[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14919-14925]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             ISLAMIC JIHAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I expect that, shortly, a colleague will 
be here that I will hand off to for a few minutes to deal with several 
housekeeping issues, but, for the moment that I have, I want to focus 
on an issue that has gained the attention--as well it should--of the 
American people.
  The number one duty of government, Mr. Speaker, is to secure the 
safety and the security of the American people. That is why we have a 
government. That is why we exist. It is the reason why countries enjoy 
sovereignty and declare themselves sovereign nations.
  That means they are a separate political unit, and they exist for the 
purpose of preserving the safety and security of their people. That is 
our duty, and that is our government.
  It seems, Mr. Speaker, throughout each generation that somehow, some 
way, there is a force that comes against a nation. In different eras, 
we have had different foes that the United States has had to contend 
with, beginning at our founding, when the United States of America, 
through our Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution, 
on this, our Constitution Day--and, by the way, we say happy 
Constitution Day to all Americans. We are very proud of our United 
States Constitution.
  Contained within the Constitution is the admonition to the President, 
to the Congress, to the Supreme Court, again, to ensure that, in our 
founding document, we understand that it is the duty of the government 
to secure the safety and the security of the American people.
  What led up to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and to 
the American Revolution and, ultimately, to America's founding document 
with the United States Constitution was a reaction of the colonists 
against a great totalitarian oppression that was coming against the 
United States. That was from the British motherland of which the United 
States was a colony of.
  We pushed back against that oppression for many and sundry reasons, 
some of which were taxation, others were the taking away the rights of 
American citizens, whether it was forcing American citizens to take 
soldiers into their homes or taking away their rights as free men under 
the Magna Carta.
  The American people rose up, and they said, ``We want to have 
freedom.'' They threw off the chains of the totalitarianism of the day, 
the British Empire.
  Going further into the future with the War of 1812, again, the United 
States was pushed into a conflict with the British, and, again, we had 
to throw off that enemy. Again, we saw our own house come apart in the 
time of the Civil War. There was also the Spanish-American War.
  The United States was engaged in a great totalitarianism in 1917 with 
World War I and, again, in World War II. There was a conflict in the 
totalitarianism of our day. It was an evil known as Communism, both 
from the Soviet threat and also from Nazism.
  The United States came together as a Nation. We threw off the yoke of 
the oppressor, of the totalitarianism of our day--in other words, a 
regime that had an idea that it wanted to conquer the world with its 
evil and immoral philosophy, whether it was Communism or whether it was 
Nazism.
  It seems, Mr. Speaker, that every generation is confronted by a great 
evil, and the moral questions of the day are related to that evil. The 
evil, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with today is something known as 
Islamic jihad.
  Its face is ugly. Its face has reared not only just in recent decades 
and just the last few months of this summer, but Islamic jihad is 
something that has been around as long as the inception of Islam 
itself.
  The regime of jihad has been defeated, summarily, time and time again 
throughout history, but it was defeated through military might, it 
wasn't defeated through diplomacy, and defeated it was.
  It was defeated at Tours; it was defeated at the battle of the gates 
of Vienna; it was defeated again with the collapse of the Ottoman 
Empire in the 1920s; but it was defeated militarily. It was an idea 
that had grisly consequences. Those consequences were ones that led to 
bloodshed and suffering and misery for thousands of people across the 
world. Today is no different.
  Today, we see the same level of bloodshed across the world. That 
bloodshed is coming to us, again, at the tip of the sword. This summer, 
it is known as the Islamic State. Some people know it as ISIS. Some 
people know it by the name ISIL. The President uses the term ``ISIL.''
  This organization is just a continuation of al Qaeda--and a 
continuation of something even greater than al Qaeda--and that is the 
concept known as Islamic jihad.
  Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State, initially called them ISIS, 
which means the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or Syria.

                              {time}  1815

  That was the territory that Baghdadi was seeking to conquer. He did, 
in fact, conquer much of that territory.
  Then he changed the name of his organization to ISIL, the Islamic 
State in the Levant. The Levant is a geographical area that is greater 
than Syria and Iraq. It would comprise much of eastern Turkey, Israel, 
Gaza, Lebanon, and so forth, the greater area, if you will, of the 
central Mediterranean area.
  After that, the Islamic State issued yet another press release with 
yet another name change. And in the course of that name change, the 
Islamic State decided to drop the IS and the IL, and now they are known 
simply as the Islamic State.
  That is because the ambitions, Mr. Speaker, of Baghdadi and the 
Islamic State are far grander than just Iraq or just Syria or just 
eastern Turkey or Israel or Lebanon or Jordan or Gaza--far bigger.
  The Islamic State, you see, Mr. Speaker, encompasses the entire 
globe, the planet Earth. Every part of this Earth, you see, Mr. 
Speaker, is what is

[[Page 14920]]

intended. It is the ultimate in totalitarianism--what the Communists 
planned for, which was for control of the world under the umbrella of 
communism, and saw themselves ultimately defeated militarily; and 
again, what the Nazis saw, Mr. Speaker, as control of the world, 
national socialism through the Nazi Party movement and, ultimately, 
were defeated militarily.
  So too, Mr. Speaker, the Islamic State sees their evil, violent, 
cruel, bloody philosophy also would encompass the Earth. That would 
include the United States of America. That would include, obviously, 
our great ally Israel. It would encompass all of North America. It 
would also cover the Asian nations. The entire world now, Mr. Speaker, 
is at threat from this totalitarianism.
  And often it is said, never despise small beginnings. It is 
breathtaking, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen accomplished by the 
Islamic State. The leader, again, is a man named Baghdadi.
  Baghdadi was a part of the franchise known as al Qaeda in Iraq. Al 
Qaeda began--we know about Osama bin Laden. Well, an affiliate of Osama 
bin Laden was the man named Baghdadi, who is the current head of the 
Islamic State.
  Baghdadi, when he was a part of the franchise, al Qaeda in Iraq, was 
number three. We were able to target and kill number one and number two 
in the power structure in Iraq. That left Baghdadi as the next in 
command.
  Baghdadi decided not only did he want to be the leader of al Qaeda in 
Iraq, he wanted so much more. But, you see, Baghdadi was waylaid for a 
period of time in his life. Why? Because Baghdadi was captured by the 
United States. He was found to be a terrorist. He was held in detention 
in Camp Baka in Iraq.
  So we had him, the leader of the Islamic State, the organization 
responsible for the beheadings of Americans, the American 
photojournalist James Foley and the American photojournalist James 
Sotloff and, this Saturday, the beheading of another British 
journalist. Baghdadi is responsible for all of that and so much more.
  Baghdadi was responsible for ordering the murdering of literally 
hundreds and thousands of individuals in Iraq. We saw Baghdadi line up 
hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, Iraqi soldiers, and they were brutally 
and mercilessly murdered, being shot in the back.
  We also saw additional beheadings occur, and we saw also as they 
chased the Yazidis up Mount Sinjar. We also heard the horrific tales of 
how the merciless Islamic State literally stooped so low that they 
buried alive women and children in graves in August.
  Mr. Speaker, I despise being as graphic as I am, but we must be face-
to-face with the facts that we are facing. This is an evil regime. It 
is an evil philosophy with an evil goal. They are as equally committed 
to killing Jews as they are committed to killing Christians as they are 
committed to killing any Muslim who doesn't agree with their sick, 
failed philosophy.
  The other thing we need to recognize, Mr. Speaker, is that this has a 
religious motivation, not because I say so, but because Baghdadi and 
the terrorists of the Islamic State say so. Their motivation is their 
religion. They say it is Islam that drives them to do what they are 
doing.
  That is why it is perplexing, Mr. Speaker, that a week ago the 
President of the United States said in a televised address that Islam 
has nothing to do with the Islamic State. He said there are two 
fallacies of the Islamic State. Number one, he said, it is not Islam.
  Well, Mr. President, you may not think it is Islam, but ask the 
leaders of Islamic jihad what they think it is. They say forthrightly 
and boldly, with everything that is within them, that their motivation 
for beheading individuals, for burying women and children alive, for 
establishing a global power to enforce their sick, religious ideas upon 
the world is based upon their religion of Islam.
  That is their reasoning, Mr. Speaker, out of their mouths. And I 
believe that it is prudent and wise to listen to the enemy, to find out 
what their motivations are.
  We look no further than the mad, evil, maniacal leader of the Nazi 
Party, as he was rising in the 1930s, when he wrote his book called 
``Mein Kampf.'' In his book, ``Mein Kampf,'' he wrote his detailed 
plan. You see, he wasn't being secret, Mr. Speaker, about the evil that 
he wanted to bring against the Jewish people. He was very forthright. 
The same can be said, Mr. Speaker, of Baghdadi, who is the head of the 
evil regime and ideology known as the Islamic State. Baghdadi.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this is what the leader of the 
Islamic State had to say. This is in January, and he said this to the 
United States, and I quote. In a speech in January of this year, 
Baghdadi said to the United States: ``Soon we will be in direct 
confrontation. So watch out for us for we are with you, watching.''
  I repeat: ``Soon we will be in direct confrontation,'' meaning with 
the United States. ``So watch out for us for we are with you, 
watching.''
  That tells me, Mr. Speaker, that Baghdadi and the Islamic State don't 
intend to confine their bloodletting just in Iraq and Syria or in 
Jordan or Lebanon. Their designs are for the United States as well.
  We have been told and we have read that there is an enormous amount 
of so-called chatter through the social media by members of the Islamic 
State and those who promote Islamic jihad to enter into the United 
States and to bring about atrocities here within the confines of our 
American sovereign soil.
  You see, our sovereign soil has been invaded. Our sovereign soil was 
invaded at Benghazi. Our U.S. consulate in Benghazi when Ambassador 
Chris Stevens lost his life was U.S. soil. Islamic jihadists entered 
our sovereign soil and killed our U.S. Ambassador on that sovereign 
soil.
  Just within a month or so ago, Islamic jihadists again took over the 
airport in Baghdad, and again we saw an embassy in Libya, in Tripoli, 
abandoned. So United States personnel were forced to flee the United 
States Embassy in Tripoli and leave and gain escape through Tunisia.
  It is really quite sobering when you think of the advances of Islamic 
jihad in the region. And that is why I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, I 
don't understand the thinking of the President when it is coming 
against this evil. I don't understand it because, you see, the Islamic 
State has not only declared their intention, they have declared that 
they are at war with the United States. They have declared they are at 
war. They have declared that they are a caliphate. They are a 
government. They are an Islamic government.
  They have a leader in Baghdadi. They have already conquered 
territory, about half of Iraq, about half of Syria, which they control, 
also other parts of the Middle East as well. They also control parts of 
northern Lebanon.
  They have made absolutely breathtaking strides in their short tenure 
of advancement. So they have land. They have a name. They have a 
leader. They have a government. It is known as shari'a law. That is 
Islamic law. That is their law of the land.
  They also have an administration. They have a Shura Council, and they 
have an administration. They already have a line of hierarchy and an 
organizational flowchart of how they are going to run the Islamic 
State.
  They have an army. Twelve thousand, presumably, are in the Islamic 
State Army, and brutal they are--beheadings, women raped, men beheaded, 
innocent children shot in the head. It is absolutely devastating.
  We see Christians have been chased out of the Middle East region. The 
numbers are so dramatic, Mr. Speaker, of Christians that have had to 
flee Iraq, Christians in Mosul that have lived safely there. The 
ancient town of Nineveh, which Jonah went to preach in Nineveh, and 
that town is Mosul, Christians have been in Mosul since the time of 
Christ, 2,000 years. Mosul no longer has Christians. They were chased 
out of that city.
  The Christians have been chased repeatedly out of Iraq. They are 
being chased out of the Baghdad area. They have been chased certainly 
out of northern Iraq and western Iraq, as Jews were chased out long 
ago.

[[Page 14921]]

  Now, in Syria, we hear the horrific stories of Christians who have 
been killed and murdered and beheaded simply because they name the name 
of Jesus Christ. Jews have been slaughtered and beheaded simply because 
they name the name of their God.
  Is there any greater intolerance, Mr. Speaker than the intolerance 
that has been shown repeatedly, brutally, lethally, by the Islamic 
State against Jews and Christians, and, yes, Muslims whom they disagree 
with.
  It is a very sobering time. And so, quite rightly, our President, a 
week ago in his remarks, called upon the Congress to help him do 
something. The President gave his strategy. I listened with open ears 
to the President's strategy, and it was very curious to me because the 
President of the United States developed a strategy that consists of 
items that the United States is already doing. There was nothing new 
here.
  The President called for an increase of 475 advisers to go into Iraq. 
The President said there wouldn't be any boots on the ground, of 
soldiers' boots.
  He did not say that we are at war. Even though the Islamic State has 
declared war against the United States, the President did not say that 
the United States was going to war.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, something like 7 weeks ago, in the midst of the 
rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, with the horrific, breathtaking 
advances and murders, the President of the United States said that he 
wanted the Congress to withdraw the AUMF, which is the authorization of 
military force for the United States to be in Iraq.
  It was really an unthinkable, bizarre request that this Congress 
received from the President. Would you please withdraw, the President 
said, my ability to be able to bring about military force in Iraq?
  From my perspective, either the President and his advisers were 
incredibly shortsighted about this breathtaking rise of the Islamic 
State which, by the way, didn't just occur in the last 3 or 4 months. I 
am privileged to serve on the Intelligence Committee in the House of 
Representatives. We have watched, Mr. Speaker, literally, for the last 
several years, the rise of the Islamic State. We saw this coming.
  That information presumably was available to the President of the 
United States as well. He knew they were on the rise. There has always 
been the Islamic jihad in the Middle East, but it has been at a 
different tempo. It has been on the rise.
  Baghdadi, who is in his early to mid-forties, who is a very well-
educated man with a doctorate degree, who literally has decades of 
veteran senior-level experience in al Qaeda, declaring war against the 
United States, literally, for decades, put himself in the position of 
being the top man at the very top of the hierarchy, the top of the line 
of the chain of command of the Islamic State.

                              {time}  1830

  Baghdadi knew what he needed to have. He needed to be financially 
self-sustaining. To do that, he ordered the robbing of banks, 
particularly beginning in northern Iraq. Some reports estimate that the 
Islamic State had stolen as much as over $400 million. We don't know 
the exact amount, but we do know that Baghdadi was determined, and he 
intended to advance. He knew he couldn't feed an army unless he had 
money to do so, and so he robbed it from the banks to begin his army.
  Then he began to build that army by opening up prison doors and 
having prison breaks and bringing terrorists who had been jailed out of 
the prisons to join his band. So he had an army of terrorists, and he 
trained them even further, and he paid them with money that he stole 
from banks.
  Then Baghdadi did something very strategic. He decided to steal oil 
fields, and he stole those oil fields in northern Iraq, very productive 
oil fields. One estimate says that one of the oil fields is worth about 
10 billion barrels of oil. Whether or not that is true, that is one of 
the accounts that I have read. If that is true, it would be equal to 
about the value of the Bakken oil field, which has proven to be 
extremely productive and very lucrative in North Dakota here in the 
United States. Baghdadi is selling oil on the black market today to 
finance his terrorism, oil fields that he stole from northern Iraq and 
in the Kurdistan area.
  He didn't stop there. He knew, to be viable, he also had to have 
refined energy products. So what did he do?
  Baghdadi then stole and secured an oil refinery so that he could have 
oil products in order to have energy to run his army and also to be 
able to provide for the people under his protectorate. A 
``protectorate'' is a very generous way of saying ``dictatorship'' in 
his caliphate. You see, he is the head guy. He is the caliph in his new 
self-described Islamic State, the caliphate.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, he figured out how to finance himself. He took 
over electrical grids in Iraq and in Syria so that he could be the one 
who supplies the electricity to the people so that the people would be 
beholden to him. He put his people in charge of roads and supply lines. 
Baghdadi also took over a gas field in central Syria. That gas field 
also could be used to sell the gas for productivity or to deny that gas 
to Assad or to anyone he considered his enemy. You see, Baghdadi was 
strategic.
  In August, I had the ability and the privilege to go over and visit 
both Turkey and Jordan and to meet with leadership there on the issue 
of ISIS, and, while I was there, it was stunning. There was a public 
display in Jordan of well over 15,000 who were protesting against 
Israel and in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and the foreign 
terrorist-designated organization known as Hamas. There was also a 
reported demonstration of 7,000 Jordanians who were protesting in favor 
of the Islamic State. So there is pressure on Jordan--pressure within 
and pressure from without.
  The Islamic State now controls checkpoints, so much so that there is, 
effectively, no longer a border between Iraq and Syria. That has been 
erased. Now Iraq and Syria have been joined to one another under the 
control and the authority of the Islamic State. They control 
checkpoints not only on Lebanon but also Israel.
  It was horrifying to read that the Islamic State had joined up with 
the Free Syrian Army, the army that the United States has been involved 
with in the so-called ``vetting'' of moderates and in the training and 
equipping to fight against the Islamic State.
  The Free Syrian Army reports say they had actually joined up with 
other Islamic jihadists, known as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, and they 
took over the checkpoint that controls the area of the Golan Heights 
leading into Israel. There were upwards of 20 to 40 different U.N. 
peacekeepers at that checkpoint, and that checkpoint was taken over 200 
yards from Israel, as if Israel didn't have enough to deal with in the 
terrorist organization known as Hezbollah, which is an Iranian proxy on 
her north, and from Russian influence as well coming through Hezbollah. 
Israel has had to suffer with indignities from Assad, from Syria, as 
well as from the Muslim Brotherhood franchise known as Hamas in Gaza.
  It has been an extremely difficult summer. I met with refugees while 
I was in the Middle East region, people who were just peaceful, 
freedom-loving people just wanting to live their lives and raise their 
families and love people and worship their god. They were uprooted over 
this summer and late spring by Islamic jihad, both in Iraq. As for one 
woman I spoke to, she and her family were uprooted from their home in 
Iraq. They had to flee their home and abandon everything they owned and 
flee to Syria. Once they were in Syria, there was a rise of the Islamic 
jihad in Syria. They had to flee Syria and make their way to Turkey. 
When I spoke with her, she was on the southern border of Turkey, and 
she was hoping that she would have the ability, with her family, to 
move to the United States of America. She was going to go for yet one 
more final interview at the end of September, and she was hoping that 
her family would have that chance to come and live in freedom.
  That is our wish, Mr. Speaker, for all men. We want all men to have 
the dignity of living in peace. It is why we

[[Page 14922]]

honor the American Constitution today on Constitution Day. You see, 
this Constitution and this country mean something for the rest of the 
world. We think that the norms and the peacefulness that we enjoy and 
the prosperity that you see here in the United States must be somewhat 
normative across the world. We think, well, we have it, really, 
probably the best, but sometimes we don't recognize, really, how great 
we do have it. It isn't by accident--it is by design--and it came at a 
great cost and at a great sacrifice because our Founders recognized 
these ideals:
  Number one, that all men are created equal and that we are endowed by 
our Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that aren't given 
by government, rights that are only given by God: the right to life, to 
our liberty--our freedom--and to the pursuit of happiness, which means 
we have the privilege to work, and, once we work, we get to keep the 
fruit of our own labors.
  What a brilliant concept. Where across the world do people have the 
right to life? Certainly not in Iraq today. Certainly not in Syria 
today. They don't enjoy the unfettered access to their right to life, 
because their life is imperiled by the Islamic State, which says to 
them: Under pain of death, you convert to Islam, or we kill you. You 
convert to Islam, or you pay us a tax. You convert to Islam, or you 
have to abandon everything you know and get as far away from us as you 
possibly can in the short term because we are coming after you in the 
long term.
  Is that life? That is no life at all. But here in the United States, 
our Founders wisely understood that all of humanity's happiness springs 
from the right to life.
  Number two, liberty, freedom. That is the hallmark and the emblem of 
the United States of America. If there is any ideal and any value, Mr. 
Speaker, that our Constitution champions it is this: it is liberty--
freedom--from an oppressive government that would force its will on an 
individual human's life, because the Holy Scriptures teach that life is 
precious. We are but a flower that quickly fades. We are but a puff of 
smoke, the Old Testament teaches in the Proverbs. Therefore, this life 
that God has given to us, that He has breathed into every human being, 
as He created every human being in His image and His likeness, this is 
it. This is no dress rehearsal. This is the main event.
  Our Founders wisely understood that it is for freedom that we have 
been set free so that we can then aspire to do whatever it is that we 
choose to do, the way that we take our finger and write the poetry of 
each of our lives.
  Then, in the Declaration of Independence, our Founders rightly said, 
through the pen of Thomas Jefferson's, that we are also endowed by our 
Creator--again, not by a government, not by any government. Only a God 
who created us, gave us the unalienable right to pursue happiness, 
which means we can pursue whatever employment, whatever labor that we 
so desire, and then we have the right, the unfettered right, to keep 
the fruit of our labor--to build a home, to marry, to start a family, 
to be able to go out and further and help our community. Oh, what a 
Nation we have today, Mr. Speaker, the economic powerhouse of the 
world, the military engine of the world. This is such a great and 
wonderful gift that was given to us.
  That is why it is right and fitting and proper for us to honor and 
recognize this Constitution Day. I am so grateful and so honored and 
privileged that we can do exactly that and honor that day. That is why 
we have to stand for this liberty, something that people in other 
countries cannot do.
  We must therefore observe, and it is why we have to make sure, when 
there is a great totalitarianism like the Islamic State, which has 
declared war against the United States, we have a decision to make. 
Anyone can declare war on you. It is another thing to bring about 
warlike acts against you in an attempt to defeat you. That is exactly 
what the Islamic State has done. That is exactly what they have stated 
their intention is. I believe, if there is anything, Mr. Speaker, that 
history has taught us it is this: when a madman speaks, we should 
listen. Baghdadi, most certainly, is rational from his point of view, 
but his ideas are mad, and, even further, they are immoral and they are 
evil to deprive life, liberty, and happiness to people.
  If I could just pause and ask the Speaker if there is a time 
limitation that we are looking at. How much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 27 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I appreciate that update.
  Mr. Speaker, we look at the threats that the United States is looking 
at from the Islamic State: the fact that they have declared war against 
the United States; the fact that they have already killed 
intentionally, in a cruel and barbaric manner, American citizens; the 
fact that they are recruiting American citizens to come and join them 
in their evil deed; the fact that American citizens have left the 
Islamic State as terrorists under the creed of the Islamic State. Their 
creed says that those who join the Islamic State abandon any allegiance 
to any other government, including the American Government. They then 
become part of the Islamic State, and their duty and allegiance is to 
the Islamic State. Once they leave the Islamic State and return to the 
United States, then they have the ability to come in and be terrorists 
in the United States. This is nonsensical to me.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer, I asked the FBI for a 
classified briefing. I did so because my home State of Minnesota has a 
tragic, very unfortunate, nexus to terrorism. We have the distinction 
of having the only convicted terrorist of 9/11 being from the State of 
Minnesota. His name is Moussaoui.
  We also have a high number of Minnesotans who left Minnesota and 
abandoned the United States to go and fight on behalf of another al 
Qaeda organization, known as al-Shabaab. That is an al Qaeda affiliate 
in Somalia. Well over 50 Minnesotans traveled to join al-Shabaab and 
fight in the cause of Islamic jihad.
  We also had terrorist financing cases, which were successfully 
prosecuted in Minnesota. Two women were convicted of terrorist 
financing cases in the Minneapolis Federal district court. Two women 
were convicted of terrorist financing in Rochester, Minnesota, in 
Federal district court.
  Then we had the Westgate shopping mall terror act in Kenya, and from 
the terrorists who were involved and claimed sponsorship of this 
horrific act of the shooting at the Westgate mall in Kenya, the report 
was that two Minnesotans were a part of that effort. Then we saw, 
although it hasn't been confirmed by our government, that the 
terrorists have named two Minnesotans.
  Then we saw that very sophisticated recruitment videos were put forth 
to recruit individuals to come and join al Qaeda. When this occurred, 
three of them were featured from Minnesota. They were called the 
``Minnesota martyrs,'' three young men. One was a Caucasian American. 
His name was Troy Kastigar. He had been converted to Islam at a mosque 
called the Al Farooq mosque in Bloomington, Minnesota, where many of 
the individuals who have gone to fight on behalf of the Islamic State 
made their religious home.
  Troy Kastigar said that he was honored to be a traitor to America. 
That was a part of his conviction to the Islamic State. He turned on 
his country; so, when I asked the FBI earlier this summer--and then, of 
course we have had, according to the FBI, at minimum, another 20 
Minnesotans who have left Minnesota to join the Islamic State, 
including the first two Americans who were killed fighting on behalf of 
the Islamic State, both of whom were from the State of Minnesota.
  Just as recently as several weeks ago, three young Somali American 
girls left Minnesota, abandoned their families, and joined the Islamic 
State. We have a very unfortunate nexus.
  It is with that background, Mr. Speaker, that I asked the FBI if I 
could come in and sit with them and if they

[[Page 14923]]

would answer my questions in a classified setting.
  I wanted to know, number one, had Minnesotans left the United States 
and joined to fight with the Islamic State. Unfortunately, I was told 
there were two. It was classified information at the beginning of the 
summer. Now, tragically, it has been reported worldwide that the very 
first two Americans were Minnesotans who were fighting for the Islamic 
State.
  I asked the question: If these terrorists choose not to blow 
themselves up as suicide bombers, or if they are not killed fighting on 
behalf of the Islamic State, and they choose to fly back to the United 
States or gain entry to the United States legally through some other 
means with a U.S.-held passport, would they be given entry into the 
United States?
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I was completely floored when the 
FBI said to me, ``Well, yes, of course, these terrorists would be 
allowed to come into the United States.''
  I asked, ``Why? And how?'' They told me, ``We track them, and we put 
their names on a watch list.'' It isn't perfect, but the FBI puts the 
names of Americans on a watch list. I asked, ``What happens when they 
are on a watch list?''
  I was told that the Americans with a U.S. passport, who have 
relinquished U.S. citizenship and have joined the Islamic State, have 
become terrorists and fought on behalf of the Islamic State then were 
returning to the United States, would be asked additional questions at 
screening at an airport before they come into the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asked additional questions, sometimes, at the 
airport. How could this be possible?
  I was told by the FBI that the terrorists then would be given entry, 
and they would be allowed to go, unmolested, to return to their life 
here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that is pure madness for us to do that. If 
there was one thing we should do, it is follow our Constitution, follow 
the way of all nations, which is to secure the safety and security and 
sovereignty of that Nation.
  To do that, Mr. Speaker, we must take the passports of anyone who has 
joined up with the Islamic State and do everything that we can to 
prevent terrorists from reentering the United States.
  These terrorists would have had battlefield experience, they would 
have had established relationships with a terror network, and they 
potentially may have a plan for terrorist activity in the United 
States. That should and must be done.
  What we also must do--and I agree with the President of the United 
States--we must defeat this enemy. The Islamic State has declared war 
against the United States. I believe that we must declare war against 
the Islamic State, but that is not what President Obama proposed.
  You see, President Obama, from his rhetoric, has essentially made 
clear that he believes that war is obsolete in the 21st century, but 
that isn't the view of the Islamic State. That isn't the view of the 
totalitarian regime that has declared war against the United States. 
War isn't obsolete for their mind; yet the President of the United 
States is not choosing to engage the United States in war.
  It is this odd hybrid where the President wants to say that he is 
going to try to defeat the Islamic State; yet he is not willing to do 
what it takes to defeat the Islamic State.
  Why do I say that? Because the United States military is the greatest 
military--Army, Navy, and Air Force--in the world. There is nothing 
that can even remotely compare to the United States military; yet our 
President stated--both last week in his address to the Nation, as well 
as today at MacDill Air Force Base in his remarks--that there will be 
no U.S. boots on the ground. There will not be a U.S. military 
presence.
  He is willing to use the American Air Force to fly missions and have 
airstrikes, but not boots on the ground.
  You see, it doesn't work that way, Mr. Speaker. A military is a 
cohesive unit, and this is going up 50,000 feet, we have to understand: 
Do we have a problem? Yes, we have a problem.
  Americans are being killed and beheaded by the Islamic jihadist 
state. They have declared war against the United States. They are using 
all possible means to advance themselves to their goal.
  They are gaining in strength every day--huge swaths of economic 
territory, huge swaths of geographic territory. They are increasing the 
size of their armies. They are making threats against the United 
States.
  What is our response? The President of the United States, number one, 
is unwilling to declare war against this enemy. He is unwilling to use 
our United States military to defeat this enemy.
  He has asked partners across the world--whether it is Muslim, Arab 
nations, whether it is our traditional allies--to join him. He received 
some rhetoric, some nods of the head, that some allies would help him; 
yet there isn't one word that one country is actually going to supply 
troops or supply armament or supply training.
  We don't know what it is that the President has put together; yet, 
somehow, some way, he believes that this enemy is going to be defeated. 
His plan is what he was doing before. It was some advisers in an 
Embassy in Baghdad, U.S. advisers, but not boots on the ground.
  His other avenue of defeat is to have United States tax dollars vet 
Syrians and, supposedly, Iraqis and train them to be a part of a 
military effort and give them American armament after 3 and a half 
weeks of arming.
  You see, I really don't understand this methodology, when we already 
have the best military in the world and the President has decided to 
put the best option that we have on the sidelines and then he wants to 
create an ad hoc army on the ground with, at best, thin loyalties to 
our ultimate objective.
  How thin, Mr. Speaker? Well, the RAND Corporation took a look at 
those who were trained, vetted, and on the ground and fighting in the 
Free Syrian Army, and the RAND Corporation found that about half--50 
percent of those that the United States had vetted, the so-called 
moderates trained and given American armaments to--about half had been 
not only sympathetic but had cooperated and joined up with the enemy, 
the Islamic State and the al-Nusra front.
  Well, if, in fact, the RAND Corporation is accurate and we have lost 
about 50 percent of those that we trained, I would say we don't have a 
very good success ratio.
  As a mater of fact, what I would say is that the Islamic State has an 
incredible success ratio because we will have--at taxpayer expense--
identified, vetted, trained, and armed a whole new level of army for 
the Islamic State, the enemy.
  Who is this working for? Not us. Who is this defeating? Not them. 
Because the Islamic State continues to grow and we are paying for part 
of their military training and armaments.
  In fact, this same story that came out last week said that the 
Islamic State had raided our United States weapons depots that we had 
set up for arming the Free Syrian Army.
  What does the President want us to do? The President wanted the 
United States Congress to get behind his effort to increase the amount 
of training and arming of the Islamic State.
  You see, these moderates have been more than a mirage, more than a 
charade for quite a bit of time. As a matter of fact, one of my 
colleagues from Minnesota gave me an article today before we took the 
vote.
  Again, I am not trouncing anyone's vote in this chamber. I want to 
make it very clear. Both sides of the aisle--Republican and Democrat, 
individual Members of Congress--wrestled with their vote. Everyone 
struggled with what to do. Should we back the President in what he is 
choosing to do? Should we not back the President?
  I give all goodwill to every Member of Congress. I castigate no one 
for the vote that they cast today because this was truly a vote of 
conscience that every Member made, and every Member needs to speak for 
themselves.

[[Page 14924]]

  I only speak for myself tonight, Mr. Speaker, but this came out 
yesterday. The leader of the Free Syrian Army, the army that the 
President wants us to spend $500 million to train even more 
individuals, under this commander, this is what the article says: ``The 
Free Syrian Army announced they will not sign up to the U.S.-led 
coalition to destroy the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.''
  I just want to repeat that again.
  ``The Free Syrian Army announced it will not sign up to the U.S.-led 
coalition to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The group's founder, 
Colonel Riad al-Asaad, stressed that toppling Syrian President Bashar 
al-Assad is their priority and that they will not join forces that 
U.S.-led efforts without a guarantee that the United States is 
committed to his overthrow.
  ```If they want to see the Free Syrian Army on their side'''--our 
side--```they should give assurances on toppling the Assad regime and 
on a plan including revolutionary principles.'''
  This is the army that we are entrusting to win this effort against 
ISIS, and this army is more interested in toppling Assad. They are not 
interested in toppling ISIS.
  ``The announcement appears to be reversing an earlier statement on 
Thursday by the National Coalition opposition, the Free Syrian Army's 
political wing, which said it was ready to work with the coalition 
against IS.''
  The political arm said yes, but the guys who are actually going to 
have the boots on the ground say, ``No, we are not going to be there. 
We are not going to be fighting IS.''
  ``Saying they had `long called for this action,' the coalition called 
on U.S. politicians to authorize the training and equipping of the Free 
Syrian Army `as soon as possible.'''
  This is from the Middle East Eye. This is in an article that came out 
yesterday.
  At best, we have got a very, very weak case--a very weak case. There 
are articles, which I agree with, that put the choice before us. It 
says: Do we have an enemy? Yes. What do we need to do? Defeat the 
enemy. I get that, but we have been unwilling to declare a war against 
this enemy. We have been unwilling to put the United States' military 
against this enemy.
  What the President of the United States wants the United States to do 
is train some Syrians for 3 and a half weeks. We have already spent how 
many billion training the Iraqis, and the Iraqi Army could not stand up 
against the Islamic State army.
  We had trained them for a very extensive period of time, with the 
finest training that we possibly could. They were well-equipped. 
Because United States residual forces were pulled by the President of 
the United States, the Iraqi Army could not stand up against the 
Islamic State, and they ran.
  We think that 3 and a half weeks of training is going to do the job 
of the Syrians? I don't think so.
  I think what the President of the United States asked us to do, Mr. 
Speaker, is to be a scapegoat in his failed strategy. He wants to be 
able to point to the Congress and say, ``The Congress gave me the 
authority to do it.''
  I don't want to do that. I didn't do that today. I chose to vote 
``no.'' I am not being self-righteous when I say that.
  My thinking on this is that I am willing to vote for a World War II 
strategy, meaning I am all in. I believe that we need to declare war 
against this evil empire of the Islamic State. We need to put all 
resources with the full plan, with an exit strategy in fully defeating 
the Islamic State, which we can. They are an army of 12,000.
  This can be done, but I won't agree to a Vietnam war style strategy 
which is exactly, in my opinion, what President Obama chooses--chose to 
engage, with dribs and drabs, increasing a little here, increasing a 
little there.

                              {time}  1900

  The President, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, would have been well-
served if he also would have demonstrated even more humbleness 
regarding our strategy--meaning, for the President to be absolutely 
adamant last night, as well as today, for Secretary of State Kerry to 
be absolutely adamant today that there will be no U.S. boots on the 
ground sends a signal. It sends a signal that we are not serious about 
defeating this evil known as the Islamic State, which we must be.
  I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: Who on the ground will be calling 
for the airstrikes against the Islamic State? Someone on the ground 
needs to do it. That is how war works. Someone who is on the ground 
needs to call for those airstrikes.
  You cannot win a war when you only have overhead architecture and 
overhead surveillance. You need people on the ground who can go and 
gather the intelligence that you need so you know, effectively, how to 
defeat this enemy.
  I ask this: Do we want to defeat this enemy decisively, quickly, and 
completely so that this enemy understands that, if they ever rear their 
head again, they had better think twice because we are going to so 
decimate their evil plan? Are we going to do that? Or are we going to 
do what happened in Vietnam, drib, drab, a little here, a little there, 
never quite getting up what it takes to actually defeat that enemy?
  What happened in the end in Vietnam? Ultimately, the Communists came 
in, and that country fell. It was a very sad conclusion because, you 
see, the postscript to the story of Vietnam was the slaughter of 
innocents under the evil Pol Pot and the killing fields, and we know 
the history was an ugly history.
  This isn't good, this is awful, but we need to see what has happened. 
You see, this Arab Spring has been nothing but Islamic bloodletting 
across the Middle East. In their own words, it is religious-based. In 
their own words, it is religious, shari'a inspired. In their own words, 
they are doing the bidding of their god to spill the blood of the 
infidel. This is an evil, this is a moral wrong, and this must be 
defeated.
  The good news is it can be. We can defeat it. When we are the 
greatest military powerhouse in the world, when we have the capability 
to defeat this enemy, I don't understand it. I don't understand, Mr. 
Speaker, our President who just this week said that he needed to commit 
3,000 American troops to the African continent for Ebola--to defeat 
Ebola.
  Now, Ebola is a virus that has a health impact against the American 
people. I can understand dispatching medical personnel. I can 
understand dispatching people for humanitarian purposes, but the very 
weird thing about the President's strategy is it has been changing our 
military so that its purpose is to bring about humanitarian relief in 
the form of dispatching them for boots on the ground to deal with 
Ebola. That is not the purpose of a military.
  The President needs to dispatch 3,000 troops--or whatever it takes--
into the Islamic State to defeat the Islamic State. We don't go in 
willy-nilly. We go in with a very good plan, with the most brilliant 
military minds--and we have them--with the bravest military heroes--and 
we have them--and with the greatest military equipment that has ever 
been devised by man, and we have it. We have got it all. We have got 
the means for defeating this evil enemy.
  To not do it, Mr. Speaker, in my mind, that is a moral wrong. That is 
an evil. To allow that evil to grow, thrive, and continue to slit the 
throats of men, women, and children; to rob them of their lives; and, 
yes, to see tragedy borne potentially across this land because, even 
today, as we are in this Chamber tonight, absolutely nothing has been 
done to secure America's southern border, absolutely nothing against 
entry by the Islamic State into this country, despite the fact that the 
Islamic State, through their social media, has been declaring their 
intent to do exactly that.
  Why in the world aren't we closing our southern border and every 
other border and every other port of entry? Why aren't we pulling the 
passports of Americans who have become terrorists under the Islamic 
State and who seek to return to the United States?
  Why would any sane country choose to take effective, commonsense 
answers to secure the safety of the American people? That is what a 
nation that

[[Page 14925]]

wants to survive would do. That is the better way. That is what I hope 
the President of the United States will do because, you see, everything 
is at stake
  On this, our Constitution Day, let us recognize the first duty of any 
nation, especially the greatest Nation, is to secure the safety, 
sovereignty, and security of the American people. That, we must do, and 
I am so proud that we have the means to do it.
  I believe that we will acquire the judgment to do what needs to be 
done. It is within the hearts of the American people. It is within our 
military. Now, it is up to the politicians. Listen to wisdom. Listen to 
the people, and do what needs to be done.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________