[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14515-14521]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TERRORISM ACROSS THE GLOBE

  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. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my dear friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).


                        Honoring S. Truett Cathy

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to honor one 
of Georgia's greatest: Mr. S. Truett Cathy.
  Truett Cathy was known across the globe as a successful businessman, 
author, and the ``inventor of the chicken sandwich.'' Mr. Cathy would 
also say, ``God created chicken; we created the chicken sandwich.'' But 
most importantly, he was a beloved great-grandfather, grandfather, 
father, and husband, above all else. His strong Christian faith could 
be seen in everything he did. It didn't matter if it was his company, 
his employees, or his generosity. It was all embodied in the love and 
good news of Jesus Christ.
  Truett's whole life was about giving hope and opportunity to those 
who had none. His dedication to helping children who have been abused 
and lost in the foster system reflected how important family values 
were to him and are only a fraction of what Truett, a man of such great 
integrity, was able to accomplish.
  Having come from nothing himself, he wanted every child to have the 
same chance at success and happiness as he did. Truett established the 
WinShape Foundation, which includes 11 long-term foster homes for 95 
children. The WinShape Foundation helped not only children in bad 
circumstances, but for all periods of an individual's life.
  Truett also used his foundation as an opportunity to show you that 
faith in God can help you through your journey by providing 
opportunities for young adults to reconnect with their faith in the 
college program, offering retreats for married couples to renew their 
love in each other and in God, and creating

[[Page 14516]]

our next generation's leaders through Christian wilderness camps to 
learn how to be a better leader and a part of a team.
  Truett believed building Christian leaders shouldn't be limited to 
our country's borders and took WinShape International through 
missionary trips and projects in over 43 countries.
  The generous work and humble spirit of Truett Cathy has touched more 
lives than we could ever imagine, and many successful individuals today 
have him to thank.
  Even in business, Truett Cathy treated his Chick-fil-A employees like 
family, endowing a scholarship foundation to help send them to college. 
Chick-fil-A has actually awarded more than $25 million in the last 35 
years, done through $1,000 scholarships to 20 or 30 hardworking and 
deserving employees every year.

                              {time}  1345

  Through all his work, Truett gave the most important gift of all to 
many underprivileged children and teens, and that is hope.
  You can never put a price on having someone believe in you and give 
you a chance at success by giving you your first job and teaching you 
the value of respect and hard work, and what the ethics of being 
employed was all about.
  Truett sums up his life mission and his work best himself:

       Nearly every moment of every day, we have the opportunity 
     to give something to someone else, our time, our love, our 
     resources, and I have always found more joy in giving when I 
     did not expect anything in return.

  Having the opportunity to know Truett and his wonderful family has 
been a privilege, and I thank him for all he has done for the people of 
Georgia and across this Nation, for the hope and confidence that he has 
given so many young people to continue on and to fight for what they 
believe.
  Joan and I want to send our condolences and prayers to the Cathy 
family during this time of great sorrow for us all.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. I do appreciate that tribute to a 
truly great man.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), my friend, for such time as he may consume.


      HIGHLIGHTING COMPLEXITIES OF OUR NATION'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

  Mr. HULTGREN. I want to thank my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the complexities of our 
Nation's health care system on the eve of the first open season since 
ObamaCare was launched.
  I want to offer a hope to the millions of American consumers who 
still need real solutions to help ensure that their families can obtain 
necessary and affordable health care.
  Today, our health care system in America has two faces. It can 
provide state-of-the-art care while, at the same time, can be one of 
the most complex and frustrating systems in the world.
  Americans feel the effects of these complexities every single day. 
They repeatedly put health care near the top of their list of issues 
that concern them, and they should be concerned.
  The system today has so many conflicting incentives, rules, and 
regulations, that few Americans have the ability to make sound and 
affordable decisions for themselves and their families. ObamaCare 
introduced a whole new level of fuzziness to an already opaque system.
  Families are increasingly worried that they will pay more and more 
for health insurance that covers less and less and lowers the quality 
of care. They search for long-term economic security, but find 
unsustainable costs instead.
  Even with the advent of the President's health care law, the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, many 
middle class Americans haven't found their health care to be more 
affordable, nor have they felt secure with the current system.
  Americans have a right to feel frustrated with the Affordable Care 
Act today. It is far from what they were promised.
  I have heard stories from too many of my constituents who received 
letters terminating their coverage, like Julia, from Gurnee, Illinois, 
or of others facing rising health care costs, like another who told me: 
``I wonder if the administration ever thought about those of us who 
have to pay for our health care coverage with no extra help, and how 
much more we would be paying.''
  Or of the employers who have had to eliminate health benefits, or of 
workers and teachers whose hours have been reduced because employers 
can't afford the higher premiums, or of families losing access to 
doctors they have known for decades.
  Those doctors also face conflicting rules that result in adverse 
consequences. They want to continue to provide care, but many are no 
longer accepting Medicare patients and must now require upfront 
payments for care just to keep their practice open.
  There aren't enough doctors and specialists to go around in the 
narrow networks. We have tried to address the long and sometimes life-
threatening waits for veterans. Now is the time to address those long 
lines for everyone else.
  Surely, this is not the health care system we were promised, nor does 
it paint a bright future for the health status of Americans. That is 
why, on August 28, I convened the third Community Leadership Forum in 
Illinois' 14th Congressional District. Our topic? Health care. Our 
focus? The consumer.
  I assembled three separate panels to discuss issues ranging from the 
ACA and how it will continue to affect consumers in 2015, to how 
technology and innovation can improve health care outcomes, to how best 
to increase consumer access to and quality of health care. It was clear 
that there was a thirst for the community to come together.
  In the weeks preceding the forum, I was excited to hear about the 
panelists' enthusiasm. The forum included CEOs of local and statewide 
health care organizations and hospitals, CMOs and executive vice 
presidents of insurance companies, and, most importantly, my 
constituents.
  I heard about the issues directly affecting every level of our health 
care system. Most importantly, our focus remained on offering consumer-
oriented solutions. Never before had I been confronted with such 
passion and desire to offer answers for our national health care system 
and work together to implement solutions.
  Today, I want to share just a selection of the great ideas that could 
help American consumers of health care. Many of these will be available 
in a full report I plan to release on my Web site, hultgren.house.gov, 
in the coming days.
  During the first panel, one of the primary challenges health care and 
small business insurance professionals discussed was how to ensure 
consumer choice and access to the broader market of providers. I heard 
numerous times about the need to reduce health care costs overall by 
pursuing a market-based system with less regulation.
  Surprisingly, the only sub-industry in health care that is lowering 
costs and increasing the quality of care is elective procedures, an 
industry perpetuated by market control.
  Insurance providers told me the difficulties they face operating 
within the ACA's demands and slim margins. Certain insurance 
regulations, like the medical loss ratio, exacerbate costs. These costs 
translate directly into higher premiums for constituents and 
businesses.
  Instead of encouraging higher quality of care and lower costs with 
advancements in technology and economy, we find ourselves moving in the 
opposite direction. Relieving these ineffective and inefficient 
mandates could be a first step to opening up more options for insurers 
and consumers.
  In the second and third panels, I heard from hospital executives and 
university innovators about the biggest challenges facing medical 
technology and innovation.
  With innovators and leaders in the biotechnology and medical 
technology industry at the table, I learned about the ever-present and 
insurmountable ``valley of death,'' the period of time between a 
potentially lifesaving device

[[Page 14517]]

or product discovery and its introduction to the broader market. This 
period is encumbered by regulation and bureaucracy.
  In Europe, devices and medicines that show promise are approved and 
brought to market faster and more effectively.
  To help with technology transfer and to quicken innovation and its 
application, I learned about ways to fill the gap between discovery and 
investment. Legislation like the TRANSFER Act, introduced by my 
colleague, Representative Chris Collins from New York, will help reduce 
the strain caused by the valley of death in the innovation process.
  Another method is the preservation of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. One 
speaker recommended fully funding the FDA to speed the approval process 
to bring new devices to market in the United States.
  The conversation went so far as to talk about the intersection of 
education policy and scientific research, highlighting the need to make 
sure our kids receive the best STEM education our schools can provide. 
These conversations clarified that medical innovations are a vital 
component to strengthening treatments and reducing the costs in the 
health care system.
  Throughout the day, it was confirmed again that the current health 
care landscape is rocky and uncertain, but there are many who are 
willing and eager to work together to tackle these challenges.
  The House is also eager to work hard to help fix our health care 
system. Numerous times the House has said ``yes'' to fixes and 
alternatives that address our system's deep challenges. We don't need 
to wait for our health care system to get worse before it gets better. 
We can work to fix it now.
  Americans have a right to feel frustrated with the ACA today. It is 
far from what they were promised. But that should only spur us onward.
  We are only months from the start of open enrollment, November 15. 
The question is, can all of us, in Congress, in health care, and 
constituents, work together to bring much-needed reform to our health 
care system? Can we raise the quality of care our country offers while 
lowering costs for Americans across the country?
  I believe we can, and I trust these solutions will help get us there.
  I want to thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there is so much at risk right now in this 
country, and the President gave us a fine address last night, very 
interesting. I know some people say, you know, in times of trouble, 
when the United States is threatened, we need to all get together 
behind our leader.
  As someone once said to me about Republicans, he said, I just wish 
the Republicans would all run the same play together. And I responded, 
I agree. I wholeheartedly want for the Republicans to all run the same 
play together at the same time.
  But I said, the trouble is, if my leader calls a play running to the 
wrong end zone, I am not blocking for him. And that is also, I think, 
applicable with the President of the United States.
  I was blasted after statements on FOX News saying that if the 
President wanted to go to war with ISIS, I would support that. So I was 
anticipating something last night that would unite us and not divide 
us.
  To relate, one of the problems with the President is, he starts off 
early in his speech saying, as Commander in Chief, my highest priority 
is the security of the American people. Well, I have come to know 
friends, close friends with a number of the family members of Ty Woods, 
Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Chris Stevens, and they 
debate, they don't believe that the highest priority of this President 
is the security of the American people.
  The actions of this President, in saying that he cares so deeply 
about the security of the American people, don't seem to resonate when 
you stand by weeping parents who have watched their son's head be cut 
off by these enemies, and you say it is your highest priority to 
protect the American people, but they are wondering, that same day that 
you spend 5 or 6 hours playing golf, do you spend that much time 
figuring out a way to protect other Foleys?
  That is a tough sell.
  The President said, now, let's make two things clear. ISIL is not 
Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.
  Well, that has certainly got to be a shock to the radical Islamists 
who brutally kill, behead, maim innocent people in the name of what 
they say is their religion.
  In fact, the American people don't seem to be sold on what the 
President said. This story from CNN filed at 8:15 a.m. this morning by 
Ashley Killough quotes what the President said about ISIL's not 
Islamic. No religion condones killing of innocents.
  Then they have a number of tweets. According to the CNN article, 
Twitter just lit up with responses to the President saying that. Lots 
of retweets.
  Let's see, from Ron Christie: ``ISIS isn't Islamic? What 
kindergartner briefs the President on terrorism?''
  Another: ``Obama: ISIL is not Islamic? He just countermanded anything 
he plans to say tonight. Right there is the fatal flaw.''
  Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic? Hello? THIS ISIL, `Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Levant'?''
  Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic and Lois Lerner and the IRS is not 
corrupt. Obama is such a freaking''-- Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't say 
that word. Joe Wilson said that and it was found not to be appropriate.
  Another: ``ISIL is not Islamic? Is he kidding? I suppose those black 
flags are just for giggles then.''
  Another from the CNN article: ``ISIL is not Islamic--POTUS opens a 
section aimed at motivating Muslims around the world to disown ISIL, 
aid U.S. fight.''
  Another from Mohammed Ansar: ``ISIL is not Islamic, says prime time 
@BarackObama (and virtually every Muslim and reasonably educated person 
on the face of our planet).''

                              {time}  1400

       Michael Oleaga: Some folks on Twitter didn't understand 
     Obama's ``ISIL is not Islamic'' statement. Study foreign 
     affairs, folks, or religion--all religion.

  It is interesting because President Obama's statement is apparently 
similar to the historic reaction that Thomas Jefferson had before he 
was President when he was negotiating with the radical Islamist Barbary 
pirates in northern Africa, who had been capturing American ships--
killing, enslaving, holding people for ransom.
  Jefferson was rather shocked when he reportedly indicated, ``I don't 
understand why you keep attacking us. We don't have a navy. We are not 
a threat to you.''
  It was explained to him, ``We believe if we are killed while 
attacking infidels like you, then we will go instantly to paradise.''
  Jefferson is perplexed, and he ends up getting his own copy of the 
Koran because he couldn't believe that any religion would ever promote 
going to paradise for being killed while killing innocent people. He 
read for himself, and history can tell you exactly what his conclusion 
was.
  As President, he ultimately decided that the only way to deal with 
these radical Islamists was not to keep paying 10 to 20 percent of the 
American budget for ransom to get people back.
  The solution was to send this new group called the United States 
Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight the radical Islamists with 
everything they had until they yelled ``uncle'' or were wiped out, and 
they ceased to come after Americans.
  The President says:

       I have insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon 
     Iraqis forming an inclusive government.

  That strikes me as strange because if the Commander in Chief's 
highest priority, as he said at the start of the speech, is the 
security of the American people, then it begs the question: Why is he 
so worried about what the Iraq Government does if he knows he has to do 
something to protect the American people?

[[Page 14518]]

  Now, I remember Senator Obama repeatedly went after the Bush 
administration. It seemed that he thought little or nothing of the 
coalition that President George H. W. Bush put together with 43 
countries to go in and liberate Kuwait and that he thought even less of 
the 49 countries that put people and money on the line to support the 
effort in Iraq--49 countries.
  President Obama thought that was not a real coalition, yet they put 
people, and they put money. Now, magically, since he is President, he 
thinks a coalition of nine countries that he won't name or commit what 
they are going to put into the coalition is somehow better than the 49 
countries' coalition that President Bush put together before going into 
the Middle East.
  President Obama said:

       In June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers 
     to Iraq.

  He goes on to say:

       We will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq.

  He has made very clear he is not going to put boots on the ground, as 
he said, in Iraq, so the only conclusion logically that you can make 
from the President's saying, on the one hand, we are not going to put 
boots on the ground in Iraq and that he has already sent several 
hundred soldiers and is sending 475 more, is that those thousand or so 
U.S. soldiers will be wearing sneakers.
  He said that America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. 
It is hard to believe that nine people who are a bit timid about being 
named and committed to what they will do are really that broad of a 
coalition.
  He said ``mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader 
challenges.''
  Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from General Kelly, testifying before 
the House and the Senate--he is the commander of SOUTHCOM, the Southern 
Command--he knows what threats are to our south. As he testified, the 
penetration of our southern border by the criminal networks and radical 
Islamists, in his words, is an existential threat to the United States.
  You have got the man who is supposed to know the most about the 
southern border and protecting us, telling Congress that the 
penetration going on of our southern border is a threat to the very 
existence of the United States of America.
  So I would urge the President, Mr. Speaker, when he says he will 
``mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges,'' 
to change that word in his teleprompter to read ``border'' challenges, 
so that we can protect ourselves from the criminal networks and the 
potential for radical Islamists who want to destroy us from coming 
across our southern border.
  I truly hope that the late Tom Clancy was not as clairvoyant in one 
of his last novels as he was in the early nineties, when he wrote about 
someone who was irritated with the United States flying a jet into the 
Capitol to wipe out a joint session of Congress.
  I love George W. Bush, but when he said ``who would have ever thought 
somebody would use a plane for a bomb and crash it into a building,'' I 
was thinking, well, Tom Clancy several years ago, as that was in one of 
his novels.
  In one of his recent novels, one of his last, he wrote about a 
coalition beginning to form between radical Islamists and drug cartels 
in Mexico and ultimately a deal where they brought in--I can't 
remember--10 or 12 radical Islamists with surface-to-air missiles.
  They paid tremendously to the drug cartels to smuggle those into the 
United States, so they could get themselves in vans and, at the 
appropriate time in areas all across the country, step out and shoot 
down American passenger planes.
  We know that although the radical Islamists are really insane--
crazy--when it comes to the killing of innocent people, they are not 
stupid. When we give them an opening to come after us, they will take 
it. The President lost further credibility last night at a time when he 
really needed to be getting the world behind him.
  Credibility was lost when he said:

       It is America that has rallied the world against Russian 
     aggression and in support of the Ukrainian people's right to 
     determine their own destiny.

  Mr. Speaker, people around the world--as I have traveled in west 
Africa, north Africa, the Middle East, moderate Muslim countries in the 
Middle East, Afghanistan, Europe--all understand that this President 
has done virtually nothing to help Ukraine.
  They haven't rallied the peoples of the world, and when the people 
around the world hear that, they have to think: What? Does he think we 
are crazy ourselves?
  You go back and see what this administration did in response to the 
invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the response was a Twitter campaign. 
They actually did try to put restrictions on, as I recall, 10 or 11 
bank accounts that the Russians laughed about.
  This President needs to do more to rally the world around us--with 
us--against radical Islam, against imperialism, like we have seen from 
Putin, and we can all stand together.
  After the President seemed to indicate that he wanted to take out 
ISIS--or he said ``ISIL''--I really felt that when the President had 
finished last night, that I would be saying that that is something I 
have got to support, that I am with him. ISIS has said they are a 
threat to us. We need to take them seriously. They are cutting off 
American heads. We have got to take that seriously.
  Yet when I hear the President, he wants to give support to the 
moderate, vetted Free Syrian Army; and we read the article from Patrick 
Poole, where he quotes one of those vetted, moderate Free Syrian Army 
brigade commanders, saying that his forces were working with the 
Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's official Syrian 
affiliate--both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations:

       We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra 
     Front by attacking the Syrian Army's gatherings in . . . 
     Qalamoun.

  Then a quote from another Free Syrian Army commander--vetted, 
moderate--that this President is going to help:

       We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with 
     anyone against unfairness and injustice.
       Let's face it: the Nusra Front is the biggest power present 
     right now in Qalamoun, and we as FSA would collaborate on any 
     mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.

  I really expected to be standing today and saying we need to get 
behind the President's activity, just as I said in the last couple of 
weeks, immediately after the President's speech, that I agree, and 
let's go to war with ISIS; but with the President's wanting to continue 
what he has been doing for over a year--giving weapons to the Free 
Syrian Army which somehow, magically, keep having them taken away by 
the Islamic State--or ISIS/ISIL--the President finally suspended giving 
them more arms in December.
  This President kept sending arms to the vetted, moderate Free 
Syrians, and they ended up in the hands of ISIS every time, so it was 
suspended in December. Then in April, for some reason--they think they 
can now trust the Free Syrians--he started sending more weapons to the 
Free Syrians, and magically, they keep ending up in ISIS/ISIL control.
  This President does a speech last night, and now, we are supposed to 
get with him and send more weapons to the people whose leaders are 
saying publicly, ``We support ISIS. We support al-Nusra. We support the 
enemies of the United States.''
  I yield to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for doing 
this Special Order and for giving me an opportunity to come down and 
not only listen to him, but to share a little bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we could have learned a lesson from Libya 
in the fact that we gave air support to the rebel groups that were 
overthrowing Qadhafi, who wanted Qadhafi gone.
  Was Qadhafi a good man? No, but his enemies were the same as our 
enemies, and he had really turned over his nuclear arms, his chemical 
weapons. I mean, he had stopped with his nuclear

[[Page 14519]]

enhancement and had turned over his chemical weapons.

                              {time}  1415

  Yet we saw fit that we would help the rebels because of humanitarian 
reasons and what was going on.
  You know, sometimes different sides get blamed for different things 
by just saying, ``Oh, we didn't do that. Somebody else did that.''
  It was interesting that after Qadhafi was gone, all of a sudden, it 
becomes a wild west in Libya, and as a result of that, we had four 
brave Americans lose their lives in Benghazi because we were trying to 
play nice and be friends. Some people don't want to be our friend.
  In fact, as the gentleman from Texas was talking about, the real 
ambition of these jihadists, these radical Islamic groups, is to really 
have shari'a law control the world.
  They want all of us to be under the shari'a law, and that is what 
their goal is. In fact, if you look at ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq 
and the Levant, they want to go back in history and put together this 
caliphate that would include Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and others. I 
mean, that is their goal.
  For people who might get confused with ISIS, ISIL, Daesh--there are a 
lot of different names that this group is called. I think ISIL is the 
best because I think that describes their intent of gaining this area 
that was once held.
  So I think we have to really think about this, as far as who we are 
going to train and arm. Do we know who these groups really are, as the 
gentleman from Texas read about the article that Patrick Poole had.
  We have had fighters that went to Syria. In fact, we just had our 
first American fighter that was fighting for ISIL. I believe his name 
was Mr. McCain. He lived in Minneapolis. He went back to San Diego and 
finally ended up in Syria. I think Josh Earnest used in one of these 
press briefings that these moderate forces had killed Mr. McCain and 
that they were fighting both ISIL and Assad.
  Now, the interesting thing about this moderate opposition group that 
killed Mr. McCain is that they killed other ISIL fighters too. They 
beheaded six of them. Now, I don't know how moderate that is, but 
according to American standards, that is not moderate.
  So I think we really have to give some close scrutiny to these folks 
that we are going to arm, that we are going to give different weapons. 
We really don't have a list of what those weapons would be yet. We are 
going to let the military train them.
  We trained the Iraqi military, their police, their defense force for, 
what, 7 years, I guess, or longer; and then at the first sight of 
combat, they left the American equipment that they had been given and 
fled. So I don't know what kind of training we are going to give these 
moderate groups, but I know we haven't got 7 years to stop ISIL.
  So I agree with my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), that I wish the 
President had used some different words rather than ``degrade.'' Maybe 
``destroy''--maybe ``defeat'' would have been a great word to use, that 
we want to defeat them.
  If you read open source reports, there are 10,000, and then you hear, 
``Well, now there are 15,000.'' Then we have got people in the 
government saying, ``Well, they could be up to 30,000. We don't know 
how many there are.''
  I promise you, whether it was 30,000 or 50,000, we have got the 
greatest military in the world, and we could have controlled that 
situation if we just had the fortitude and the guts to do it, but 
because of the indecisiveness of this President, this thing has 
festered.
  If we had gone into Syria originally--or at least armed the 
opposition forces then--we actually knew who they were because they 
were a small group. There is probably over 100 different opposition 
forces, and as the gentleman said, they are fighting both Assad and 
ISIL.
  Now, to me, it is really confusing over there about who is fighting 
whom. If you look at Hamas and the Lebanese Army teaming up with them 
in Arsal to drive out the rebels that Assad had driven into Lebanon, it 
is very confusing about who is on whose side.
  We need to be particularly aware of that and make sure that we have a 
vetting process--if it is even possible--that we have a vetting process 
to make sure that these people are worthy of getting assistance from 
the American taxpayer.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if he has 
time for one, because I am struggling a little bit.
  Byron York has a good article out, published last night at 11:46, 
where he points out that there are some real potential problems. He 
says ``five things that could go horribly wrong with Obama's action in 
Iraq.'' One of them, he mentions the lack of a status of forces 
agreement.
  We all know that President Bush had been working on a status of 
forces agreement. He thought he would leave it to the President to 
accomplish that great task and have instant international credibility 
for signing a document immediately like that coming into office, but 
for whatever reason--we hear a lot of different stories--but it blew 
up, but the President says that we couldn't leave troops there without 
a status of forces agreement because you can't have troops in a country 
where you don't have, for example, an immunity agreement, so that 
American soldiers, American contractors that are there to help protect 
Iraq from harm--sometimes, bombs go off in the wrong place. Sometimes, 
somebody gets killed that wasn't meant to because it becomes a war 
zone.
  As the President pointed out before, we couldn't leave troops there 
because we have no immunity agreement. Well, I haven't heard that there 
is any immunity agreement with Iraq, and yet he announced last night 
that he has already got several hundred American sneakers on the ground 
over there and is going to add 475 more troops--apparently wearing 
sneakers because there are not boots on the ground.
  So I am needing some help here. Why is it safe to send in American 
troops now without the promise, the agreement of immunity from Iraq 
when it was not safe to do so when he took office? I am struggling 
here.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, and you should. People claim it is all Bush's 
fault or that it was all the prior administration's fault that this 
happened.
  By the withdrawal of our troops--because I am telling you, I think 
President Bush laid it out pretty clear in 2007, when he made that 
speech about how a lot of people in Washington were clamoring about 
getting our troops out, and he said, ``We are not going to get our 
troops out until our ground commanders in Iraq tell us that we are 
ready to get our troops out.''
  He points out the dangers of that, and that is exactly what happened. 
I think if this administration had understood that and had actually 
listened to the former President, who had been involved in all the 
things that had gone on recently in the Middle East, then they would 
have been persistent enough to persuade Maliki to allow for some 
agreement.
  Now, you know, I don't understand all the politics that have gone 
into this, but I think last night he authorized another 475 sneakers on 
the ground, and I think there was already roughly, what, 900-and-
something over there.
  So we have a lot of guys over there, but we don't know what they are 
doing, and I don't know that they know what they are doing.
  What are the rules of engagement? Are they carrying weapons? Are they 
carrying notebooks, iPads? What are they doing? I mean, these are some 
of the most well-trained people that we have in our military. These are 
valuable assets to us that are over there, and just from the reports I 
read, I don't see that they really have any operational plan that they 
are going with.
  So that has got to be really confusing, I would think, if I was over 
there, as to what the rules of engagement were and, you know, if I was 
going to be sent out as an adviser or as protection, security forces 
for the Americans that are there, Erbil or Baghdad or wherever they 
are, so I think it is confusing to them too.
  I think that that is the reason, as you mentioned in one of your 
speeches

[[Page 14520]]

today that I heard, about the resolution, so we can actually define 
what we think and what our committees think would be a good military 
plan for going in and what the expectation was of any forces that we 
have over there, whether it is air or some of these boots on the 
ground.
  Let's clarify that and make that a separate vote.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I think it is worth pointing out what concerns many 
others in the world, and that is the judgment of this administration.
  As we travel around the world, we have allies who talk to us 
privately, leaders in countries in the Middle East, moderate Muslims, 
people in Israel, and they keep asking about the judgment of this 
country, of the national leaders.
  Everybody knows that this President agreed to release five Taliban 
terrorists complicit with murder, and the statement has come out on 
August 27--this is after the release of five Taliban murderers by this 
administration. This statement has gone out, and it is in their 
language. The translation says, in part, ``We consider ISIS and every 
other Mujahedin group as our brothers.''
  That is kind of important to understand when he released the Taliban 
Five--who don't have a problem with cutting people's heads off or 
friends cutting people's heads off, they support ISIS--and the 
President did so in violation of the law.
  It required that there not be one dime of American money spent to 
release somebody from Guantanamo unless the law was complied with, and 
the law required a notice of 30 days to people in Congress, and that 
didn't happen.
  He broke the law in order to help the lawbreakers. So people around 
the world see that, and they are puzzled, and I happened to be standing 
here on the House floor with one of the two other people that went to 
the FBI disclosure. They classified it, which I thought was ridiculous.
  We wanted to see the documents that the FBI and their advisers on 
Islam had purged from the FBI training materials. Now, these are the 
materials that train FBI agents--the kind of people that have to go 
talk to Tsarnaev and his mother and people at the mosque and friends--
who have to know the questions and what to look for that might indicate 
that this person has been radicalized.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, since they classified those materials they purged, we went 
through them, but we don't get to disclose what is in them. But I can 
say I was shocked at how ridiculous some of the purging was. Some 
things were purely from--well, some of them were so clearly important, 
that people trying to learn about radical Islam, it is important that 
they know and understand.
  So, once you understand that there has been that kind of purging of 
material, then you begin to understand how this administration could 
get two--not one, two--heads-up from a country like Russia that 
Tsarnaev was radicalized, he could kill people, you better watch him, 
you better check on him, he is dangerous, he is going to hurt people, 
and they do nothing meaningful about it.
  As we found out through a hearing in Judiciary, at first Mueller 
said, We did go to those mosques. But it turns out he said it was on 
their outreach program. They never went out there to see whether they 
were radicalized.
  And then, we knew at the time--Mr. Speaker, I hold here the articles 
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, articles of organization for 
the Islamic Society of Boston, and the Islamic Society of Boston is the 
one that organized the two mosques. And the organizing official is a 
man named al-Amoudi, which was familiar to the FBI Director because, on 
his watch, although he had helped the Clinton administration hire what 
were thought to be moderate Muslims in the Clinton administration and 
he had originally had an agreement to be of assistance to the Bush 
administration, the Bush administration ultimately finds out he is 
supporting terrorism. They have him arrested out here at Dulles 
Airport, and he's now doing 23 years in prison for supporting 
terrorism. He's the one that organized the Islamic Society of Boston 
that created the two mosques where the Tsarnaevs went. The FBI didn't 
even know that a guy they helped convict of supporting terrorism 
started the mosque that has created terrorists out of more than one 
person.
  There are others that we find out that have had relations with that 
mosque that may be a threat. One other thing I want to mention before I 
yield to my friend. We have a chart--I have had a blowup of this used 
before, but it points out how many times, as this points out, 
terminology is important in defining our goals. The 9/11 Commission 
identifies Islamist terrorism as the threat. The Muslim Public Affairs 
Council recommends that the U.S. Government find other terminology.
  So, in the 9/11 Commission Report, bipartisan, bicameral people 
trying to take an objective look, they used the term 322 times in the 
9/11 Commission Report. However, the last FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon 
does not include the word ``Islam.'' The National Intelligence Strategy 
of 2009 does not include the word ``Islam.'' In the 9/11 Commission 
Report, it used the word ``Muslim'' 145 times, but since then, under 
this administration, the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon doesn't use the 
word ``Muslim.'' It doesn't use the word ``jihad.'' It doesn't use the 
word ``enemy.'' Now, it does use the words ``violent extremism'' 29 
times. In the
9/11 Commission Report, it uses the word ``religious,'' and it is 
normally referencing these radical Islamists. It uses that word 
``religious'' 65 times; whereas, the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon only 
uses it three times.
  Then the President, basically the only time he used it last night was 
to say that people that called themselves Islamists are not religious. 
The people who have had their heads cut off by these people in the name 
of Islam are looking at what we are doing, I believe, and wondering: 
How can you say that was not, in their minds, a religious act to cut 
off my head?
  I think, as a Christian, there are references in the Bible. I think 
people know what goes on here. We know from Scripture that there is 
rejoicing in Heaven over one soul being saved. Well, how could they 
rejoice unless they know what is going on? So I think people that have 
had their heads cut off would have to be wondering about the 
President's assessment.
  ``Al Qaeda'' was used 36 times in the 9/11 Commission Report, but in 
the FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon, not used at all. In the National 
Intelligence Strategy of 2009 under this administration, it is used 
once. ``Caliph,'' that is not used at all by this administration in 
their FBI Counterterrorism Lexicon; National Intelligence Strategy of 
2009, the 9/11 Commission Report used it seven times. And it is a 
little more understandable, too, when you find out that one of the 
advisers on the Homeland Security Advisory Council that Janet 
Napolitano put there and gave a secret clearance is named Mohamed 
Elibiary.
  There is an article from Adam Kredo, and he quotes a tweet sent out 
by the Homeland Security Advisory Council member, and the tweet says:

       The caliphate will return; that is inevitable.

  Well, we know now that the Homeland Security Advisory Council 
member's tweet has been used by ISIS in recruiting, that even this 
President's close adviser on Homeland Security that he has secret 
access to our databases given by this administration, that he is out 
there saying the caliphate is inevitable. So it is being used to 
recruit people to kill Americans. The Homeland Security Advisory 
Council has people helping with recruiting for terrorists to kill 
Americans.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, when the five of 
us went in that 12-by-12 room----
  Mr. GOHMERT. I think it was three Members of Congress, you, me, and 
Michele, but then there were two FBI agents sitting there, too.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, there was one more Member, I know, Trent.

[[Page 14521]]


  Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, that's right. Trent came, too.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. So there were four of us in a 12-by-12 and two FBI 
agents and several boxes of paperwork, and they were nice enough to 
bring one copy so we could share.
  The FBI is the greatest. I mean, they are great crime fighters. They 
do great investigative work. I think it was probably under great 
political pressure that they purged these documents to take those words 
out of it. Like you said, even the 9/11 Commission did that.
  I want to go back to what you said about our allies and 
indecisiveness, if I could.
  Louie, we look at what is going on in the country and we all talk to 
small business people every day, and they go: You know what? We are not 
going to expand our business. We are not going to grow because we don't 
know what our health insurance is going to be; we don't know what our 
energy cost is going to be; we don't know what the regulations are 
going to be. So it is kind of a stalemate. I think that is the way our 
allies look at us. They don't know what our next move is. So, with all 
this uncertainty, there are different elements that are coming in and 
filling that void in us being the world leader--Russia being one of 
them, coming in to fill that void.
  People like to know that there is a leader somewhere that they can 
follow. I just don't think our allies in this world have seen that. Now 
we have actually got Germany and France and others leading different 
parts of these charges where America should have been out in front of 
it.
  I know our time is just about up. I want to thank my friend from 
Texas for allowing me to share with him. I look forward to doing some 
more of the Special Orders with him and making sure we can get the 
truth out.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have another article that accentuates 
what my friend from Georgia was saying about our allies not being sure 
what we are going to do. Unfortunately, our enemies seem to know very 
well what we are going to do. It is an article published by Al Bawaba, 
published today. It says--we've identified Hezbollah as a terrorist 
organization. Well, the deputy leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem, 
has said:
  ``The flurry of international activity, which is sponsored by the 
U.S., is not serious in ending the takfiri threat . . . He said Obama 
spoke of `containing' the threat and not `stopping' it.''
  I am quoting from him.
  ``Comments made by Barack Obama are clear. The word `contain' means 
to identify risks and disable some of its objectives while maintaining 
this terrorist organization's role to frighten certain countries in 
this region and to keep this risk as a scarecrow in appropriate places 
to make political gains, particularly in Iraq and Syria.''
  Our enemies know that this President's speech last night indicated 
he's not serious. We have got to get serious.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). Members are reminded not to 
engage in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________