[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9319-9324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     CHALLENGES FACING THE COUNTRY

  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. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Wagner), my good friend and a great Member of Congress.


         Reestablish Integrity of Article I of the Constitution

  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, for the past 7\1/2\ years, this President 
has ignored Article I of the Constitution and the will of the American 
people.
  The balance of power detailed in the Constitution is very clear: 
Congress writes laws; the President executes those laws. But through 
controversial executive orders and questionable regulations and 
selective enforcement of laws, the President has time and again 
bypassed our government's critical system of checks and balances to 
drive his own personal agenda of Big Government and big regulation.
  Congress must reset this balance, reclaim its legislative power, and 
reestablish the integrity of Article I of the Constitution.
  The most blatant attack on our Constitution is his executive order to 
suspend immigration laws for nearly 4 million people who are in our 
country illegally. In acting alone, the President has made clear his 
desire for amnesty for illegal immigrants, in direct violation of the 
laws of this Nation.
  We are a nation of immigrants. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we 
are a nation of laws. This issue will only be resolved when the 
executive branch enforces existing law and works with the elected 
Members of Congress instead of sidestepping the Constitution and 
disrespecting the will of the people.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are desperate for greater security and 
economic opportunity. This comes with elevating, not undermining, the 
spirit of self-government, on which our Nation was founded.
  This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is an American 
issue, and it touches the core of our system of government. It is time 
that we restore and protect Article I of the Constitution and put the 
people first.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, such an articulate person in Congress is 
appreciated by all of us, especially so clear thinking. That is exactly 
the kind of thinking we need in the executive branch.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an article just in from Carolyn May today: ``441 
Syrian Refugees Admitted to the U.S.

[[Page 9320]]

Since the Orlando Attack, Dozens to Florida.'' It says:
  ``The administration has accelerated the pace of resettlement despite 
warnings from top security officials about potential vulnerabilities in 
vetting migrants from terror-hotspots like Syria and reports that ISIS 
operatives have infiltrated the refugee flows.
  ``In written testimony prepared for a Thursday hearing of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, CIA Director John Brennan again warned about 
the potential for ISIS operatives to manipulate the refugee system, as 
well as other immigration paths.''
  While our CIA Director from this administration was warning the 
Senate here on Capitol Hill about ISIS being amongst the Syrian 
refugees--and ISIS leaders themselves have said, oh, yeah, we are going 
to have some of our killers amongst the so-called Syrian refugees. 
Because we don't really know where they are from, and that was pretty 
clear from testimony sometime back from FBI Director Comey, who said, 
sure, basically we will vet them, but we have no information to vet 
them with. Whoever they say they are, wherever they say they are from, 
especially if they say they are from Syria, we really don't have a good 
way to disprove or to prove.
  So, yeah, we will vet them. But since we have nothing to check with--
as he said, you know, we had tremendous information from Iraq. We had 
the government's own records, but we got nothing to vet the Syrians.
  So perhaps this is an area we should believe the Islamic State 
leaders when they say ``we are getting our terrorists in amongst the 
Syrian refugees.'' And apparently the CIA Director takes this 
seriously. And we hope, at some point, the President will as well.
  Before people get too harsh in their judgments of the FBI or the FBI 
agents who had questioned the Orlando shooter, the killer, the 
murderer, the Islamic radical in Orlando, it is important that we keep 
in mind that--you know, the 9/11 Commission was composed of 
Republicans, Democrats, and this bipartisan group used this term, 
``violent extremism.'' They only used that three times, because they 
knew from their good report. They talked about the ``enemy'' 39 times. 
This administration doesn't like to talk about an enemy, so it is not 
appropriate for the FBI nor the National Intelligence Strategy.
  And this FBI counterterrorism lexicon was developed in 2009 after 
this President took office because they wanted to make sure that we 
don't offend the people who want to kill us and destroy our way of 
life. So there are terms that are off limits in this administration, in 
the FBI, in the national intelligence community.
  I haven't gotten any updates officially, but from what I understand 
from friends that work in these areas, there is no real update. You 
want a quick end to your career in the FBI or in our intelligence 
agencies, then all you have to use are the terms ``jihad,'' ``Muslim,'' 
``Islam.'' If you talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, your career is 
pretty well over. You don't want to talk about Hamas or Hezbollah. ``Al 
Qaeda,'' that was used one time in the National Intelligence Strategy 
that this administration put forth.
  But for heaven's sake, even though the radical Islamists are making 
clear that they want an international caliphate in which everyone bows 
their knee to Allah and to the twelfth imam, the imam that is going to 
come back and lead everybody, you sure don't want to say it in this 
administration.
  And it is not appropriate to talk about sharia. Unfortunately, polls 
these days are showing that there is a massive number and a massive 
percentage of people who have already immigrated into the United States 
who are Muslim that say that they owe their allegiance more to sharia 
than to our Constitution.
  I know that people constantly say we should not discriminate, and 
certainly we should not, you know, as a judge, as a prosecutor, as a 
chief justice, discriminate based on things that were inappropriate. 
But if somebody is committing a crime, has committed a crime, wants to 
destroy our way of life, bring down our government, destroy Western 
civilization, it is okay to discriminate against those people because 
what they have done or want to do is called a crime.
  If they want to bring down our Constitution and have it submissive to 
sharia law, the appropriate term for that is treason. And it is okay to 
discriminate against people who want to destroy your country, destroy 
your government, bring down the Constitution, and it is okay to 
discriminate.
  If someone wants to immigrate into this country--and we are getting 
word that some are instructed not to talk about or mention their 
religious beliefs and just say it is none of your business--it is 
important to find out, before we give American citizenship to people, 
whether or not they can take the oath as a citizen honestly, 
truthfully, with no hesitation. Because if they cannot, then we need to 
discriminate against them and prevent those people who want to commit 
treason from becoming American citizens.

                              {time}  1445

  It is called self-defense. It is called self-preservation. So, no, we 
don't want to ever discriminate against anybody based on race, creed, 
color, national origin, gender, age; but if somebody is not willing, 
because of their religious beliefs, to state that the Constitution is 
something to which they can pledge their complete allegiance, then they 
are not supposed to get citizenship. It is supposed to be denied.
  If you want to call that discrimination, then that is the kind that 
is okay. But the administration is going so far out of its way to try 
not to offend people that want to kill us and bring down our way of 
life that you can't talk about who our enemy is. So for the three of us 
who have been through many of the materials that have been purged from 
our training materials because they offended radical Islamists and 
Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, it is important to understand, our FBI 
agents are not allowed to be properly trained to recognize what a 
radical Islamist believes, what he or she reads, the appearances that 
they have to ascribe to, all these things. They are teachable because 
they are being taught to radical Islamists that want the international 
caliphate.
  I know the immediate reaction to killings. I have dear friends on the 
other side of the aisle, and I know that they are honorable and truly 
believe the best thing to do is to start having restrictions on guns; 
but if we were simply dealing with people who should not be in this 
country--and if they are in this country, they should not be walking 
free; and if they are in this country, they should never have been 
allowed to get guns under the laws, if they exist, if this 
administration were properly training our agents and enforcing the 
laws--then we wouldn't have to go after the guns, and these people 
would be alive today.
  I understand their concerns. The anger is normally with the 
instrument used. I was reading, again, earlier about the 100 days in 
Rwanda, when between 500,000 to a million--many estimates say around 
800,000 Rwandans--were killed mainly with machetes and clubs. Most of 
these people didn't have guns, but they were intent on terrorizing the 
nation--at least the Tutsi people--and terrorize them they did. They 
killed them. They terrorized them. There was widespread rape. It was 
just a disaster of biblical proportions. Just horrendous.
  But when someone is intent on terrorizing to that extent, they use 
whatever weapons are available, whether it is a machete, a club, a gun, 
a pressure cooker, or whatever they have available, or fertilizer, as 
is so often used for making bombs.
  So our FBI, they are not able to use these words. The term 
``religious'' has been used three times in the counterterrorism 
lexicon, ``religious.'' And, of course, it is important to the current 
administration to use the term ``religious'' from time to time because, 
as our Department of Homeland Security has already told us and as the 
Secretary of Homeland Security reaffirmed this week, we know that 
rightwing extremists are every bit as much a threat to the United 
States as

[[Page 9321]]

Islamic radicals. Something I am not hearing a lot about, but I sure 
hear it when I get fussed at by rightwing extremists.
  I know some people think that I am a rightwing extremist, but if you 
look back at the things the most liberal people in the country were 
saying in the early 1960s, boy, I am right there mainstream. We will 
see again in November, but apparently I am pretty mainstream with the 
people of east Texas.
  But they have the same beliefs that our Founders did. They want 
freedom, and they want liberty, and they want their constitutional 
rights, which includes the right to keep and bear arms so that, if 
somebody with a machete or somebody with a club or somebody with a gun 
who is intent on terrorizing, it won't only be the terrorists and the 
criminals who have the guns. They want to keep their guns.
  So what I am hearing from rightwing extremists that stay mad at me 
because I don't speak up enough to their way of thinking is that they 
are angry because we have an administration that won't identify the 
enemy. Clearly, most Americans understand radical Islamists are at war 
with America. Pointed out numerous times, but around the world, Muslim 
leaders have just been aghast and are asking me: What is wrong with 
your country? You are helping the wrong Muslims. You are helping the 
Muslim brothers who are at war with you. How about being a friend of 
those of us who are not at war with you?
  And they are right. This administration has brought too many people 
alongside who do not like this country.
  Let's look at the Orlando terrorist, the radical Islamist. He was 29 
years old, and he was born in America. I have been warning about this 
for years, but people come here on visas, have a child, and then people 
here mistakenly think that that means they have to be an American 
citizen, where it seems pretty clear to some of us if we change the 
legislation to say that we stand with all the rest--I don't know of any 
other place that does what we do, but we stand with at least most, if 
not all the rest, of the world, and changing our law to say: just 
because you are born in America does not mean you are an American 
citizen.
  I have even heard somebody on FOX News say: Well, there is no way 
around it. If you are born in America, it doesn't matter who you are or 
where you are from, you are an American citizen.
  That is simply not true. If you go back and look at the debate over 
the 14th Amendment, the proponent of the 14th Amendment made it very 
clear that there are some groups that will not be American citizens 
under the 14th Amendment. We still recognize today the fact that if you 
are a diplomat here from a foreign country, then you are not subject to 
all of the laws of the country, and your children born here in America 
are not citizens. So, hopefully, those who think it is automatic no 
matter where you are from, they will be educated and know that is 
simply not the case.
  So we also have the right to tell people: No, if you come here 
illegally, just because you sneak in to the United States illegally or 
pay a gang or a drug cartel to get you in illegally does not mean that 
you are going to start increasing legally the population of the United 
States.
  But under existing laws, Omar Mateen was a 29-year-old American-born 
citizen. According to The Denver Post, Mateen's family was from 
Afghanistan, but he was born in New York City. According to CBS News, 
Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen, has well-known anti-
American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban. 
That is what I have been warning about. People who hate America, who 
have sympathized with those who want to destroy America, have kids 
here, and we say that their kids are American citizens. We are creating 
time bombs within our own Nation.
  The older Mateen hosts a program on California-based satellite Afghan 
TV station called the Durand Jirga Show, and the primary audience being 
ethnic Pashtun Afghans living in the United States. According to CBS: 
``In his Facebook videos, the alleged gunman's father has often 
appeared wearing a military uniform and declaring himself the leader of 
a `transitional revolutionary government' of Afghanistan. He claims to 
have his own intelligence agency and close ties to the U.S. Congress--
assets he says he will use to subvert Pakistani influence and take 
control of Afghanistan.''
  The younger Mateen was previously married in 2009 to a woman who, 
according to FOX News, was born in Uzbekistan, but the couple divorced 
in 2011. According to Omar Mateen's ex-wife, he ``was not a stable 
person. He beat me''--which is okay under many Muslims' interpretation 
of sharia law. My wife doesn't agree with that, and, therefore, I do 
not either--``he would just come home and start beating me up because 
the laundry wasn't finished or something like that.''
  Mateen is currently married to Noor Salman and has a 3-year-old son.
  I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about my wife. Actually, my mother is 
deceased since 1991, but growing up with an older sister, it was made 
clear you don't touch a girl. No matter if she hits you, you don't hit 
her back. You come tell us. That is the way I have lived.
  But, you know, many around the world who believe sharia law is much 
superior to the U.S. Constitution think it is just fine to beat a 
woman. That is not legal in America, for those in doubt. Thank God.
  In addition to his views on women and African Americans, Mateen has 
also had a history of anger toward members of the LGBTQ community. 
According to Mateen's father, his son was very angry about a recent 
incident involving two men kissing in public. Per Mateen's father, as 
reported by The Washington Post: ``We were in downtown Miami, Bayside, 
people were playing music. And he saw two men kissing each other in 
front of his wife and kid and he got very angry,'' the father told NBC 
News. ``They were kissing each other and touching each other and he 
said, `Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.'''
  I do recognize, apparently, according to reports, Mateen had visited 
the gay bar before. Apparently he had also visited a Disney park, 
people believe in casing the place for potential attack. Whatever his 
reasons for going to the gay bar before, whether he had those 
tendencies and because of his Muslim radical Islamic teaching, he hated 
himself for it, whatever the reason, we know that what he is taught is 
that no matter how bad the sins are that he has committed, if he can go 
out of this life killed while he is killing Christians, Jews, non-
Muslims, Muslims who have converted to something else, if he can go 
out, be killed while he is killing people like that, it doesn't matter 
what sins he has committed in his life, under his radical Islamic 
beliefs, he goes to paradise. I believe with all my heart nobody in the 
universe was more shocked than Mateen after he went to the other side.
  It appears that Mateen first started walking down the path toward 
radicalization sometime after the end of his first marriage. Friends of 
the shooter describe how he became steadily more religious after his 
divorce and even went on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

                              {time}  1500

  As reported by multiple news outlets, Mateen has twice been 
investigated by the FBI. The first investigation involved comments he 
made which suggested he had an affinity for Islamic extremist groups. 
The second investigation involved connections to a Florida man who 
traveled to Syria and became a suicide bomber for.
  Per the Washington Post, ``Neither probe turned up evidence of 
wrongdoing. Mateen,'' according to them, ``had a blemish-free record.''
  That is ridiculous.
  As a result of these two FBI investigations, Mateen was at one time 
placed on a terrorist watch list maintained by the FBI. According to 
the LA Times, Mateen was removed from the list after the FBI's two 
investigations were concluded.
  But, again, we have to remember, the FBI is not allowed to talk to 
people

[[Page 9322]]

about jihad: What are your beliefs about Islamic jihad? Do you think it 
is a simple, peaceable conversion within your own heart and mind? Or do 
you believe jihad means it is okay to go out and kill people who 
disagree with radical Islam or your view of Islam?
  If you can't talk about someone's beliefs in Islam, you can't get to 
whether or not they have been radicalized.
  So we have some incredibly talented and intelligent FBI and 
intelligence agents that are completely ignorant of what they need to 
know because this administration has made clear to them you don't go 
there.
  If you have ever learned about jihad, Muslim, Islam, takfir, Muslim 
Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, caliphate, if you have ever 
been taught about those things and what to recognize in a radical 
Islamist, then you better keep your mouth shout about them or you will 
lose your career, as one of the original Homeland Security employees, 
dedicated patriot Philip Haney, learned when he was pointing out 
terrorists.
  So it makes it tough when you are in the FBI, in our intelligence, 
and you know the President will not call somebody a radical Islamist. 
And I know our President was belittling those of us who said it is 
important to recognize our enemy. The chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee had said earlier today those very words.
  Those are very important words. He said we have to define our enemy 
to defeat it. He said if this President won't define it, this body 
will. Our bill that we passed today didn't define it at all. It didn't 
mention the words ``radical Islam,'' ``jihad,'' ``Muslim Brotherhood,'' 
``Hamas,'' ``Hezbollah,'' ``al Qaeda,'' ``international caliphate,'' or 
those who were more devoted to sharia law than to our Constitution. So 
this is a little bit of a problem.
  This article from the Daily Mail has this as a summary: ``Seddique 
Mateen is the father of mass shooter Omar Mateen, 29. Mateen Senior is 
an Afghan who hosts the Durand Jirga Show. This show is aired on 
YouTube channel''--I am not even going to say.
  ``He visited Congress, the State Department and met with political 
leaders during a trip to Washington, DC, in April. He also attended a 
hearing on Afghanistan security while in the capital. Pictures from 
2015 show him meeting'' with some folks up here. ``Police seen 
searching him home, located close to where his son lived.''
  Obviously, his father's strong support or expressed support of the 
Taliban should have caused concerns. And I know the word 
``discrimination'' has been overused, to the point that people who saw 
in Mateen the potential radical Islamist mass shooter were cowed by 
political correctness, as was the company he worked for when they 
refused to deal with the complaints about his radical Islamic problems. 
Political correctness killed 49 people.
  Should we ban political correctness because it closed the eyes of the 
FBI agents to seeing they had a radical Islamist they were talking to 
during their two investigations? Should we indict political correctness 
or ban it from America because the FBI, when they investigated and 
talked to the older Tsarnaev brother before he killed and maimed in the 
Boston bombing--should we ban political correctness because the FBI 
didn't know what to ask?
  The FBI Director himself--at that time, Mueller. I had understood 
they had not gone to the mosque where Tsarnaev was attending after they 
got word he had been radicalized.
  I said: You didn't even go to the mosque where they attended?
  He said: We did go to the mosque--and I didn't hear it until it was 
replayed later--in our outreach program. That is right.
  In a previous hearing to that, he had explained: Look, the Muslim 
community is like every other religious community in America. There is 
no difference whatsoever. We have a wonderful outreach program with the 
Muslim community. It is going great. But it is just like every other 
community.
  He said it over and over.
  When it was my time to question, I said: Since it is just like every 
other community in America, Director Mueller, how is the outreach 
program of the FBI going with the Buddhists and the Jewish community 
and the Baptist community and the Hindu community? How are your 
outreach programs to those religious communities?
  He had to back up and try to figure out something to say. And 
basically, it was: We have a combined outreach to all those other 
groups. We don't have a specific outreach to all of those others--the 
Baptists, Christians, or Jews.
  They don't have an outreach program like that because, to the FBI way 
of thinking, we have outreach to all religious groups in America as a 
whole, and because of our concern about American safety, apparently--
why else would they have it?--we have a specific outreach to the Muslim 
community.
  Well, isn't that strange? If you only have an FBI and a government 
outreach program to one religious group in America, then it is a little 
bit hard to honestly say that there is no difference whatsoever in 
these religious communities, because if that had been truthful 
statements made to our committee here on the Hill, there would not be a 
Muslim outreach program.
  I was, I have to say, very gratified that, after having evidence in 
the FBI's possession for about at least 18 years, some of which was 
used in the Holy Land Foundation trial in which a verdict was obtained 
in November 2008, they had evidence to show that the Council on 
American-Islamic Relations was a coconspirator in supporting terrorism.
  So finally, in 2009, after years of their outreach program with CAIR 
as a community partner, they finally had to send a letter to the 
Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and say: Well, because 
of some of the stuff that came out at the Holy Land Foundation trial, 
we are going to need to suspend our partnership.
  How many partnerships does the FBI have with the Jewish community or 
with the Hindu community or with the very peace-loving Sikh community? 
How many? We can't find any. And I look forward to hearing from the 
administration if they have such wonderful outreach programs that they 
have started since the Director of the FBI testified before us.
  We continue to blind ourselves, as our intelligence officer told me, 
to our ability to see our enemy, and people in America are going to 
continue to die.
  Though I care deeply about some of our Democratic friends--they are 
wonderful people--they think the solution is stopping Americans from 
getting certain guns.
  Can't you just agree, I had a reporter say yesterday, to ban assault 
weapons? I have been engaged in the legal profession long enough in 
different capacities to know that, once you ban an assault weapon, you 
can ban every gun that exists.
  It reminded me of when I was thinking about going to law school, 
although my late mother and a doctor in Mount Pleasant kept telling me: 
Louie, you are smart. You can really help people. You would be a great 
doctor. Don't throw your life away and go to law school. You could 
really help people. You would be a great doctor.
  And my mother hoped I would. And if not that, at least I would be a 
college professor.
  My dad used to send me clippings--Dad is still alive and 90 years old 
this year--when I was expressing interest in going to law school. There 
was never a shortage of newspaper clippings about how rotten lawyers 
were. Headlines would be things like: There Are Too Many Lawyers in 
America; Lawyers Are Destroying America; quoting Shakespeare, First, We 
Kill All the Lawyers--all these types of articles. Normally, he would 
put a little note on it: Son, are you really sure about this?
  Well, I love and respect my father. And I finally wrote a letter 
back: I have done a lot of soul-searching, Dad, and I have come to the 
realization that the law is a tool, like a hammer. The law can be used 
constructively to build up or it can be used very destructively to 
destroy. It is all about the hand holding the hammer.
  A so-called assault weapon in the hands of an American military 
member, in the hands of law enforcement,

[[Page 9323]]

or in the hands of someone whose home is being invaded by multiple 
burglars with guns is a good thing to have.
  If the principal at Sandy Hook had been running, as she so heroically 
did, at the gunman with any kind of gun in her hand--any kind of 
assault weapon, as some want to call some guns--there would have been 
people saved.
  So, once you say we are banning assault weapons, then you are on the 
road to banning all weapons. Every gun, every machete that has killed 
hundreds of thousands of Rwandans in 1994, I believe it was, in the 
wrong hands, is an assault weapon.
  Why can't we focus on the hands that are holding the weapons? Why 
can't we train our FBI and our intelligence community to recognize 
hands that are going to use a machete, a gun?
  I know people report it was an AR-15 that the Orlando shooter used. 
It was not. It is an awfully small caliber, but whatever.
  Let's train them to figure out which Americans are intent on 
committing treason, not by speculation, but by the things they have 
already said and done. And if we had not blinded them, San Bernardino 
could have been stopped, the Orlando shooting could have been stopped, 
the Boston Marathon bombing could have been stopped.
  I know Janet Napolitano took credit for the system working when the 
underwear bomber was stopped, but that was some heroic Americans. One 
intelligence person told me that, actually, the reason the bomb didn't 
go off is because his rear end had sweated too much and defused the 
fuse and it didn't go off.

                              {time}  1515

  Well, we can't always count on a terrorist's rear end sweating too 
much to save hundreds of American lives. We have to have an 
intelligence community and a law enforcement community that can 
recognize when enemies are within our gate, as this President continues 
to bring them.
  It should disturb a lot of Americans, as this article from Alan 
Neuhauser points out, that the ``Security Firm That Employed the 
Orlando Gunman Guards U.S. Nuclear Sites.''
  The article points out: ``The security firm that employed the Orlando 
gunman behind the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history says it's guarded 
`90 percent of the U.S. nuclear facilities'--raising concern that 
would-be terrorists could easily gain inside access to the most 
sensitive sites on American soil and release untold devastation.''
  And it goes on to make some good points, but I don't think we would 
worry about someone going into one of these nuclear facilities, getting 
nuclear material to make a nuclear weapon. That would probably not 
happen, but it is quite conceivable they could get nuclear material and 
create a dirty bomb, a bomb with nuclear material in it and around it 
so that it is dispersed, causing more death.
  This article from Stephen Dinan, from The Washington Times says: 
``American-born children of immigrants proving fruitful recruiting 
ground for jihad in U.S.''
  Thank God, most of the children of immigrants that have come into the 
United States have helped and have made this country what was at one 
time the freest nation in the history of the world. We are not listed 
as the freest nation anymore, not near the top.
  This article from The Daily Caller says: ``Co-worker: Orlando 
Terrorist's Employer Ignored Unhinged Comments for Fear of Being 
Politically Incorrect.
  ``Daniel Gilroy used to work at G4S Security and complained to the 
company numerous times about Mateen's derogatory comments regarding 
homosexuals and people of other races. He also talked about massacring 
people.
  ``Gilroy said, G4S Security did absolutely nothing in response to the 
complaints for fear of being politically incorrect, as 29-year-old 
Mateen was an open Muslim, Florida Today reports.''
  Political correctness has now gotten so far afield, it is killing 
people. Let's talk about banning political correctness that keeps our 
FBI and intelligence from being able to talk about radical Islam.
  According to Peter Hasson from The Daily Caller: ``DHS Secretary: 
Right-Wingers Pose Same Threat As Islamic Extremists.''
  I mentioned earlier, people that--right-wing extremists that are mad 
at me are mad because we are not doing enough to stop radical Islamists 
from destroying our country, terrorizing our country, terrorizing our 
freedoms, telling us we can't say what we believe because we have lost 
our freedom of speech. We can't practice our Christian beliefs as the 
Bible teaches, because it may offend someone.
  For heaven's sake, let's compare. These radical Islamists believe 
that the way to paradise and to complete forgiveness of Islamic sins, 
no matter how bad, is to be killing a bunch of non-Muslims. When your 
life is taken, you go straight to paradise.
  On the other hand, I know the President loves to castigate Christians 
and say, hey, you know, Christians had the Crusades. Anybody that was 
out there saying, I kill you in the name of Christ, is not killing 
people legitimately in the name of Christ, because Jesus said, 
``Greater love hath no one than this, that a man lay down his life for 
his friends.'' And, of course, he was talking about men and women.
  There is a pretty clear, distinct difference between what radical 
Islamists believe as well as what Christians who truly believe the 
teachings of Christ, what they believe.
  Yet, Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security has released before: You have 
to watch those Evangelical Christians because they believe what Jesus 
said, you know, that you want to share the Gospel with people so that 
they learn love and not hate.
  So these real Evangelical Christians, like my friend, Trent Franks 
from Arizona, wow, he is a hulking threat because he believes that the 
two greatest commandments in the world are love God and love each 
other, and on those two laws hang all the law and the prophets.
  The Daily Caller also has an article about--and this is a member who 
is above the countering violent extremism advisory group. He is now 
elevated to the advisory council where Muslim Brother sympathizer, 
Elibiary, from Plano, Texas--he was until they finally had to let him 
go after he tweeted about the caliphate, the international caliphate 
being inevitable. But this is who has replaced him. I am not sure how 
to pronounce it. It looks like Marayati, something like that. He ``is 
the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. He currently serves 
on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee's Foreign Fighter Task 
Force as well as HSAC Subcommittee on Faith Based Security and 
Communications . . . In 2001, Al-Marayati suggested that Israel--not 
Islamic extremists--was ultimately behind the September 11 terrorist 
attacks . . . In 2013, Judicial Watch noted that Al-Marayati told 
attendees at a 2005 conference for the Islamic Society of North 
America''--another named co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation 
supporting terrorism trial--``that `Counter-terrorism and counter-
violence should be defined by us'''--talking about the Muslims that 
think Israel was behind 9/11.
  He said: ```We should define how an effective counter-terrorism 
policy should be pursued in this country,'' America. ``So, number one, 
we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start 
spying on one another.'''
  Well, that is exactly what FBI Director Mueller said they were going 
to do. They had this wonderful outreach program so that Muslims will 
come and report other Muslims in advance, just like Mateen's wife did; 
since she knew that he was about to go kill a whole bunch of Americans, 
she came forward and reported--oh, wait. No, she didn't, did she? I 
guess the outreach program didn't work so well there.
  Well, maybe before the Boston bombing, maybe the outreach program 
worked there. Oh, that is right, they went to the mosque not about 
Tsarnaev being radicalized, as they had already been advised by the 
Russians, but just to have a meal and visit and talk. And, gee, the 
people at the mosque forgot to say: By the way, Tsarnaev is starting to 
demonstrate

[[Page 9324]]

what we have seen every time somebody has been radicalized. And, oh, by 
the way, Director Mueller, you obviously are not aware--as he was not 
when I asked him--but our mosque was started by Al Amoudi, who your FBI 
helped put in prison after they finally were tipped off by--from what I 
understand--British intelligence, that Al Amoudi, who helped pick 
Muslims to serve in the Clinton administration, in the military, and 
also to be chaplains in the prison where, by the way, we are now 
getting reports and have for some time, that inmates are being 
radicalized.
  Gee, imagine that. Al Amoudi doing 23 years for supporting terrorism, 
helped pick imams to serve in our prisons and in our government 
agencies, and in the military, and, gee, they are being radicalized. 
What a shock.
  Well, the article goes on: ``Investor's Business Daily took an 
editorial stand against the invite.''
  When the Obama administration invited Al-Marayati to a 3-day summit 
on fighting extremism in 2015, initially, the White House tried to 
conceal that from reporters, but it finally was made clear.
  So Investor's Business Daily said: ``Al-Marayati has a long record of 
defending terrorists and justifying violence against non-Muslims--an 
easy one for the White House to vet for extremism.
  ``According to White House visitor records, Al-Marayati has visited 
the White House 11 times since 2009 . . . Kyle Shideler, the director 
of the Center for Security Policy's Threat Information Office, told The 
Daily Caller that `Al-Maryati's association with the HSAC underlines 
what an unfortunate farce the entire, Combating Violent Extremism, 
program is. Al-Maryati's only notable counter-terrorism contribution is 
having suggested Israel be included as a suspect on 9/11.
  ```His very organization,'' the Muslim Public Affairs Council, or 
MPAC, ``has historically cosponsored events in support of the very 
kinds of extremists he's been appointed to help oppose, which is no 
surprise, given that the organization's roots lay with men who 
literally studied at the foot of Muslim Brotherhood leader, Hassan Al-
Banna' . . . `As long as the Obama administration is more concerned 
with keeping groups like Al-Marayati's happy with them instead of 
investigating actual terrorism, we will never have a sane counter-
terror policy.'
  ``The Daily Caller previously reported on Monday that a current 
sitting member on the HSAC Subcommittee on Countering Violent 
Extremism, Laila Alawa, is a 25-year-old immigrant of Syrian heritage 
who said the 9/11 attacks `changed the world for good' and has 
consistently disparaged America, free speech, and white people on 
social media.''
  And if you look at the things that that other adviser to Jeh Johnson 
tweeted, here is a tweet that Ms. Alawa sent out: ``I can't deal with 
people saying America is the best nation in the world. Be critical. Be 
conscious. Don't be idiots.''
  Yeah, people like my friend, and like the Speaker, you know, we think 
America is the best place in the world. But according to Jeh Johnson's 
adviser, we are idiots.
  She tweeted: ``The US has never been a utopia unless you were a 
straight White male that owned land. Straight up period go home shut 
up.''
  Wow. She also said: ``You can't say something intolerant and not 
expect consequences. Not on my watch.''
  She said all kinds of hateful things about America, about Whites, 
about those who love this country.
  Great article in The Daily Caller.
  Did the FBI training purge cause agency to drop the ball on Orlando 
shooter?
  Clearly, it did.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, every Republican I have heard speak 
on this issue, including those from Homeland Security, have 
acknowledged that the President and our intelligence need to start 
talking about jihad, Muslim, Islam, radical Muslim, radical Islam, 
Muslim Brotherhood. And they are not allowed to talk about it without 
risking their career, and that is why I voted ``no'' on the bill today.

                              {time}  1530

  These things have basically passed before. But all they talk about is 
countering violent extremism, countering violent extremism; five 
``countering violent extremism'' on page 3. But it basically tells the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to keep countering violent extremism. It 
never mentions the term ``radical Islam.''
  After the Orlando shooting, we have an obligation, when the 
administration won't call it what it is, to start calling what it is. I 
think the bill really didn't do what we needed done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________