[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6612-6616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 AMERICA'S CREDIBILITY AROUND THE WORLD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daines). 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, there is a lot going on in the world right 
now, and America seems to continue to lose credibility around the world 
when we travel abroad, and we have leaders from other countries, 
especially moderate Muslim allies and friends, who wonder why we are 
not helping in the war against terrorism, the war against radical 
Islam.

                              {time}  1930

  Moderate Muslims realize what it is. It is radical Islam. It is 
exactly what the wonderful people of Egypt rose up and rebelled against 
by the millions. In fact, there were more millions of Egyptians that 
signed a petition in support of removing Morsi than even he ever 
claimed voted for him.
  The Muslim Brotherhood responded, and they have burned churches, and 
they have persecuted Christians and Jews. The Coptic Christian Pope has 
told us of his concern about his support for radical Islam because the 
United States and even a couple of Republican Senators down the hall 
had supported, seemed to support, went over and said: let's release 
Morsi. They seemed to want Muslim Brotherhood back in charge.
  So it was shocking for this administration to say we are not going to 
supply the military equipment to those who are against radical Islam 
that we had agreed to provide to those who represent radical Islam--the 
Muslim Brotherhood.
  Yes, their party--their political party in Egypt is called the 
Freedom and Justice Party because, under their definition, freedom 
means the freedom to worship only Allah and justice means only justice 
that comes from shari'a law, so they have a little different definition 
of freedom and justice.
  In their less than 100-year history as an entity, the Muslim 
Brotherhood has killed so many innocent children, women, and men who 
had no grievance or gripe with Islam, but it should also be noted that 
one of the reasons that moderate Muslims are so supportive of our 
effort to stop radical Islam is because, whenever a moderate Muslim 
stands up to radical Islam, they immediately go to the front of the 
line to be killed or persecuted by radical Islamists, so we share that.
  That is why the enemy of our enemy can be somebody with whom we just 
may be able to cooperate.
  That is what happened in Afghanistan, when President Bush committed 
to go after the Taliban in October, November, December of 2001. We put 
in less than 500 Americans--special operations, Special Forces, 
intelligence--we gave them air support, we gave them some weapons, and 
we had to negotiate.
  The Bush administration did a phenomenal job of negotiating with 
Northern Alliance tribal leaders because they knew, to be successful 
about the Taliban, they were going to have to work together, so we were 
able to pull that off. There may have been some cash that actually was 
utilized to grease the skids to make it work, and it worked.
  Within 4 months or so, the Taliban was defeated. The legendary 
General Dostum that this administration wants to classify as a war 
criminal defeated the Taliban for us as the leader of the Northern 
Alliance tribes.

[[Page 6613]]

  In a meeting with him, along with Dana Rohrabacher, Steve King, and a 
few others were meeting with some of the Northern Alliance leaders, 
since we knew about that last final battle where the Northern Alliance 
went after the last stronghold of the Taliban elevated high up a hill 
or mountain, General Dostum, through an interpreter, explained he knew 
that, if they sent people on foot, they would never get there.
  There would be too many bullets and rocket-propelled grenades. They 
would never make it to the Taliban stronghold. They knew, if they could 
get there and rout them there, that that would be the end of the 
organized Taliban, at least for quite some time.
  So General Dostum realized the only way to really have a shot at 
getting there was for around 1,000 horsemen to go charging up that 
hill, up toward the stronghold with bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, 
all kinds of things coming at him, but he knew that if they would move 
quickly enough, they might get past those and be able to destroy the 
last stronghold of the Taliban.
  It worked. They did lose many of the Northern Alliance tribal 
soldiers, but they made it and totally routed the Taliban. What an 
incredible victory.
  General Dostum offered to take me next time I came to Afghanistan. He 
asked if I rode horses. I said: sure, I grew up riding horses. He said: 
oh, then you need to come up with me, I will take you up that famous 
ride that is so legendary all over Asia.
  After that, the interpreter advised me something I wasn't aware, that 
they don't have leather saddles in Afghanistan. I inquired: What kind 
of saddles do you have? And he said: they are made of wood.
  That changed greatly my desire to go riding uphill on a wooden 
saddle, but it still is amazing what they did. They did it with our 
encouragement, our support, our logistical support, our aerial support.
  There are other occasions when, with someone embedded with the 
Northern Alliance, the Northern Alliance leaders could say: Do you see 
over there on that ridge that little hump? That is a bunker that 
contains many, many Taliban.
  They get the coordinates, call it in, the bomb would be released. It 
would go to the target and take it out, and then the Northern Alliance 
soldiers would finish off those who made it through the bombing.
  Some in this administration think that means they are war criminals; 
whereas the fact is they fought the Taliban in their own country the 
way they have always fought and the way the Taliban fights, and they 
defeated them.
  Then we did an unfortunate thing. We helped them with a constitution 
that centralized the government. In a very regional federalist area, 
tribal area, we should have helped them have a more federalist country 
where the states, the regions, have the power.
  But apparently, our leaders at that time thought it would be easier 
to deal with one centralized government than potentially many 
hardheaded leaders of small countries or small states.
  But we should have let them have their small states and their tribal 
areas because as some of the northern leaders very intelligently had 
pointed out: if you would help us get an amendment to the constitution 
that you helped push on us, that allowed us to elect our own governors, 
our mayors, pick our own police chiefs, then we could control 
Afghanistan better and then the Taliban, when you leave, can't just 
knock off our President and take over the whole country. Then it would 
be harder for them to take over the whole country, they might get one 
region, and then the rest of the regions could rise up and take them 
out of that one. We can defeat them, but not with the structure that 
you gave us.
  There was no reason for us to lose the hundreds and hundreds and 
hundreds of American military members under the command of Commander 
Barack Obama, but he had said it was the important war. The war was won 
by early 2002, and then we became occupiers. That was unnecessary.
  Let them run their own country. They defeated the Taliban with less 
than 500 Americans, and now, we have lost a number of times that 
original number that went in and were embedded.
  That has helped create an image of the United States around the 
world, as this administration has continued to allow the slaughter of 
American soldiers in Afghanistan, for what point, we don't know. At the 
same time, we were allowing our soldiers to be handcuffed with rules of 
engagement that restricted them or threatened them with court-martial 
if they were to defend themselves and it turned out somebody got hurt 
who is not a soldier.
  So the world saw the United States beg the Taliban to sit down and 
negotiate with us. This administration was sending out word: look, you 
don't even have to agree to anything. If you will just agree to sit 
down with us, heck, we will buy you a luxurious office complex in 
Qatar. We may even release some of your murdering thugs that we have 
confined. Heck, we will release some of them anyway, just to show our 
good faith. Heck, we will do whatever, if you will just sit down and 
talk with us.
  There is no radical Islamist in the world that respects that kind of 
talk from an American leader, from any leader. Oh, please, we beg you, 
please sit down and talk with us. They don't respect that. That 
projects weakness to them.
  There is one thing they respect, and that is power, when used 
appropriately. They may hate it, they may despise the way it is used, 
but they respect power when it is used effectively. This administration 
has not done that at all.
  Go back to Iraq. The Bush administration basically had set up a 
status of forces agreement by the end of 2008. Most of the terms were 
agreed to. The Bush administration, many of us believe, could have gone 
ahead and finished, had that signed before President Obama took office.
  But as I understand it, it was considered a generous outreach by 
George W. Bush and his administration to the incoming President. Why? 
Because not only is he not stupid and he is not crazy and he is witty, 
but he is a gracious man.
  That is why he had Ted Kennedy to the White House so many times, even 
though Kennedy would go out and bash him almost every time he had been 
over. He is a gracious man, and he thought it would be a gracious act, 
from what I understand, to allow the Obama administration to get the 
credit from finalizing the status of forces agreement with Iraq.
  But then the brazen attitude by the new administration not only 
didn't sign the status of forces agreement that the Bush administration 
had teed up, they didn't get any status of forces agreement.
  Mitt Romney was not very eloquent in the way he pointed it out, not 
very effective in the way he pointed it out, but he did bring it up in 
one of the debates--he couldn't even get a status of forces agreement 
done with Iraq.
  It is something that this administration should have been embarrassed 
about. After all, we had done for Iraq under this President, this 
administration, we just crept out of Iraq with nothing even in the way 
of a thank you agreement, a thank you note--in fact, rather left hard 
feelings when we left.
  After we left them the ability to elect their own leaders, their own 
government, this administration bungled the status of forces agreement 
to the point there was none. We lost further respect there. We have 
lost respect around Afghanistan.
  When talking with General Dostum and some of the Northern Alliance 
leaders, they talked about how the United States had lost respect 
around radical Islam. These are moderate Muslim friends of mine--and, 
yeah, they do fight ruthlessly, but that is their area--they talked 
about how the United States had lost respect among radical Islamists 
among the world.

                              {time}  1945

  They see us as a toothless tiger, a paper tiger, someone to be 
laughed at, not to be concerned about or respected and certainly not 
feared.
  I have met with Baloch people from Pakistan, who are constantly 
terrorized by the Pakistani Army and by

[[Page 6614]]

other military--brutalized, terrorized, kept in fear for their lives so 
many times. They happen to be in the area where Pakistan's best 
minerals are located. You would think that the Pakistani leaders would 
treat them better since they have such a big area of the country and 
they comprise such a big component of the country that has some of the 
most valuable land because of the minerals in the whole area. It is the 
same in Iran. There are Baloch people who are indigenous to south and 
southeast Iran, and they are mistreated terribly by the Iranians.
  But a thought came to mind. In having met with Baloch people 
previously, in knowing the geography of the area and in having heard 
American commanders and Northern Alliance individuals as well, all have 
indicated most of the supplying of the Taliban in Afghanistan is coming 
through the Baloch area of Pakistan--not because of the Baloch. They 
don't want the Taliban helped. They certainly don't appreciate radical 
Islam.
  So I asked our Northern Alliance leader friends--former allies before 
this administration--what if we started suggesting, because of the 
mistreatment of the Baloch in Pakistan, that it is time to give the 
Baloch their own independent country?
  Let them be independent--to have their own area to which they are 
indigenous--because, if we did that, the Baloch in charge of southern 
Pakistan would, indeed, stop any supplying to the Taliban coming from 
Pakistan or anyone else who went through the Baloch area through which 
so much of the supplying of the Taliban has been going. Who would 
benefit? The world would benefit. Our American soldiers would have 
benefited. We could have done that years ago.
  Instead, the last time I looked, there were about twice as many 
people--American military individuals--who had died in Afghanistan 
compared to the number who died when Bush went to war in Afghanistan. 
So, under Bush, he was about 7 years in Afghanistan compared to the 
years of President Obama's. President Obama has had fewer years, yet 
more Americans have been killed.
  Why?
  Because, under this Commander in Chief, the rules of engagement have 
handicapped our own military. Many of them have been killed by the very 
people they were supposed to train and because there was just simply 
not enough respect for the United States under this administration--
because we saw what this administration would do. If radical Islamists 
reared up and killed Americans, we saw what this administration did. 
They apologized that Korans were burned.
  Now, how does apologizing to radical Islamists for burning Korans 
that their own people had desecrated and passed messages through--
prisoners who had been provided these free Korans had sent messages, 
had used them, and so they had to be destroyed. When they were found 
burning, the radical Islamists used the occasion to kill innocent 
Americans, and this administration apologized to the country 
responsible for the killings.
  In civilized countries like the United States has been--and still is 
in most places--the law has been and continues to be, unless they are 
under shari'a law, that provoking words are never a defense to a 
physical assault or a murder. No matter what anyone says to you, does 
to you--no matter what it is, no matter how vile--it does not justify a 
physical response no matter what is said. Under shari'a, it is 
different, but our Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land 
in this country, not shari'a law.
  Our fellow Texan, Mohamed Elibiary, is a man who was given FBI's high 
civilian award, a man who is described by the Muslim periodical in 
Egypt as being one of the six top Muslim Brotherhood leaders in this 
administration, a man who spoke as a featured speaker at the huge 
tribute to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Man of Vision, a man who is given a 
secret security clearance without proper vetting, without proper 
investigation by Janet Napolitano, as the Secretary of Homeland 
Security.
  Even after he was found and known to have downloaded inappropriate 
material and tried to shop them, Homeland Security said: Oh, well. We 
never found any evidence that he tried to shop the documents from the 
classified sources he downloaded. They didn't even bother to talk to 
the reporter who stated in print that he talked to a well-known 
national publication to which Mr. Elibiary had shopped the documents. 
They didn't investigate that. Janet Napolitano lied about that. It was 
not properly investigated or they would have checked to try to find out 
with whom he was supposed to have shopped these documents. They didn't 
even check.
  But he sure has kept his secret security clearance. He is still proud 
of that FBI award. He still has a foundation called the Freedom and 
Justice Foundation, which is just like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is 
the same name as the Muslim Brotherhood political party. Yet this 
administration continues to count on him as one of their top advisers.
  That is why Muslim leaders around the world, especially in the Middle 
East, have told some of us--and I talked to some other Congressmen who 
had been on a trip recently to the Middle East, and they encountered 
the same thing--why are you guys helping radical Islam now instead of 
helping us fight it? We are wondering which one of your allies you are 
going to throw away next.
  It is not hard to understand why world leaders who have been our 
allies would wonder such a thing when you see it with our best ally in 
the Middle East--the one that respects the rights of women, that 
doesn't kill homosexual, gay, individuals in their country, the one 
that allows Muslims to vote, to work and to provide them protection--
the one country that allows all of those things. That is our ally 
Israel. Yet we have the Secretary of State out there, previously some 
months back, talking about: Gee, it may look like they want a new 
intifada--another murdering spree--accusing Israel of wanting more 
murdering when they have done everything they can to try to protect 
themselves.
  Nobody in the media--not in this country--talks about the rockets 
that have never stopped flying into Israel from radical Islamist-
controlled areas. Instead, you have liberals in this country--friends 
of this administration--who are out there, saying: Do you know what? We 
need to cut off anything we do with Israel. That kind of talk is 
supported by our own Secretary of State when he says: Gee, they are 
risking being guilty of apartheid. He tried to walk it back, but he has 
illustrated so much anti-Semitism that it is time for him to go. It is 
time for this administration to take a stand even though our mainstream 
media here in America doesn't like to hold him accountable.
  Heaven help those at one of the mainstream media sources if they want 
to get to the truth of something like Benghazi. Their jobs are going to 
be gone. First, they are going to be told to back off, and then they 
are probably going to lose their jobs. We can't expose the truth about 
the present administration because, if they were interested in exposing 
the truth, then it would be after the highest ranking Attorney General 
in this country said to me: You don't want to go there, buddy. I said: 
Are you talking about contempt? and he made it clear that he was.
  In fact, I want to look at exactly what the highest ranking Attorney 
General said to me in our hearing on April 8, 2014:

       You don't want to go there, buddy. You should not--
       Then I said: Are you talking about contempt?
       You should not assume that this is not a big deal to me. I 
     think it was inappropriate--he is talking about Congress 
     holding him in contempt because he refused and continues to 
     refuse to provide documents that he has, that he should have 
     produced and that he continues to refuse to produce.
       He said: I think it was unjust, but never think that it was 
     not a big deal to me. Don't ever think that.

  That is our highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country 
who was talking like that. So it was interesting.

[[Page 6615]]

  This is what he said on February 13 of 2013. Amazing. ABC News will 
call my office and say: What is your basis for that? Will they ever 
call the Attorney General and say: How do you reconcile what you said 
under penalty of perjury before Congress to what you told us in our 
interview? Oh, gosh. No. ABC News could never do that because they 
might hurt the guy who is in the White House, who they helped put 
there.
  So, in the interview with ABC News in February of 2013--it is not 
hard to find. If I can find it, surely ABC News or somebody should have 
been able to. He said to Gohmert to never think it wasn't a big deal to 
him. Obviously, he is saying now it was a big deal.
  This is what he said back over a year before:

       But I have to tell you that, for me to really be affected 
     by what happened--he is talking about contempt of Congress--
     I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in that 
     way, and I didn't, so it didn't have that huge an impact on 
     me.

  That was Attorney General Eric Holder to ABC News in February 2013.
  Now, I had in the back of my mind that it had not been a big deal to 
him. Why didn't ABC News remember this?

                              {time}  2000

  Nobody at ABC News, even the one who interviewed him would have 
remembered: oh, you know, he told Gohmert, don't you ever think it 
wasn't a big deal? Nobody remembered this from a year before at ABC 
News.
  Now, I wouldn't use this line, but what my old practice court 
professor in law school used to say--Matt Dawson, a tremendously 
effective trial lawyer--but he used to have a line, if you were caught 
saying two different things, like our Attorney General has been--two 
different things about the same topic, Matt Dawson used to say: Well, 
were you lying then, or are you lying now?
  Like I say, I am not saying that. I am just reflecting back on what 
Matt Dawson would say if confronted with those two different quotes.
  What I, as a Member of Congress say, is this is really outrageous. It 
is time to have people in this administration that the world will 
respect, that the country will respect, that will be fair and 
evenhanded, will not come into Congress and mislead Congress, will not 
hold up, stonewall, prevent the American people from knowing the facts 
about how innocent people came to be killed with guns that this Justice 
Department forced to be sold to people who should never have been 
allowed to have them.
  They are entitled and we are entitled, as a Nation, to have a 
Secretary of State that is respected and does not say outrageous things 
and accuse allies of outrageous offenses when those allegations are so 
far from true.
  Yes, I know Secretary Kerry says he wishes he hadn't chosen the word 
``apartheid.'' How about intifada, about accusing fellow Vietnam 
veterans of acting like Genghis Kahn? I always thought it was Genghis 
Kahn until I heard young Mr. Kerry talking about Genghis Kahn.
  It is time for us to regain some respect in the world, and it is time 
for us to stop radical Islam before there is another holocaust.
  I read a fantastic book written by Joel Rosenberg that came out this 
spring, ``The Auschwitz Escape.'' I didn't even know anyone had escaped 
from Auschwitz. It is a novel.
  When you read about the novel, you get interested and find out there 
were people that escaped from Auschwitz because they wanted to get the 
news out to the world about what was happening, that this wasn't just a 
prison work camp, that they were rounding up Jews by the hundreds of 
thousands and bringing them in and, at Auschwitz, putting them in 
showers and, instead of water coming out, poisonous gas did; and then 
their bodies were taken right across and burned in a giant crematorium. 
The people that were there always saw the smoke, always smelled the 
vile smell of Jews' bodies burning.
  Then you find out that, once people escaped, they got information 
out, it still took far too long for America or the Allies to do 
anything to stop it. We could have bombed the railroads that were 
taking Jews into these prison camps, like Auschwitz, where they were 
being killed in masses.
  Even after people escaped and got word out, we didn't, the Allies 
didn't, and the railroads continued running, and the cattle cars 
cramped with Jews being taken. Initially, they were taken to the prison 
camps, and a decision was made, as they walked up to an individual, you 
go here, which means you are going to work until you can't work, and 
then we will gas you, and then burn you; or you are not worth keeping, 
so you are going to go get killed immediately.
  In the end, the attempted genocide killed 6 million or so Jews. 
Because they were war criminals? No. Because they had committed a crime 
of any kind? No. Because they were Jews; that is a crime against 
humanity.
  The leaders of Iran have said they want to destroy the Great Satan, 
which is the United States, and they want to wipe the Little Satan, 
Israel, off the map. They want the Jewish vermin, as they sometimes 
call them, eradicated.
  There is some like the J Street Group, say: no, no, no, we can work 
with these people. And I have to point out to any Jew who wants to work 
with Iran and the current leadership of Iran, these people can't be 
trusted.
  When the history was written, it turned out there were some Jews that 
helped the Nazis by pointing out where other Jews lived, where they 
could be arrested, or where they were being hidden. There is a special 
place for them in eternity.
  People need to understand, the modern-day gas chambers are being 
constructed. They are too near completion in Iran. Right now, they are 
called nuclear weapons.
  For a number of years now, we have been hearing projections: Iran is 
this close to having nukes, this close to having nukes. Joel Rosenberg 
raised a good point in one of his prior novels. He does great research.
  In that novel, he had Iran constructing multiple--they waited until 
they had enough fissile material so they could construct several 
nuclear weapons, and I am sure that is their thought.
  Just as with the 9/11 hijackers, yeah, they were crazy, but they 
weren't stupid. They were very methodical as they plotted to kill what 
they hoped would be tens of thousands of Americans, innocent people.
  With glee, they thought about all the horror. With glee, some of 
those that helped plan, but were not actually part of the 19, that were 
joyful as they saw Americans deciding between being burned to death in 
the World Trade Centers or jumping a 1,000 feet to their death, and 
they rejoiced.
  These same people in Iran who were so thrilled to see Americans 
burning, being crushed in the World Trade Centers as they fell or even 
jumping to their deaths before they fell, they were so ecstatic about 
that, and these people are working on nuclear weapons. They cannot be 
trusted.
  Mr. Speaker, there is something this administration can do that will 
regain America's respect around the world, that should stop Vladimir 
Putin cold in his tracks, that will stop China from evermore aggressive 
overtaking and reach beyond their borders, to stop thugs around the 
world who seek to take over countries, something that would stop them 
because they would fear and respect America, would be the very thing 
that will protect America, will protect Israel, will protect Saudi 
Arabia, will protect UAE, will protect Jordan, will protect Egypt, and 
that is for the United States of America to have its Commander in Chief 
issue the order: Take out anything that Iran has that may be 
proliferating nuclear weapons. Take it out.
  If they scramble to save something, then let's go back and hit them 
again and again, not the people of Iran, unless these cruel leaders 
have buried nuclear facilities in civilian areas. If they had done 
that, then it would be the Iranian leaders that would be responsible 
for criminally harming civilians and putting them as cowards, putting 
them between the criminals and judgment day. We need to do that.
  Israel doesn't have our F-35s. They don't have all of our stealth 
yet. They

[[Page 6616]]

don't have the capability to carry our best bunker busters into Iran 
and eliminate their nuclear weapons. We do. Maybe it takes more than 
one sortie, one group of planes going in. Maybe it takes more than one, 
two, three.
  We need to do it, take them out, whatever it takes, and that stops 
Iran in their development of the modern-day gas chambers, the modern-
day holocaust that will occur in Israel and in America if we don't act.
  I read about a survivor from one of the death camps when the American 
soldiers arrived. They were so thrilled, they went running up, and the 
Jewish inmate was then free, spit in his face and asked basically: 
Where have you been?
  Six million people killed for nothing more than being of a particular 
race, and we could have stopped it far sooner. Who knows how many 
millions we could have saved if we had acted sooner?
  But now, we know. We know, without a doubt, Iran wants to develop 
nuclear weapons, is trying to develop nuclear weapons, have said they 
want to wipe us out, have said they want to wipe out Israel.
  It is time to take them seriously; and by doing so, you gain respect 
from the thug Taliban because they realize, as Qadhafi did: wow, if he 
will do that to Iran, he would do it to us.
  And then we wouldn't even have to because they would fear us and 
respect us enough, respect our power--not us individually. They would 
respect the power, and the world could see more years of peace and 
could see an end in sight maybe for 100 years or so of radical Islam. 
Moderate Muslims could live in peace. Jews could live more in peace. 
Christians could live more in peace.
  There are Christians being persecuted around the world, probably in 
greater numbers than ever before, not in percentages, but in numbers. 
In countries like Iraq, where we gave them their freedom, they are 
persecuting Christians and Jews. In Afghanistan, where we gave them 
their freedom, they are persecuting Christians and Jews.
  They were persecuting Christians and Jews in Egypt until the people 
rose up and demonstrations--literally went arm in arm, a beautiful, 
incredible scene for world peace, as Muslims, Jews, Christians, 
secularists took to the streets to rebel and demand the ouster of a 
radical Islamist who was seizing power, and had they waited another 
year, they probably would not have been able to do it.

                              {time}  2015

  For those who believe in the power of prayer, we need to continue to 
pray for Israel and we need to continue to pray for Egypt and the 
Egyptian leaders.
  I applaud the Obama administration. I was thrilled and am so pleased 
that this administration has announced they are going to go ahead and 
furnish Apache helicopters to the new government in Egypt.
  It is going to be tough for the Egyptians. They have got a tough 
economy. They have too many on welfare. They have got a lot of 
adjustments to make. But they want freedom. The masses of Egypt want 
freedom. They don't want radical Islam. They don't want radical Islam 
like that which rebelled and killed Qadhafi and took over Tunisia. They 
don't want that.
  We need to encourage them. We need to help them. We need to help them 
eliminate all the weaponization that Morsi encouraged and allowed, it 
turns out, in the Sinai, as Egypt stands up against radical Islam.
  So I really want to thank the Obama administration for following 
through in supplying the Apache helicopters that were supposed to be 
supplied.
  As General el-Sisi, who has stepped down as general of the military, 
and who will likely be elected President, said previously, Do you not 
understand we use the Apaches to keep the Suez Canal open? We are using 
the Apaches to clear out the radical Islamists in the Sinai. Why 
wouldn't you want to help us do that? Why would you rather help radical 
Islam?
  I know that in this body a majority would stand with our President 
and we would be proud of him if he would protect us and protect Israel, 
stop the nuclear proliferation in its tracks, not by promising to 
release murderers, not by talking Israel into releasing more murderers, 
and not giving Iran billions and billions of more money and not 
eliminating any more of the sanctions against Iran, but just take out 
the nuclear capability that has developed so far. Because otherwise, if 
we let them get nukes, they will be glad to supply them to terrorists.
  You don't have to have intercontinental ballistic missiles to get a 
nuke to America. You can put them on a boat and float them right up the 
Potomac, the Hudson, right up to Chicago, up to Houston, New Orleans, 
and take out 70 percent of our refining capacity.
  So they could put a nuclear weapon on even a sorry Scud missile that 
is so inexact and launch it from a boat or a barge into the interior 
airspace. It doesn't need to hit the ground, but there is a huge range 
that even a Scud missile could make, and explode a nuclear weapon, 
creating an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, that would fry most of the 
computer chips in the country, shut down most of our electrical 
capacity, shut down grocery stores, shut down stores relying on 
computers, shut down cars that have reliance on computer chips.
  They could do all that with one nuke and a lousy missile that is not 
very exact. They could do that.
  It is time we acted before they destroy America as we have known it, 
as it has come to be the greatest country in the history of the world. 
It has more individual freedom, but we see that waning. It has the 
greatest economy in history, but we have seen that wane.
  Now we are told in a very short time China will be the biggest 
economy, unless something happens. How about if the United States stops 
the modern-day gas chambers from being completed, stops the radical 
Islamist enemies of America, Israel, and of moderate Muslims?
  How about if we do moderate Islam a favor and take out the radicals 
for them as well?
  Let's get peace on track. And you don't do it with a Secretary of 
State that condemns our closest allies and accuses our allies of being 
criminals. You don't do it by releasing murderous thugs of countries 
that hate us and are planning to kill us at some point whenever they 
get the capability. You do it by self-preservation.
  In Texas, we are pretty proud of our self-defense laws. When somebody 
has told you they are going to kill you, and they are close to having 
the ability to do that, it is self-defense to stop them.
  It is time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________