Paulson, and we had something called TARP.
  There is a great article in Human Events from today. ``Inspector 
General report ends myth that TARP `turned a profit.''' And David 
Harsanyi goes on and points out very clearly that the money hasn't been 
paid back, as promised. Some of it has been paid back by other 
giveaways and gifts and loans by the Federal Government. And the 
government, printing money to pay debt and then having interest on the 
new money they've printed, is somehow making a profit. When the truth 
is, as the article points out:

       It's tricky to track $700 billion of emergency funding that 
     was haphazardly dropped into the economy by a panic-stricken 
     government, when accounting for the Fannie Mae and Freddie 
     Mac bailout, the American taxpayer is probably owed somewhere 
     in the neighborhood of $237.7 billion--

  But we were told it's all been paid back. Yeah, right.

     --though some estimates are far higher. And it will be more. 
     The Treasury Department says that a large part of the money 
     lost via TARP is the result of the housing and car bailouts, 
     also not paid back. When the next Fannie and Freddie rescue 
     comes--as a number of reports have indicated will be needed--
     taxpayers will be on the hook.

                              {time}  2050

       Most of the banks that were ``too big to fail'' when TARP 
     was implemented are now even bigger. The report to Congress 
     points out that a recent working paper from Federal Reserve 
     economists ``confirms that TARP encouraged high-risk behavior 
     by insulating the risk takers from the consequences of 
     failure.''

  That's why you never set aside free-market principles to save the 
free market. If you have to do that, the free market is not worth 
saving. But it was worth saving and there were free-market principles 
that could have been followed to get us out of that mess to avoid 
encouraging further risk taking.
  And I would commend, Mr. Speaker, people to Mike Franc's work at the 
Heritage Foundation that disclosed that despite the rhetoric of the 
President, how he's going after fat cats on Wall Street, the Wall 
Street executives and their immediate family donated to President Obama 
four-to-one over Senator McCain. And they've done extremely well under 
this President. It's almost as if there is a deal: Look, I'll call you 
``fat cats,'' I'll call you all kinds of names--millionaires, 
billionaires--I'll trash you, but you'll make more money than ever and 
then I'll put taxes on those that make over $125,000, and then I'll say 
I'm going after major oil, Big Oil, and probably nobody will read the 
bills.
  I read it. I read the President's own words. He's going after 
independent oil companies. He's eliminating their deductions, not the 
major oil. He's not going to hurt major oil, from what he's proposed, 
but he'll put the independents out of business. The majors will make 
more money than ever because 95 percent of all wells drilled in the 
continental U.S. are drilled by independent oil and gas producers. So 
he says he's going after major oil, but they'll make more money than 
ever if he gets his way.
  One other thing: This is an election year, and my colleague from 
Texas was really going after Texas over the voter ID. I would point out 
to my friend from Texas, and any others, Mr. Speaker, that the fact is 
that bill in Texas says, if you can't afford a State ID card, we'll 
give you one. There are people that volunteer to even get you there to 
get it done. Let's avoid fraudulent elections further.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________