[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1119-1123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
               PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS REMAIN UNPROSECUTED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, news has come out, February 2, Groundhog 
Day, in this article from Adam Kredo entitled, ``The Obama 
Administration Has Not Prosecuted a Single Palestinian Terrorist Who 
Killed Americans.''
  ``The Obama administration has not prosecuted a single Palestinian 
terrorist responsible for killing Americans abroad, despite a 
congressional mandate ordering the Justice Department to take action 
against these individuals'' . . . ``Palestinian terrorists have 
murdered at least 64 Americans, including two unborn children, since 
1993. Yet the U.S. Government has failed to take legal action against 
those who committed the crimes, lawmakers disclosed during a Tuesday 
hearing on the Justice Department's failure to live up to its mandate 
to bring these terrorists to justice.
  ``Many of the terrorists continue to roam free across the Middle 
East, with one hosting a Hamas-affiliated television show in Jordan.
  ``With criticism mounting from Congress and U.S. victims of 
terrorism, Justice Department officials say they are working to 
initiate cases, but warn that this could take `many years' to play out.
  ``The Justice Department has repeatedly declined to comment when 
faced with questions from Congress about the lack of prosecutions, 
according to Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida, chair of the House 
Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security.
  ``The Justice Department `has not been able to cite one example for 
this committee of even a single terrorist who has been prosecuted in 
the U.S. for any of the 64 attacks against Americans in Israel,' 
DeSantis said. `Indeed, many of these terrorists roam free as the 
result of prisoner exchanges or evasion.
  ```This is not what Congress intended' when it created the DOJ's 
Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism in 2005,' DeSantis 
added. `This is not what the American people want, and this does not 
provide justice to the victims' families that has been so tragically 
elusive.'
  ``The Justice Department has sought to evade questions about its 
failure to prosecute known terrorists responsible for the murder of 
U.S. citizens.
  ``This includes its failure to level charges against Ahlam Tamimi, 
the Palestinian woman responsible for blowing up a Jerusalem pizza shop 
in 2001. The attacks killed 15, including a pregnant American woman. 
Tamimi currently resides in Jordan and hosts a television show on the 
Hamas-owned Al Quds station.
  ```When the Oversight and Government Reform Committee questioned the 
Department of Justice about this case, the Department declined to 
comment,' DeSantis said. `If in fact bringing to justice the 
perpetrators of terrorism against Americans in Israel is a high 
priority for the DOJ, then surely people of this nature should be 
prosecuted for their crimes.''' . . . ``American victims of terrorist 
attacks abroad who testified at the hearing offered sharp criticism of 
the Justice Department for failing to take on terrorists in the U.S. 
courts.
  ``Sari Singer, who was injured in a 2003 Palestinian terror attack on 
a bus in Jerusalem, said that she has lost faith in the government.''
  Singer said, ``I grew up believing that my country would be there for 
me and protect me no matter where I was in the world. These last years 
have left me feeling let down.''
  I would insert parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that she shares that 
same feeling with the victims in our State Department of the attacks at 
Benghazi, and the many hours people waited thinking surely our 
government will come to our aid.
  So it sounds like victims of terrorists abroad share this, whether it 
is from Benghazi or whether it is from other terrorist attacks, that 
the administration is not going to be there for you.
  The article goes on: ``Peter Schwartz, whose nephew Ezra was shot in 
the head by a Palestinian terrorist in November 2015, said that the 
Obama administration has not been forthcoming about any potential 
investigations into the incident'' . . . ``The Obama administration was 
criticized in August when it sought to limit the restitution American 
victims of terrorism could receive. The administration argued in a 
legal briefing issued to the court that a large cash award to these 
victims could complicate the administration's efforts to foster peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians.''
  Clearly, the administration's interests, as Sari Singer observed, is 
not with American victims of foreign terrorism. It is with the foreign 
terrorists that maybe if we sidle up to them enough, maybe if we will 
be nice to

[[Page 1120]]

them and not punish them, then maybe they won't keep killing American 
citizens. That is false thinking.
  Madam Speaker, I can't help but think as we find out this week that 
this administration has released $100 billion to the largest supporter 
of terrorism in the world--Iran--and Iran has made clear that once they 
got this money from the Obama administration that they were going to 
increase their help to terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah. In other 
words, they told us in advance that when America cedes to Iran $100 
billion extra, they are going to be able to help more terrorists commit 
more of their acts of terrorism.
  Now, back when I was a judge or even back years and years ago as a 
prosecutor, we always approached cases that if you assisted somebody, 
say you gave them money, and they told you before you gave them the 
money that they are going to use some of this money to commit a 
criminal act, then we always felt like you could prosecute those 
people. Jurors could bear that out because if you knowingly aid, 
assist--even encourage--you don't even have to give them money. If you 
just encourage them to commit a violent act or encourage them to go 
about what they plan to do, and they already said, ``We plan to commit 
more terrorism with what you give us,'' then you were an accomplice. 
Under the laws federally, and as well as in the laws I am aware of in 
most States, certainly in Texas, you would be charged as a principal. 
So if you gave money to someone knowing that they said, ``We are going 
to use money and help kill people and help terrorism,'' and then they 
committed the terrorism, you could be convicted of the same terrorism 
of those you gave the money to help.
  It is interesting that those principles seem to apply to all other 
Americans, but this administration feels surely they won't apply to 
this administration. Sure, Iran has said they are going to support more 
terrorism once they get all this extra money from the Obama 
administration. But apparently the Obama administration, according to 
these pleadings they filed, if you just be nice to the terrorists, let 
them keep their own money, gee, they will probably quit killing 
Americans. It doesn't work that way.
  Let's take a look at who this administration, this Commander in 
Chief's administration, is willing to punish. I have a letter here that 
was sent by my friend, our fellow colleague, Duncan Hunter, to the 
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee when he discusses Sergeant 
First Class Charles Martland and points out he is considered a first-
rate warrior.
  ``While in Afghanistan in 2011, at a remote outpost, Martland 
confronted an Afghan Local Police commander for kidnapping a young boy 
and raping him repeatedly over several days. The issue was brought to 
the attention of Martland and his fellow soldiers after the boy's 
mother asked for help, after she also was attacked by the ALP--or 
Afghan Local Police--commander.

                              {time}  1830

  ``When Martland and Captain Danny Quinn confronted the rapist, he 
admitted to the charge and laughed in their faces--at which point 
Martland and Quinn took matters into their own hands. This occurred 
after two separate but similar human rights violations, including 
another rape, near the outpost, resulting in no punitive action 
whatsoever.
  ``The Afghan Local Police commander was dragged to the perimeter 
gate, where he was thrown out and told never to come back. It is 
important to note that the Afghan Local Police commander left on his 
own, only to deliberately exaggerate his injuries. Multiple sources 
have confirmed this fact, including a linguist and authorities who were 
never interviewed by Army investigators after the incident.
  ``For this action, Martland was removed from the outpost and faced 
reprimand. He later was allowed to reenlist, only to face a Qualitative 
Management Program review board in February 2015.''
  That would be a year ago.
  ``The Army argued that the black mark on his record, which states he 
assaulted `a corrupt Afghan commander' is cause to expel him from duty, 
despite the fact that he has the full support of his command and 
immediate leadership. In fact, the Department of Defense Inspector 
General reported to me that''--this is a letter from Duncan Hunter--
```personnel are very supportive of the Sergeant and his efforts to 
remain in the U.S. Army. . . .' And there continue to be efforts within 
his command to not `inadvertently hamper his efforts.' This was in 
response to an alleged gag order put on Martland and his fellow 
soldiers''--apparently, about trying to stop the rapes that were going 
on in Afghanistan.
  ``Importantly, Martland was permitted to resubmit an appeal to the 
Qualitative Management Program decision after his first appeal was 
denied outright. And recently, a decision within Army Human Resources 
Command recommended that the Army uphold the judgment that Martland be 
removed from service, although a final decision has yet to be made 
about his future.''
  Madam Speaker, we have an American hero in Sergeant First Class 
Charles Martland. Dragging a child rapist out of the confined area that 
this child rapist was using to be a serial rapist, doing harm to 
children in Afghanistan, is an act of heroism, not an act to be 
condemned. In fact, courts I am aware of, certainly juries in Texas, 
would say that was acting in defense of a third person. This man is 
guilty of nothing except a heroic act to save children and women from 
being raped by a corrupt police commander.
  But under this administration, where we give money to supporters of 
terrorism, the largest supporters of terrorism in the world, and where 
we beg courts not to give large reimbursements to victims of terrorism, 
our own American victims of foreign terrorism because that might not 
help, it might make the foreign terrorists mad if they have a judgment 
against them, then it seems like this is perfectly consistent with the 
policies of this administration. We give money to terrorists who say 
they are going to use it to support terrorism; we don't give money to 
victims of terrorism.
  In fact, this administration should have done what the House passed 
and implored the administration to do, and that is to make sure that 
not a dime was allowed to be released to Iran until the verdicts 
outstanding against Iran by American victims of Iranian terrorism were 
paid first. But in its haste to get all this money to those who say 
they are going to use a bunch of it to support terrorism, the American 
victims were left in the lurch. It is more than irresponsible. It is 
unconscionable what has been going on.
  At some point, people in this administration have got to figure out 
what most of the American people have figured out, and that is you are 
not going to stop terrorism by trying to be sweet and kind to the 
terrorists. Some of us learned it on the playground growing up. I guess 
now that the Federal Government has control of education to such an 
extent that schools are forced to teach to the test--I have even had 
elementary schools tell me: We have had to do away with recess in 
elementary school because we just don't have time. We have got to teach 
them to the test so that we can get that Federal money and we can stay 
open.
  But if you allow recess and kids are on the playground and you have 
kids that were smaller like I was, you learn you are not going to stop 
bullying by giving your money to a bully. If you give a bully money, 
not only do they not respect you, they have more contempt and it 
encourages their bullying. You can't do that. You have to stand up to 
bullying. You find out when you do that, sometimes you will have a 
teacher, like my fifth grade teacher, that took up for the bullies, but 
you will ultimately find more teachers will not tolerate that kind of 
conduct.
  This administration never learned that. Maybe there was no chance to 
learn that in the young schools in Indonesia. Maybe that is why we have 
a Commander in Chief that thinks we should reward the terrorists, the 
supporters of terrorism, and punish the victims of terrorism by not 
letting them have proper financial restitution.

[[Page 1121]]

  But it is tragic what is going on. It is tragic.
  There are a number of stories about Sergeant Martland, including from 
my friend Jay Sekulow. He said:
  ``Yet, for his actions, he was immediately pulled from the 
battlefield and this decorated war hero is now facing expulsion from 
the military.''
  This administration's priorities are so completely out of step with 
truth, justice, and the American way--what used to be the American way. 
Perhaps the American way has been fundamentally transformed in the last 
7 years, so now the American way has become that we help terrorists, 
give them money, and we punish those who are victims.
  Well, of course, we know that our Secretary of State thanked Iran for 
their activities. I haven't heard whether or not Secretary of State 
Kerry has thanked Iran for this latest story. This from foxnews.com, 
``Iran's Supreme Leader Awards Medals to Troops Who `Captured' U.S. 
Sailors.'' The story says:
  ``Iran's supreme leader has awarded medals to five members of the 
Iranian Navy whom he said `captured intruding' U.S. Navy sailors during 
a tense incident in January.
  ``Ayatollah Ali Khamenei awarded the Order of Fat'h medal to Admiral 
Ali Fadavi, the head of the navy of the Revolutionary Guards, and four 
commanders who seized the two U.S. Navy vessels, according to Reuters. 
Iran's state media reported the news on Sunday.
  ``Order of Fat'h given by Chief Commander of Armed Forces to IRGC 
Navy commanders who captured intruding U.S. marines'' . . . ``In a 
tweet from his account Sunday, Khamenei misidentified those who were 
`captured' as being members of the Marines.
  ``On January 12, Iran captured the ten sailors whose boats 
`misnavigated' into Iranian waters, according to Defense Secretary Ash 
Carter. Though the sailors were released the following day, Iran 
released video of the sailors being captured, detained and apologizing 
for the incursion.
  ``Though Iran initially accused the sailors of spying, Fadavi later 
said an investigation had established the sailors were led astray by `a 
broken navigation system' and the trespassing was `not hostile or for 
spying purposes'.
  ``The sailors were attempting to navigate from Kuwait to Bahrain when 
they crossed into Iranian waters.''
  Well, Madam Speaker, we have got satellites that could show exactly 
what happened. I would think that if this administration wanted to 
defend our sailors, they would show the satellite footage of where they 
were and we would be able to see for sure whether or not they did cross 
into Iranian waters.
  But consistent with these reports and stories we have already looked 
at this evening, it seems if they are going to act consistent with this 
administration's prior actions, this administration wouldn't want to 
embarrass the Iranian military, the supporters of terrorism, and so we 
wouldn't want to show that they were liars. So we won't show by 
satellite footage exactly where our sailors were, and we won't show 
exactly where our other naval vessels were. These were reported to be 
small vessels. Well, you don't have small Navy vessels unless they are 
near much larger Navy vessels. Normally, if there are larger Navy 
vessels, there are other small vessels that can go rather quickly.
  If you have the Navy vessels there, there is a good chance there is a 
carrier nearby, an airstrip, where jets could be there in no time 
whatsoever. It used to be under other Commanders in Chief, not this 
one, but other Commanders in Chief, that if we had sailors who were in 
danger of being captured by a country, particularly the largest 
supporter of terrorism in the world, our jets would be put in the air. 
They would get there immediately. They would keep flying overhead and 
protecting those sailors until the Navy itself could get there to 
rescue them.
  For some reason, this administration thought it was a better idea not 
to put our aircraft in the air--kind of reminiscent of Benghazi. We are 
not going to send aircraft that could have been there in minutes. But, 
heck, I was asking a former commander at Ramstein Air Base clear up in 
Germany. He didn't realize where I was going.
  I asked: How long would it take, say, to get to North Africa from 
Ramstein?
  He said: About 3, 3\1/2\ hours at the most.
  I said: So you could have been at Benghazi in 3\1/2\ hours?
  He said: Oh, well, we had ordnance on the planes that particular 
evening, and it would have taken awhile to reconfigure those.
  Well, if you can get clear from Ramstein Air Base to Benghazi in 3, 
3\1/2\ hours, tops--we have got planes a whole lot closer to where 
these Navy vessels were--they should have been able to be there in 
minutes. I am sure some commander or some admiral who is afraid of the 
Commander in Chief would never admit that, not these days.
  But the fact is this once proud United States military who protected 
its own for the last 70 years and now it calls upon the largest 
supporter of terrorism to come get our sailors and to have them kneel 
on their knees, hands behind their heads, as if they are POWs, 
embarrass them to the maximum, for that, Secretary of State Kerry 
thanked Iran.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I see my friend from Nebraska is here. I yield 
to my friend.

                              {time}  1845


                            Nebraska Values

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I want to point out something about Mr. Gohmert. He was speaking 
about our military a moment ago. He, himself, is a veteran. He served 
in the United States Army during the Vietnam war, and I appreciate his 
service.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to share something with the body today. I 
write a weekly report, generally, called the Fort Report. This week, I 
sent one that I hoped would have a broader meaning to the House of 
Representatives and, perhaps, to anyone else who might encounter this. 
It is entitled, ``Nebraska Values.'' It is stories about America's 
political and economic and cultural crises. As we all know, they are 
dominating the headlines across our Nation. There is widespread, 
bipartisan dissatisfaction with the status quo, and it is propelling a 
new conversation against the dysfunction and gridlock that have long 
thwarted effective government here in Washington, D.C.
  As families across our Nation face pressing challenges, it is sad, 
but elected officials often prioritize divisive rhetoric instead of 
empathy and understanding. Now our disagreements have widened into 
chasms. It is exhausting--exhausting to America's spirit--and it is 
distracting us from the possibilities that are before us. In the midst 
of this contentious Presidential primary season, Madam Speaker, maybe 
it is time to just pause, change the subject, and celebrate some of the 
best examples that our country has to offer.
  In a small town gym in Beemer, Nebraska, at Beemer Elementary School, 
the community recently gathered to celebrate the life of Joseph Lemm. 
While deep sadness marked the occasion, the community's desire to 
gather and tell stories and honor this remarkable man pointed to a much 
deeper understanding of the values that bind us.
  Joe chose to put on three different uniforms in his life--first, by 
enlisting in the United States Air Force after high school. Then he 
went on to have a career with the New York City Police Department and, 
finally, with the New York Air National Guard. Joe served three tours 
of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. This past December, Joseph Lemm gave 
his all for his country, along with five other Americans who were 
killed in Afghanistan. Although Joe left Nebraska a very long time ago, 
I am quite certain that he carried his early formation with him 
throughout his life of service, and I suspect my State, Nebraska, was 
never far from Joe's heart.
  Before the service that memorialized him, I saw Joe's mother, 
Shirley. Shirley embraced me as though we were family members, and, 
perhaps, we

[[Page 1122]]

were. She embraced our Governor, Governor Ricketts, and United States 
Senator Sasse in the same way. Everyone in the gym in the little town 
of Beemer knew, in the midst of this deep grief and loss, that Joseph 
Lemm's life had great value, had great purpose.
  Madam Speaker, several weeks ago, Washington, D.C., was buried in an 
avalanche of snow, the remnants of which are still around. I was 
intending to come back to Washington but had to cancel that trip, and I 
had more time than I had anticipated in my hometown of Lincoln. As I 
was in my office, I noticed some young people who were walking around 
the complex in their signature blue Future Farmers of America jackets, 
the FFA jackets. I love those jackets, Madam Speaker. They are 
emblazoned with the name of their hometown below the FFA symbol. These 
young people had gathered along with others from the Distributive 
Education Clubs of America; the Future Business Leaders of America; the 
Family, Career and Community Leaders of America; Educators Rising; and 
the Future Health Professionals Skills USA to talk about a very 
important issue: food security.
  In Nebraska, we are very fortunate to have a very, very low 
unemployment rate. We have the convergence of some extraordinary 
natural resources, that of our farming and ranch community; we have 
manufacturing; we have a financial sector; we have had a long tradition 
of solid community leadership, which has left our economic situation 
much better than most across the country. Even so, even in our State, 
we face problems with structural poverty.
  These young students came together because they recognized the need 
to engage in the issue of children who face hunger--of children who 
return from school hungry, of children who have to worry about not 
having enough to eat when they get up in the morning. These young 
people were there, gathered to lead the way--to find realtime solutions 
in their own small communities, to help the impoverished, vulnerable 
members who are all around them.
  Madam Speaker, that same snowstorm that kept me out of Washington, 
though, did not deter hundreds of other Nebraska students who left the 
comforts of their homes and drove on buses through the night to 
exercise their fundamental American rights: the freedom to assemble and 
the freedom of speech.
  In the face of that devastating blizzard a couple of weeks ago, these 
principled boys and girls participated in the annual March for Life. 
They are young people in our country who refuse to accept the current 
settlement in our wounded culture. They refuse to stare at pain and 
woundedness and then walk away. They refuse to accept what has been 
fostered upon us for the last four decades of brokenness, of fracturing 
in family life, and the deep wounds that abortion has caused in so many 
women. They are demanding that we do better as a country. They are 
saying to all of us that women deserve better, that we deserve better. 
They traveled to Washington to explicitly express this pro-life 
perspective and to proclaim that we should care for unborn children, 
for their mothers, and for our society as a whole.
  This is the new generation--the Millennial Generation--that, in many 
ways, is standing upon the ash heap of broken tradition, and they are 
longing for more. They are saying there is a better way no matter how 
deep and difficult the problem is. Although our Nation, particularly in 
our politics, still experiences deep and sad divisions over the 
question of abortion, I do think we should all commend these students 
for responsibly exercising their rights to peaceably demonstrate, for 
standing up for what they believe. That is a source of renewal and 
strength in America. Sometimes it discomforts us. Sometimes it 
challenges those of us in power when truth has spoken to us. Sometimes 
it bumps up against systems that seem stacked against the ordinary 
person.
  These young people are not willing to accept the current economic, 
political, and cultural settlement in our country. They are saying 
let's strive for more. Let's imagine what we could be. Let's put aside 
the pain. Let's heal the past and look forward when all life is 
celebrated as a beautiful gift. I respect what they did, and I think, 
again, all of us here can look to these young people who have 
responsibly demonstrated in front of us as good future stewards of a 
rebuilt America.
  So, Madam Speaker, that is really what I wanted to say to you today. 
I am proud of these Nebraskans who have continued to demonstrate a 
better pathway for America in public servants and in military heroes, 
such as Joseph Lemm, who gave his life for his country, in the young 
people back home who are deciding to tackle systemic childhood poverty 
and hunger, and in the students who trekked all this way in hazardous 
conditions to stand in defense of vulnerable persons.
  Perhaps, in the example of these young people, we can find an answer 
to what is right about America at a time when so much seems to be going 
wrong. We can carry forward the best of our traditions, those put 
forward by small communities and families that are really the renewing 
social force that will help turn our country around.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to my friend from 
Nebraska. Mr. Fortenberry and I came in together, and I am so glad we 
did. We have been friends ever since. What a noteworthy tribute he had 
to pay. I am grateful for that tribute.
  Madam Speaker, we have had so many Americans who have given, as 
Lincoln said, the last full measure of devotion for freedom, for 
liberty, for people who were not even Americans, because that is who 
Americans have been.
  I know our current President is fond of saying that is who we are, 
and then he provides access to $100 billion for Iran--the largest 
supporter of terrorism. It says it is going to keep supporting 
terrorism, just with a lot more money now that the President has made 
all of this available. The President says that is not who we are, and 
then he shows us that we open our arms to terrorists from all over the 
world.
  So many Americans gave their lives and gave their limbs for liberty 
in Iraq, for liberty in Afghanistan. In fact, in Afghanistan, if I 
recall my figures correctly, in the 7\1/4\ years under Commander in 
Chief Bush, from October of 2001 until January of 2009, there were just 
over 500 precious American lives given for the cost of freedom in 
Afghanistan. Supposedly, we were told by this President, the war was 
pretty much over. He sent more troops for a while to Afghanistan; but 
even after, supposedly, the war has been over and troops have been left 
over there, we keep getting Americans killed.
  It is because of the rules of engagement that so needlessly tie their 
hands. It is because this administration would rather punish Green 
Beret Sergeant First Class Martland for stopping a serial child rapist. 
It would rather punish him--throw him out, end his military career--
because this administration, at least here in this country, does not 
want to offend the serial child rapist in Afghanistan.
  No wonder people around the world have lost so much respect for the 
United States in the last 7 years. They know that stuff is going on. 
They knew that Sergeant Martland stood up for the child and for the 
woman. They knew what he did. They spread the word. Then the word 
spreads when Sergeant Martland makes international news because this 
administration wants to punish him for dragging him out of the 
compound--not killing, not beheading, not disemboweling--in an act of 
defense of many third persons. They find out this administration 
punished the military hero, the Green Beret who protected the victims.
  It is incredible. I mean, any administration that would do that would 
probably turn around and, if it heard about some entity that was 
allowing unborn babies to be killed and was selling body parts, might 
be tempted to punish the people who exposed it instead of punishing 
those who did such a heinous act.

                              {time}  1900

  Those who have read Scripture know there will come a time when right 
is wrong, wrong is right, the good are

[[Page 1123]]

punished, and the evil are rewarded. But we also know the day will come 
when the ultimate judge of the world will set things straight.
  So this is a story from Martha Mendoza, Maya Alleruzzo, and Bram 
Janssen from the Associated Press: ``Oldest Christian monastery in Iraq 
is razed.'' This is heartbreaking.
  This is a monastery Americans were devoted to restoring. It is a 
monastery where people came to know Jesus of Nazareth for the last 1400 
years. It is a place where God did miracles in people's lives. It is a 
place where our military were very, very careful to protect because 
they knew the Christian significance.
  As this administration miscalculated--apparently, our intelligence 
agencies did not miscalculate. Apparently, our intelligence agencies 
made very clear to this administration that ISIS is not a JV team, that 
these are dangerous people and they have to be stopped and you have to 
ramp it up.
  So it wasn't our intelligence. We didn't have bad intelligence. The 
reports are out there. The administration, thinking it knew better than 
those on the ground in the area, did not take ISIS seriously.
  Now, this Christian monastery over 1400 years old has been razed. The 
story from Iraq:
  ``The oldest Christian monastery in Iraq has been reduced to a field 
of rubble, yet another victim of the Islamic State group's relentless 
destruction of ancient cultural sites.
  ``For 1,400 years the compound survived assaults by nature and man, 
standing as a place of worship recently for U.S. troops. In earlier 
centuries, generations of monks tucked candles in the niches and prayed 
in the cool chapel. The Greek letters chi and rho, representing the 
first two letters of Christ's name, were carved near the entrance.
  ``Now satellite photos obtained exclusively by The Associated Press 
confirm the worst fears of church authorities and preservationists--St. 
Elijah's Monastery of Mosul has been completely wiped out.
  ``In his office in exile in Irbil, Iraq, the Rev. Paul Thabit Habib, 
39, stared quietly at before- and after-images of the monastery that 
once perched on a hillside above his hometown of Mosul. Shaken, he 
flipped back to his own photos for comparison.
  ```I can't describe my sadness,' he said in Arabic. `Our Christian 
history in Mosul is being barbarically leveled. We see it as an attempt 
to expel us from Iraq, eliminating and finishing our existence in this 
land.'
  ``The Islamic State group, which broke from al-Qaeda and now controls 
large parts of Iraq and Syria, has killed thousands of civilians and 
forced out hundreds of thousands of Christians, threatening a religion 
that has endured in the region for 2,000 years. Along the way, its 
fighters have destroyed buildings and ruined historical and culturally 
significant structures they consider contrary to their interpretation 
of Islam.''
  Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that these writers know what 
leaders in this administration still, after all these years, have not 
figured out. It is Martha Mendoza, Maya Alleruzzo, and Bram Janssen.
  They point out in this article that these people believe that these 
sites are contrary to their interpretation of Islam. Yet, this 
administration says, no, it has nothing to do with Islam.
  The article continues:
  ``Those who knew the monastery wondered about its fate after the 
extremists swept through in June 2014 and largely cut communications to 
the area.
  ``Now, St. Elijah's has joined a growing list of more than 100 
demolished religious and historic sites, including mosques, tombs, 
shrines and churches in Syria and Iraq. The extremists have defaced or 
ruined ancient monuments in Nineveh, Palmyra and Hatra. Museums and 
libraries have been looted, books burned, artwork crushed--or 
trafficked.
  ```A big part of tangible history has been destroyed,' said Rev. 
Manuel Yousif Boji. A Chaldean Catholic pastor in Southfield, Michigan, 
he remembers attending Mass at St. Elijah's almost 60 years ago while a 
seminarian in Mosul.
  ```These persecutions have happened to our church more than once, but 
we believe in the power of truth, the power of God,' said Boji. He is 
part of the Detroit area's Chaldean community, which became the largest 
outside Iraq after the sectarian bloodshed that followed the U.S. 
invasion in 2003. Iraq's Christian population has dropped from 1.3 
million then to 300,000 now, church authorities say.''
  Christians are under persecution, being killed in greater numbers 
than any time in our history. Yet, it is not the Christians being 
persecuted in greater numbers than any time in history. It is not the 
group that many in the world recognize are the most persecuted religion 
in the world.
  This administration wants to welcome those of the religion of 
persecution rather than the most persecuted group in the world, that 
being Christians, although just recently this article from CNS News, 
``550 Syrian Refugees Admitted to U.S. Since the Paris Attacks''--and, 
of the most persecuted highest number killed in the history of the 
world, Christians, this administration admitted two.
  An article from the Texas Tribune points out that Governor Greg 
Abbott and my friend, Democrat U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, ``pressed the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday to explain why the 
agency plans to reduce its aerial surveillance on the Texas-Mexico 
border.''
  ``Monday's request comes as CBP is reporting a new surge in the 
number of undocumented immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. From October 
to December of 2015, about 10,560 unaccompanied minors entered Texas 
illegally through the Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border 
Patrol. That marks a 115 percent increase over the same time frame in 
2014.''
  Madam Speaker, what is clear is that, as this administration says, 
oh, we are arresting fewer people coming into the country illegally, 
these kind of reports make clear, well, yeah, if you close your eyes, 
you will keep arresting even fewer. That is what they are doing. They 
are closing our eyes to our ability to see people that are violating 
our law.
  At the same time, we get this report from the Washington Examiner 
that sanctuary cities now cross the 300 mark, with Dallas and 
Philadelphia added to it.
  Madam Speaker, with so much to be depressed about, I want to commend 
the people of the State of Iowa, where I spent a couple of days last 
week and where I have spent other times many days in the past. When I 
am among the Iowans, I feel like I am back home in East Texas. The 
people are wonderful.
  I had somebody ask earlier today about: What do you think about your 
party?
  I said: What do you mean?
  He said: Well, you look at the people that won the Iowa caucuses.
  So?
  The comment was made: Well, in the Democratic caucus or primary, you 
had two White Socialists--this was the comment from this person--and in 
the Republican primary, the first and third vote-getters were Cuban, 
Hispanic Americans, and the fourth was African American. Isn't that 
interesting the way things have turned?
  Well, I have enjoyed coming to love the people of Iowa, and I look 
forward to the days ahead because of them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________