[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14094-14099]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EVENTS OF THE WEEK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, today was a big day for the people of the 
United States of America. Some of us had tried to warn our friends 
across the aisle that back 3\1/2\ years ago, when ObamaCare was being 
passed, that there would be dire consequences. It would not just hurt 
the economy but it would hurt people's health.
  We were assured, No, we've got to do this bill that most people 
hadn't read. A precious few had read. I had read it. Some said, we have 
to pass it so we can find out what was in it, which was diametrically 
opposed to what the Founders wanted to see done. Though Thomas 
Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, he did write later 
that he approved of the work. But if he had one thing that he could 
add, it would be the requirement that no bill could be passed until it 
had been on file for a year.
  If ObamaCare had been on file for a year, I really don't have any 
question that it would never have passed. Because whether Members of 
Congress read it or not, people across America would have read it and 
would have found out what was in it, would have realized that if they 
like their insurance policy, they are likely going to lose it. If they 
like their doctor, they are likely going to lose their doctor. People 
would have figured out that the consequences that are now being borne 
out would be coming down the road.
  There were union leaders that just couldn't rush fast enough down to 
the White House to express their support for a bill that they clearly 
did not read. They relied on representations that turned out to be 
totally untrue. But we were trying to get across to union leaders, to 
Americans that this is a bad bill for union members. If they like their 
insurance--which most did--they would not likely keep it.
  We were told, This has to be done for the 30 million or so that don't 
have any insurance. And now today, we see people losing their insurance 
right and left that they liked, losing doctors they liked.
  A doctor in my hometown had told me about having done a surgery just 
recently. He helped a woman, and he said, you know, it was one of the 
best jobs I have ever done. Just a tiny minimal loss of blood. It was 
done in 61 minutes. They have to keep track of those things. And 
because of his many years of experience, it paid off, and a patient got 
great help.
  But because so many parts of ObamaCare have been going into place, he 
got a call the very next day from a Federal bureaucrat who called from 
clear across the country to tell him that he was reviewing the 
information about the surgery the day before and that the average time 
for that surgery was around 3 hours and that, you know, 61 minutes was 
just way too fast, that he was way below the average. And normally, 
they lose three pints of blood, and he didn't hardly lose any. 
Therefore, they were going to have to dramatically dock the 
compensation only down to about 40 percent. He was told how he could 
change the record and get full compensation. But this is an honest and 
honorable doctor, and he was not about to do that. But what it did 
result in is, he has given his notice. He is giving up his practice. 
And because of the government's heavy-handedness, after this year, 
patients will not be having the benefit of his incredible experience, 
expertise, and training because this is where government control of 
health care goes.
  You run off doctors who care more about their patients than they do 
the government. And they're not going to stand for this kind of 
intrusion by some bureaucrat that didn't have any idea what good 
surgery was, telling him he couldn't be compensated because he did 
what, in effect, was too good of a job.
  These stories are being born out across the country. When the 
government starts taking over health care more and more, it is a 
disaster. And, of course, the government gets to know everyone's most 
personal secrets of their own physical body.
  I would have thought that over the years, since Roe v. Wade and so 
many friends across the aisle were screaming about privacy rights, that 
surely, they would not want either Democratic or Republican bureaucrats 
or elected officials knowing every detail of their private bedroom 
lives. And now we find that Democrats, without a single Republican 
vote, passed a bill that is going to give the Federal Government full 
power to know every detail of what goes on in someone's bedroom. I 
mean, I would have thought that this was something that Republicans and 
Democrats could have come together on. I'm greatly appreciative of the 
Democrats that voted with us today. And I know there's one reason they 
would have voted with us today, and that is that they have been home.
  I love August because most of the people here spend that time as they 
should. And they hear from people in their districts and across the 
country, letting them know what's a proper thing to do and what's not a 
proper thing to do. And who's suffering for what decisions of Congress.
  I love it when we come back in September, and Members of Congress 
have been hearing from people across the country, especially in their 
districts. It's a great thing. It seems like we get a lot more things 
done that really are good for America. And today was one of those 
things. Every Republican standing together and some Democrats because 
everyone who voted for this continuing resolution--they had stuff in 
there I was not in favor of. But to bring help to the American people 
who are already hearing--we've had personal stories about people being 
told, well, that after the first of the year they're not going to be 
able to get their pacemaker, they're not going to be able to get the 
medical device they needed, they're not going to be able to get the 
back surgery they need. They're already hearing these things from 
health care providers that because of ObamaCare kicking in the first of 
the year, they will no longer be able because they're just too old. So 
we're going to throw them out to pasture and not let them have the 
health care they need for a good quality of life and for the long life 
that they should be entitled to. This was a good vote today. And I 
appreciate our Republican leaders for managing things to the point 
where we can be here today and do that.
  Now, if the Senators just straight down that hall, if the Senators at 
the other end of the hall had to go back and listen to town halls and 
had to listen to their constituents the way Members of the House do, 
then there's no

[[Page 14095]]

question in my mind they would have been rushing down here to work with 
us to say, How can we stop this disaster that is creating so much harm 
to people's health across America that it's only just going to multiply 
exponentially come January?
  But because of the 17th Amendment and because State legislatures no 
longer select the Senators, as the Founders had established, Senators 
get elected at large. And there's a lot of benefit to having people 
accountable to all the voters in the State. But there was also benefit 
when the State legislatures selected the Senators because that was the 
Founders' check and balance to make sure Senators did not just totally 
take away the powers that the Constitution gave to the States and the 
people under the 10th Amendment.
  Everything that is not specifically enumerated as a Federal power or 
prohibited to the States and the people was reserved to the States and 
the people under the 10th Amendment. That meant that before the Federal 
Government started getting its heavyhanded hands all over education, 
that local governments and local school boards could make decisions on 
what their schools needed.
  But Congress got involved. We had set up a multibillion dollar 
department to start sucking off money that could be going for students 
across America to fund bureaucrats and bigger, nicer buildings and 
offices and more and more cubicles for bureaucrats so that we would 
spend more money on bureaucrats that we used to spend on the students.

                              {time}  1245

  And it also meant that school boards across the country would have to 
spend more and more money on bureaucrats and administrators, other 
people in the school system that were not actually involved in 
teaching.
  Madam Speaker, I would challenge people to go look at their own 
school board and get a report from their own school board. What 
percentage of our school districts' employees, in 1978, before the 
Department of Education really kicked in, what percentage of our school 
districts' employees were teachers that worked directly with the 
students? And what is that number now? Because the numbers I've seen 
seem to indicate most school districts have ended up now about half of 
their employees are actually helping the students.
  This is what happens when government bureaucrats get involved. This 
is what happens when the Federal Government ceases to be the referee 
that they were designed to be, and, like, in health care, they become a 
player, they become the coach and the referee, all three.
  We have a bad enough problem when we're just trying to referee; but 
when the Federal Government becomes the coach and the player and the 
referee, especially in the area of health care, it means less care for 
individuals.
  Like ObamaCare. Oh, it was going to mean a lot more jobs, if you want 
to work for the IRS and go after people's personal lives and their 
insurance. And it's bad enough when they come after you demanding more 
tax money, but now they were going to come after you for your health 
care. That's the last thing we need.
  Hiring all--millions and millions of dollars for navigators. They 
weren't going to provide one iota of health care for anyone. And I'm 
not sure they even were required to graduate from high school.
  And all of that money that could be spent on health care will now be, 
if we do not, if the Senate does not agree, if they hold this good bill 
up, if the Senate shuts down the government, which I hope and pray they 
won't, but all of this money will end up going for bureaucrats instead 
of going for health care, as it could be going.
  So it's a big day for the people of America who have already been 
told that come January 1 they will not get the health care they need. 
It's a big day for those who've been being told this year that their 
health insurance costs are going to skyrocket because of ObamaCare.
  Some States like New York, apparently, theirs were so high they might 
come down a little bit, but most Americans were going to see, or are 
seeing, their health care costs skyrocket.
  We have had reforms in the Republican Party; and those who say 
otherwise are either totally ignorant, intentionally so, or they're 
lying, because the Republicans have many great policies.
  And most of us actually thought President Obama had a good idea when 
he said, let's see this debated about health care. Even on CNN. Let's 
get it out there, where the American people can see who is for what.
  Well, the President didn't live up to that because if he had, they 
would have seen union leaders not helping their union members. They 
would have seen the big pharmaceuticals getting a special deal in 
there. They would have seen plaintiffs' lawyers getting special 
treatment.
  They would have seen AARP getting special treatment, though their 
members were going to get hurt. They would have seen all these special 
deals from the groups that stood with the President on this health care 
bill.
  And I have a feeling the President would not--feel pretty strongly he 
would never have won a second term if the American people had seen all 
the negotiations that were involved in passing this disaster or, as one 
Democrat called it, train wreck, Democratic Senator.
  It is a train wreck. But the trouble is it is an ongoing train wreck 
that will continue to hurt passengers who were put into this ObamaCare 
system for many years to come.
  And that's not even talking about the economy, those who have gone 
from full-time to part-time, those who have lost their health insurance 
when they had very good health insurance. Employers that I've heard 
from have said, we are so upset. Under ObamaCare, we cannot afford to 
keep insurance.
  One owner had said, Look, I've always paid 100 percent of my 
employees' health insurance. And now, because of ObamaCare, this bill 
that Congress forced on us is making me stop. So I'll give them, you 
know, an allowance; but because of the way costs have gone up, it may 
not cover things.
  That's playing out across the country. People are not hiring people 
as they should. They're not sure how much they're going to be out of 
pocket because of ObamaCare.
  So there are plenty of alternatives. I had a bill that I think was, 
like, 28 pages, that Newt Gingrich sent some folks, experts to sit down 
with me and brainstorm, put together good ideas. Mike Burgess, Tom 
Price, there's lots of great health care ideas. And I think that if the 
American people could see us do what the President promised, and debate 
that, where they can see, we've got lots of great alternatives.
  But one of them that needs to be in every bill, whatever ends up 
being the law, if we can totally get this repealed, we need to have 
truth in the cost of health care so that when someone asks a hospital 
administrator, what does a room cost for one night, single room, one 
bed, they can actually tell you without saying, well, it depends. Is it 
Medicare or Medicaid, Blue Cross? What insurance?
  Or if it's cash, there ought to be a price; it ought to be posted. 
People ought to know what it is because if people could pay the actual 
price that a lot of insurance pay, they wouldn't want the insurance 
getting between them and the doctor and telling them what procedure and 
what doctor, or the government getting between them.
  If they could pay what Medicare pays, then a lot of people would have 
the money to do it themselves.
  But people get a bill, like I did for my daughter, $12,000 for two 
MRIs. Well, it didn't cost but a matter of hundreds of dollars, not 
$12,000.
  There ought to be truth in advertising in the cost of health care, 
just like ophthalmologists do now on LASIK surgery. That's why the 
price kept coming down.
  And there were times when my parents say, we're going to another 
doctor here in our small town, said the other one went up on price. I 
remember being told specifically: and this doctor's as good as that 
one.

[[Page 14096]]

  When was the last time anybody changed doctors because the doctor was 
costing too much?
  Nobody knows what doctors are costing, and that needs to be part of 
the reform. And ObamaCare does not even touch that issue. It just gets 
a heavy-handed government between patients and their doctors. And I 
want to see the day when patients and doctors make their decisions, not 
the government, not insurance companies. And we could do that with some 
of our proposals.
  So I know there are people that know I've not cheered my leadership 
very often. But today was a big day. Today was an important day, not 
for Republicans, not for Democrats, but for the people of America who 
have already been finding out how much damage ObamaCare is doing.
  And, hopefully, Senators down the Hall will--now that it's headed 
down to the Senate--now Senators will start hearing and having to 
listen to Americans who are suffering health-wise, health care-wise, 
and economically because of that terrible bill.
  It is also an important week. A number of things have happened.
  Oh, and there's an article here, ``Home Depot Alters Insurance for 
Part-timers.'' A lot of people have gone from full-time to part-time so 
they wouldn't have to be--the employers would not have to pay the 
heavy-handed ObamaCare insurance costs. Home Depot. There are just so 
many of these stories.
  Let's see. There's a report posted by Rob Bluey on September 18, 
front page, ObamaCare. This says, here's a sampling of where America 
stands on ObamaCare: 68 percent are concerned about the impact of their 
personal health care under ObamaCare; 57 percent oppose ObamaCare; 52 
percent believe ObamaCare will result in their health care costs 
increasing.
  And from people I've talked to, they don't just believe it. They've 
already seen it start to have that effect; 51 percent want Congress to 
cut funding for ObamaCare.
  As it says here, labor unions have sought relief from it. Democrats 
have called it a train wreck, and the Washington political class is 
getting exemptions or special treatment.
  Well, if we can't get it repealed, everybody ought to be under it, 
including the President, whose name is normally used to identify the 
bill.
  Another thing happened this week, in the last week, that was 
certainly worth noting, and that was the sentencing of a criminal 
defendant who went in to the Family Research Center and began to shoot. 
There's an article here from WND, there's a quote, has a quote:

       There's a paradigm shift in America where if you are an 
     outspoken, open Christian, you are now being labeled as not 
     only a hatemonger, but also a potential threat to U.S. 
     security.

  And that was a quote from retired General Jerry Boykin with the FRC. 
He was, in part, referring to documents influenced by the Southern 
Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, that identified the Founding Fathers as 
the kind of radicals that we should be watching out for today.
  So it is rather amazing that the very Constitution that we celebrate 
this week was founded by people who are now being called extremists. 
The most free country in the world now has people calling the Founders, 
those who gave us our Constitution, as being radical extremists that 
need to be stopped. The irony is actually sickening.
  The article goes on, though, talking about Boykin. He was, in part, 
referring to documents by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Boykin's 
full list of accomplishments in service to his country is too long to 
detail, but it includes serving as an original member of the U.S. 
Army's Delta Force, commanding all the Army's Green Berets, and doing 
stints at the CIA and as deputy Under Secretary of Intelligence at the 
Department of Defense.
  And now he's found himself facing an adversary here in his homeland, 
one that is also capable of bloodshed, and that is the radical left.
  Boykin is the executive vice president of the Family Research 
Council, or FRC, which is dedicated to ``a culture in which human life 
is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives'' and seeks 
to ``advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture 
from a Christian world view.''
  On August 15, 2012, heavily armed homosexual activist, Floyd Lee 
Corkins, II walked into Washington offices of the FRC and began 
shooting with the intention of killing ``as many people as I could.'' 
Corkins admitted he picked the FRC offices that are here in Washington 
because the organization was listed as an ``anti-gay'' hate group by 
the SPLC on its Web site.
  The article says, Corkins, a former volunteer at an LGBT community 
center, pleaded guilty to terrorism and will learn his fate Thursday 
when he will be sentenced in Federal Court in Washington, D.C.
  We now know he was sentenced to 25 years.
  Boykin said:

       I think the SPLC should be taken to task by the media and 
     public opinion for the reckless nature of what they're doing.

                              {time}  1300

  Personally, I think it's worth noting that the Southern Poverty Law 
Center arose out of racial hatred and bigotry, those things that were 
addressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a true American hero, who 
advocated for peace, who advocated for love of Christ Jesus, as an 
ordained Christian minister. That was the way to win the day.
  And now, all these years later after the death of that great American 
hero, Martin Luther King, they've somehow morphed into an organization 
that is so busy calling other people and groups hateful, they don't see 
all of the hate that they are spreading and spewing around this 
country.
  Back to the article:

       The general called the map capricious and noted it had no 
     definition of a hate group.

  It's talking about a hate map that the SPLC had created.

       More importantly, we think what they're doing is absolutely 
     reckless, particularly given they put us in the same category 
     as groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads.
       Pressure has to be put on the SPLC to stop this because, 
     Boykin said, ``It is reckless behavior that has, at least in 
     this case, incited someone to want to kill people who don't 
     believe what they believe and stand for.''

  People may remember that he came in to the FRC and he had sacks of 
Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which was also to be considered hateful by the 
SPLC.
  I think it's worth noting that if you go back to the 1964 speech by a 
man who was considered to be an extremely liberal Democrat, Hubert 
Humphrey, you go back to 1960 speeches by a man that some considered to 
be very liberal, John F. Kennedy, and you will find that they talked 
about the home and the parents and a mother and father and a good home 
and how we ought to be nurturing homes.
  Humphrey's speech was really rather amazing to the 1964 Democratic 
Convention. Though he was considered a liberal, he made very clear that 
we were doing great damage as we break down the traditional family 
home. I wonder how he'd be labeled today by the SPLC for the speech he 
gave in 1964.
  But the article says:

       Corkins managed to shoot and injure just one person, thanks 
     to the heroics of building manager Leo Johnson, who stopped 
     the attack. A video shows Corkins entered the building and 
     approached Johnson, then leaned over to place his backpack on 
     the floor. When he straightened up, Corkins pointed a 
     semiautomatic handgun directly at Johnson and fired. Despite 
     being wounded in the arm, Johnson was able to subdue Corkins 
     after a brief struggle. Boykin said, ``Leo is doing very well 
     after a series of surgeries, and in over a year of recovery 
     time, he is doing very, very well.''

  Anyway, it points out:

       The general is also a pastor and wanted to emphasize, 
     ``It's important to remember that, regardless of where 
     America is today, the original roots of America were founded 
     in Judeo-Christian beliefs.'' He observed the Declaration of 
     Independence was signed by men of Christian faith, but today, 
     the vestiges of that heritage are being squeezed out of our 
     society.
       People who cling to those values are being forced to go 
     underground for fear of being ridiculed, for fear of even 
     being attacked and maybe even killed, as was evidenced here. 
     It's a sad commentary on the state of our society.


[[Page 14097]]


  It is a sad commentary on our society. We were founded on Judeo-
Christian values.
  Look at the speeches that were given during the Constitutional 
Convention. The fact that the Constitution itself was dated in the year 
of our Lord, 1787, I wonder what Lord they were talking about. The 
Founders knew. They knew.
  Hopefully, we can get back to the place where, though people in 
America may practice whatever religion or no religion they believe or 
want to, the values are those that we were founded on.
  It was amazing to me how in the first draft of the Declaration of 
Independence Thomas Jefferson could put one of the longest grievances 
listed as talking about slavery and condemning King George forever in 
allowing it in America. They knew it was wrong. The values they had, 
they knew slavery was wrong; but out of convenience, it was allowed. 
And it did such great damage to this country because it damaged people 
that were in it.
  And the great speeches of John Quincy Adams just down the hall after 
he ran for the House of Representatives and got elected after he was 
President. He was the only person to ever be a Representative after he 
was President. But he wanted to end slavery, and he believed that was 
what God was calling him to do and what God wanted America to do.
  That's what Abraham Lincoln believed. He believed, by 1860, God had 
called him to bring an end to slavery. And he was influenced by the 
speeches down the hall by John Quincy Adams. And it has been an honor 
for me to be in the church and worship God in the church where an 
incredible human being worshipped, came close to God, named Frederick 
Douglass, who had such a profound effect on Abraham Lincoln, as well, 
and made a material change in this country for the better.
  It is amazing that with all the hatred that's being spewed toward 
Christians, I'm shocked that in my lifetime that we have seen the 
lessons of anti-Semitism and the hatred toward Jews start coming back, 
even in this country. When I read about what happened in the 
concentration camps during World War II, I couldn't believe it. And I 
just knew we would never allow that kind of hatred to raise its ugly 
head again. And yet not only in some hate-filled countries in the 
Middle East is it resurfacing, it's resurfacing here in America.
  There were five of us Republicans in the House that signed letters to 
five different Departments. We set out facts in those letters. We said:

       There's indications that there was Muslim Brotherhood 
     influence within your Department or Agency. Since your job is 
     to investigate issues in your Agency or Department, we would 
     ask you to investigate the extent of Muslim Brotherhood 
     influence in your Department.

  One such letter was sent to the Department of Homeland Security. One 
was sent to the Department of State. Even Senator McCain got all up in 
arms. It was obvious he'd not even read the letter before he started 
condemning those that signed it. So I hope that at some point he'll 
read our letters.
  Then we hear in the news this week, stories from the Washington Times 
and Washington Free Beacon written by Adam Kredo, dated September 18:

       A senior Muslim Brotherhood official, who until recently 
     had been employed by the William J. Clinton Foundation, was 
     arrested in Cairo on Tuesday and charged with inciting 
     violence. Gehad el-Haddad served as one of the Muslim 
     Brotherhood's top communications officials until Egyptian 
     security forces seized him as part of a wider crackdown on 
     officials loyal to ousted former President Mohamed Morsi.
       Before emerging as a top Brotherhood official and adviser 
     to Morsi, el-Haddad served for 5 years as a top official at 
     the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit group founded by former 
     President Bill Clinton.

  This article goes on to say:

       El-Haddad gained a reputation for pushing the Muslim 
     Brotherhood's Islamist agenda in the foreign press, where he 
     was often quoted defending the Brotherhood's crackdown on 
     civil liberties in Egypt. He was raised in a family of 
     prominent Muslim Brotherhood supporters and became the public 
     face of the Islamist organization soon after leaving his post 
     at the Clinton Foundation. However, much of his official work 
     with the Brotherhood took place while he was still claiming 
     to be employed by the Clinton Foundation.

  The article goes on to say:

       El-Haddad's arrest sparked outrage among Brotherhood 
     supporters, scores of whom have taken to the streets to 
     protest in the weeks since Morsi was removed from office and 
     seized by the Egyptian military.

  I want to inject in here that, as the article points out, it was 
scores--a score being 20 people--scores of people came to the streets. 
As I and some of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, were in the 
Middle East in the last few weeks, I was surprised to keep seeing on 
CNN talk about the thousands of Morsi supporters and Muslim Brotherhood 
supporters who had come to the streets and, according to CNN, just want 
their country back. But they kept failing to report about the glorious 
stand that millions and millions and millions and millions of Egyptians 
took to get their country back because they did not want radical Islam 
running Egypt.
  And as even some of our own officials privately said, we're not 
exactly sure how many millions of Egyptians came to the streets to 
protest Morsi and demand his ouster, but it was certainly millions more 
than the 13 million he claimed had voted for him.
  This was not a coup, and those across America that only listen or 
watch the mainstream media, like the newspaper editor in Henderson, 
Texas, they don't know. They thought that was a coup because they 
haven't had the benefit of watching and getting information from the 
reality of what has happened in Egypt, because this was not a coup.
  They can talk to the Coptic Christian Pope of Egypt in Cairo, as I 
have, and have him explain that, Look, I am a Christian, and I am 
telling you I was part of the demonstration. I was gratified to have so 
many moderate Muslims join hands figuratively and literally with us and 
with me and say we don't want radical Islam running Egypt. This 
President has violated our constitution repeatedly. He's making life 
horrible for people of Christian or Jewish or moderate Muslim faith, 
and we want him out. And the Egyptian Pope will tell you this was not a 
coup. This was millions more Egyptians rising up and saying very 
clearly, Morsi has to go.
  I didn't know until I did my own research and consulted the experts 
that even though the United States gave advice to Egypt about their 
constitution, we did not emphasize the importance of having an 
impeachment process to have an orderly government.
  So Egypt's constitution that Morsi was continuing to violate, 
according to the masses, the millions of people there, had no provision 
to remove him. They had no choice except to move out in peace, as they 
did, and demand Morsi's removal.
  The violence, when you get down to accurate reporting, has been 
stirred by the Muslim Brotherhood. And just as CNN reported, they want 
their country back. And they're willing to burn churches, to kill 
Christians, to tell Christians to either repent and give up your belief 
in Christ or we will cut your head off and be proud of it and show the 
video. You either repent and repudiate Christianity or we'll kill you.
  They burned churches. They killed Christians. They killed moderate 
Muslims. I think it's to the military's credit, they heard the millions 
more Egyptians who rose up than Morsi claimed voted for him and 
demanded the ouster since there was no impeachment mechanism, and now 
they have an interim government with a roadmap toward having a fair 
election. But they're not going to let the radical Islamists take over 
that country.

                              {time}  1315

  We need to be applauding that because they know, when they stand up 
to radical Islamists--just like other places in the world--it means 
death to some of them. Because radical Islamists believe they get 
virgins, they get paradise if they kill what they think are infidels in 
the process of pursuing their goal.
  Thomas Jefferson could not believe that there was a religion in the 
world anywhere, as well read as he was, that believed you could get to 
paradise by

[[Page 14098]]

killing innocent people--and especially not innocent women and children 
for heaven's sake. So he got his own version of the Koran, an English 
translation.
  Thank God most Muslims do not believe in the radicalized Islam, but 
it's time to recognize this is a threat. The Muslim Brotherhood around 
the world wants to build toward one thing, and that is a permanent 
global caliphate where all of us either repudiate our faith, or lack of 
faith, and become radical Islamists like they are. We cannot allow that 
to happen.
  Our five letters that our group of five in the House wrote were 
pretty benign, actually, pointing out that, look, there is influence, 
let's find out what the influence is.
  I might also mention from the article here that I was quoting from 
that El-Haddad, who was arrested as the radical Muslim Brotherhood 
spokesman in Egypt, he left the Clinton Foundation in August of 2012, 2 
months after Morsi assumed the Egyptian Presidency. But it says:

       The Clinton Climate Initiative taught Haddad about managing 
     an NGO and the role that civil society takes between the 
     state and private sector, lessons he is applying to the 
     Renaissance Project.

  But Haddad had told the Independent that he applied the knowledge he 
learned at the Clinton Foundation to his work for the Renaissance 
Project--the Muslim Brothers:

       He was appointed a ``senior adviser and media spokesman'' 
     to the Muslim Brotherhood in January 2013 and served in that 
     role until his arrest. He regularly defended the 
     Brotherhood's authoritarian crackdown on civil society, even 
     running damage control in December 2012 when Morsi supporters 
     attacked women and children.

  That's the kind of outrage that the people of Egypt stood up against. 
The article says also:

       When widespread democratic protests broke out on June 30, 
     El-Haddad referred to the demonstrators as violent thugs in 
     an interview with the Free Beacon.

  Nobody I know knows for sure--it would be the Clinton Foundation, the 
Clinton family, somebody knows--who hired this Muslim Brotherhood 
advocate to work for the Clinton Foundation and allowed him to continue 
his work for the Muslim Brotherhood while he was working for the 
Clinton Foundation.
  We know that a man named Al-Amoudi helped with some of the Muslim 
hirings and placement in the Clinton administration. But we haven't 
been able to find out who it was that placed Huma Weiner, or Huma 
Abedin Weiner, in the position with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton to 
become her close advisor over the years, especially when she became 
Secretary of State. Of course we also know that Ms. Abedin Weiner was 
part of a Journal that was founded and run by a guy that Osama bin 
Laden said had a material effect on him being radicalized.
  So it's interesting. There's a lot of questions here about how much 
influence the Muslim Brotherhood had. In fact, how could this 
administration end up being so supportive of a Muslim Brotherhood 
member who said, well, he gave up his Muslim Brotherhood membership. 
Well, the Muslim Brotherhood makes clear, you don't have to have a card 
to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood, you just have to believe what 
they do, and clearly Morsi did. And he violated the constitution 
routinely, according to widespread reports.
  So the 13 million he said voted for him, there are allegations of 
fraud, but that was clearly overshadowed by the millions and millions 
more in the largest demonstrations in the history of the world as the 
Egyptian people rose up and said, we don't have an impeachment 
provision in our constitution, so all we can do when a radical like 
Morsi takes over our country then is demand the military have him step 
down until we can elect a truly democratic leader who will follow the 
constitution.
  I know there were friends who told me, we think Morsi is a really 
good guy because he's really actually going to bring peace; he's 
helping bring peace in the Sinai. But when you actually go over there 
and do your own research, you find out that now the Sinai has been more 
weaponized with real military weapons than just about anyplace on 
Earth. And it is a major threat to Israel. So those who thought maybe 
he's a real help to Israel, they have no idea.
  In meeting with General Al-Sissi, he makes clear, I don't want to be 
president. I'll step down from the military. But the people of Egypt 
made clear to us in the military they want a democracy, and this man 
totally violated the constitution. When I asked him point blank--since 
I had heard from a former CIA agent that he said he knew that Morsi had 
been trying to contract to have a hit placed on General Al-Sissi--I 
asked him directly if he had evidence of Morsi trying to have him 
killed as head of the military, he dodged the question, but finally 
admitted, yes, they had evidence of Morsi trying to have Al-Sissi 
killed.
  I mean, if we had a President--and thank God we don't have a 
President like this--who was trying to have other members of the 
government, including at the Pentagon, having them knocked off, we 
wouldn't stand for that. Well, the people of Egypt, they didn't even 
know about the contract he was trying to take out--according to what 
these people who say they have knowledge, what they say--but they knew 
that they had a president who was acting outside the constitution, and 
he had to go.
  I want to go back to the influence that some of us are aware that the 
Muslim Brotherhood has on this administration. And we can say that 
because we know in the Holy Land Foundation trial in U.S. District 
Court, ample evidence was produced to show that CAIR, the Council of 
American Islamic Relations, and ISNA, the Islamic Society of North 
America, were two of the largest front organizations for the Muslim 
Brotherhood. When CAIR and ISNA, these groups tried to have their name 
removed as, not indicted, but as named co-conspirators to support 
terrorism, the District Court said no, there's plenty of evidence there 
to support your staying a named co-conspirator. So they appealed it to 
the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear 
the evidence is quite profound: Yes, these guys are front groups for 
the Muslim Brotherhood.
  We know CAIR has had all kinds of influence in this administration. 
But when I was questioning Secretary Napolitano on October 26, 2011, I 
asked her about this. I was asking her if she was familiar with a man 
named Elibiary from Texas--nice guy, I've met him. I said:
  ``But let me ask you, Mohamed Elibiary is--was a member of the 
working group''--talking about the Countering Violent Extremism Working 
Group. ``You promoted him, and it said there--I've got articles here 
that say you swore him in as a member now of your, let's see, the 
Homeland Security Advisory Group. He's apparently been given a secret 
clearance. Do you know Mr. Elibiary?'' Secretary Napolitano said yes.
  Further in the question I said:
  ``This is critical: Secretary, were you aware that a week ago today, 
from his home computer, he accessed the SLIC database''--a classified 
database--``got information off and has been shopping a story to 
national media on Islamophobia directed by the Governor of Texas and 
the security folks there in Texas? Were you aware of that?'' She said 
no.
  I said: ``I'm telling you it happened. Do we need to appoint 
somebody, or will you have that investigated yourself, and if so, by 
whom?''
  ``Well, since I don't know the facts,'' she said, ``I'll have to look 
into the facts.''
  I said: ``So you'll be the one to make that call?''
  She said: ``We'll have somebody, and it'll be myself or someone.''
  On July 20, 2012, I asked the same person, Secretary Napolitano, 
about the same thing, and she said:
  ``I found out that the statements that have been made in that 
regard''--talking about him accessing the classified database--``are 
false. They are misleading, and objectionable. And I think they are 
wrong.''
  I went on and I said: ``But are you saying before this Congress, 
right now, as Secretary of Homeland Security, that it is a lie that 
Mohamed Elibiary

[[Page 14099]]

downloaded material from a classified Web site using the secret 
security clearance you gave him? Are you saying that's a lie?''
  She said: ``I'm saying that isn't accurate. That is correct.''
  I went on down and said: ``So you're saying that the State and local 
intelligence community of interest database is not classified?
  She said: ``I'm saying that he, as far as I know, did not download 
classified documents.''
  That's all real interesting. Oh, and I asked her if Elibiary's status 
on the Homeland Security Advisory Council had changed. She said no.
  I said: ``And this administration seems to have a hard time 
recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White 
House--you're aware of that happening, aren't you?''
  She said: ``Absolutely not.''
  And by the time she testified before the Senate, not long after that, 
she had found out that they had allowed a member of a known terrorist 
organization to go into the White House. So these are the kind of 
things that give us great concern.
  It's my understanding that not only has Mr. Elibiary still been 
there, but he has had his security still there--it may have been 
increased, I'm not sure--but is now even more important as an advisor.
  Then we got this from Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch had made a 
demand to know about the investigation into Mr. Elibiary. And the 
response back from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security--now that 
Secretary Napolitano is no longer there--and I am quoting from their 
letter to Sean Dunagan from Judicial Watch, September 16:

       We conducted a comprehensive search of files within DHS 
     Enterprise Correspondence Tracking System for records that 
     would be responsive to your request. Unfortunately, we were 
     unable to locate or identify any responsive records.

  They have no records of any investigation into the facts that were 
presented before Secretary Napolitano.
  I talked to the head of the Department of Public Safety, Steven 
McCraw, in Texas before I asked our questions. He had told me that, 
even though she said the next day she didn't know anything about that 
episode of him allegedly downloading documents from a classified 
source, and Steve McCraw said I just talked to her chief of staff since 
you and I last talked. He said he had totally briefed the Secretary on 
the situation with Elibiary. She was fully aware of it. Then she came 
in and testified before us the next day she didn't know anything about 
it.
  Then she had the nerve to say it never happened. Yet there was one 
reporter, Patrick Poole, that did an article about it happening. He had 
the source in the mainstream media who had told him about Elibiary 
shopping those documents to him. And it was a fact. They knew exactly 
where Elibiary accessed the classified database, they knew what 
computer he used. Yet Homeland Security, with the Secretary at the top, 
being totally unable to find what the Department of Public Safety knew 
and had found in Texas.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, we are in trouble when Homeland Security says they did 
an investigation and there's no documentation whatsoever of any 
investigation being done; and not only do they deal with the problem 
that was clearly a problem, they promote the individual.
  It comes back to the letters--and I think we need answers again--that 
make clear that, yes, there is Muslim Brotherhood influence through 
this administration, and we need to know the extent.
  We have also this week an executive summary of the FBI interactions 
with the Council on American Islamic Relations from their inspector 
general when he only looked into five specific incidences where the new 
policy--after it was proven that CAIR was a Muslim Brotherhood front 
organization--where the FBI totally disregarded the new policy three 
out of the five times that they investigated--and that's only the five 
they investigated--and continued to have a chummy relationship with 
this Muslim Brotherhood front organization.
  I have not yet reviewed the classified report; but, for example, 
October 2010, the New Haven FBI field office, the FBI office co-
coordinated a diversity training workshop with a local Muslim 
organization, and two of the six trainers selected for this cultural 
sensitivity training were local CAIR officials.
  At some point, we have to learn that there are people who want to do 
away with our Constitution and do away with our form of government and 
substitute their own caliphate therefor. Some want to do it peacefully; 
some in the organization want to do it violently.
  But it is an outrage for people who want to eliminate our 
Constitution and have their own sharia law to be allowed to be in the 
higher places in this government--at least that's what the Egyptians 
were reporting. For those news outlets that try to claim that by my 
reporting what happened in Egypt when the Egyptian people rose up by 
the millions and by showing the pictures of banners, like the one that 
had an American flag on one half with a green checkmark they like 
America and on the other side our President with a red X, they try to 
blame me for stirring up the Egyptian people.
  I just want people in America to understand what is really going on; 
and, unfortunately, enough people have not gotten the picture. It is 
time to wake up, America. It is time to embrace the values that helped 
us get rid of slavery, that helped us become the greatest Nation in the 
world, in the history of the world, to re-embrace the values and to 
deal with anybody that wants to see those thrown asunder.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________