[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10935-10938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my friend from 
California, Dana Rohrabacher, making the point that he did.
  There is nothing either sinister, wrong, criminal, improper when 
someone is engaged in an election or when someone is not engaged in an 
election, if offered information that may be helpful, whatever the 
source. Unless it is a known criminal that is going to advise someone 
about some potential crime, there is normally nothing wrong with 
seeking or even getting that information.
  I doubt there is anybody on this House floor, when offered 
information from a source about an opponent in a campaign, didn't at 
least take some action to see if there was anything legitimate to it.
  So it is just amazing, when we know that there is certainly probable 
cause to believe crimes have been committed during the Obama 
administration, yet we got nothing in the way of support in 
investigating the probable cause of real legitimate crimes; not those 
for which there is no known criminal statute that would be applicable 
or that may have been violated, but simply, you know, there may be 
times when it is bad taste.
  But the villainization of Donald Trump, Jr., for inquiring of someone 
that Loretta Lynch, as Attorney General for President Obama, 
specifically and personally stepped in to ensure could be in this 
country, it is just incredible how much is being made of Donald Trump, 
Jr., meeting with somebody that Attorney General Lynch pulled all kinds 
of strings to get her in and keep her in the country.
  And then when you see that picture of this same person sitting right 
behind the Obama Ambassador to Russia, Ambassador McFaul, and you know 
at these hearings, especially an appointed and confirmed official like 
an ambassador, they don't want somebody directly behind them who is not 
supportive and not capable of reaching up and handing them a note with 
information that may be helpful and them answering a question.
  We have had countless hearings, and I have seen it done countless 
times. You want somebody behind you that can help provide answers to 
questions that you may not can answer without their help.
  So there she is, this person that these same friends who pulled all 
kinds of strings to get her in this country. They are all upset that 
she ever talked to Donald Trump, Jr., and he has--I admire the fact 
that he immediately saw that this was a worthless meeting and walked 
away from it. So pretty amazing. It was good judgment to walk away from 
it, once he found out what she was about.
  I wish that President Obama, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton had 
as good a judgment in their meetings with people instead of telling our 
enemy--and I do consider the man with whom President Obama was meeting 
an enemy. He was not a friend of the United States.
  And what does President Obama do when he doesn't think the microphone 
can pick him up?
  He says: Tell Vladimir Putin--President Obama's close buddy--tell 
Vladimir, my buddy, that I have a lot more flexibility once I am past 
this election.
  ``Okay. Yeah. I will pass that on. Dah, dah, I will pass that on.''
  Clear intent; there is no mistaking. The intent is: I will be able to 
give away more of America's defenses the way I canceled our missile 
defense system in Poland once I am reelected because then I don't care. 
I won't be running. I can't be defeated in another election. So I will 
be able to give away a lot more of America's defenses.
  And what did our friends--who are now so upset about Donald Trump 
meeting with a Russian lawyer, finding out she was not worth meeting 
with and leaving--do back then?
  Nothing. They defended President Trump's actions either vocally or by 
their silence while we were raising questions.
  I can't end this week without expressing my grave disappointment with

[[Page 10936]]

Congress over a specific detail of the National Defense Authorization 
Act. There are a number of things in there that bother me that I think 
are big mistakes and that I don't think we should be doing. I think we 
are wasting money, but compromises have to be made. We are making a 
form of sausage called ``laws,'' so we have got to compromise on some 
things.
  But there are some things that are so important that there cannot be 
a compromise. It is too important. It will result in lives being saved 
or lives being lost, depending on what we do here in Congress.
  So our friend, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, realized before I did 
that the law, as would be in the National Defense Authorization Act, 
with all the compromises that had to be made under the great 
leadership--and I am not being sarcastic--of Congressman Mac 
Thornberry--did a masterful job handling all the problems that arose--
but the law of the NDAA was and will be, under this new law, such that 
President Obama and his administration would say, the way it is worded, 
the way it is, authorizes us to decide that an appropriate use of this 
very limited more and more precious money for our military to defend us 
can and should be used whenever someone requests a sex change 
operation.
  The reports are that, with the hormonal treatment, it can be around 
$130,000 or so per person. Military commanders advise that they have 
been told: If you have a military member under your command that asks 
for a sex change operation and you say something like ``have you really 
thought this through?'' or they say something like ``why don't you talk 
to a counselor?'' or ``let's talk about this'' or ``you give it some 
more thought,'' those are career-ending statements that that commander 
would have made; that if someone requests a sex change operation, you 
don't ask questions, you don't refer them to counseling, you don't 
suggest that they give it more thought. You just sign them up.
  Now, the problem there, too, is that apparently they are advised that 
they have about 2 years minimum that this servicemember will be out of 
commission, cannot be deployed, you can't be sending them anywhere 
because you have months of hormonal treatment leading up to the sex 
change surgery. And then even if there are no complications, the 
followup and the rehab is quite significant. So you better count on at 
least a couple of years minimum where that servicemember, that military 
member cannot be sent anywhere, cannot be ordered deployed. They are 
useless in defense of our country as far as filling the immediate needs 
of the military, and that is astounding.
  Now, potentially, some might submit that we have come to find out 
about maybe the greatest political lobbying by any group of our medical 
practitioners. And those who compile the diagnostic statistic manual, 
referred to as DSM--we have had I, II, III, IV, V--each time, they have 
been subjected to political lobbying because they didn't want people 
who were thinking about a sex change operation--and even though their 
chromosomes would not change--still indicating they are male or female, 
they wanted to have surgery to change. That was considered to be a very 
serious illness, psychiatric illness.
  But with a lot of lobbying, it eventually got downgraded, and the 
most recent downgrading in the DSM is to something called a 
``dysphoria.'' It went from ``disorder'' to ``dysphoria.''
  But dysphoria, if you look it up, it still is--well, one psychiatrist 
just said it means confusion, basically. If you have got transgender 
dysphoria, you are confused. It is the opposite of euphoria. You are 
not well, you are not happy, you have got behavioral problems because 
you are not happy with your gender.
  Well, for most of our country's history, we understood that, in our 
military, it is not to be a societal experiment. We want people who can 
fight, hopefully not to their death, but to the enemy's death to stop 
those who would kill us or take our freedom.
  And it is heartbreaking that--when the amendment came to the floor 
last night for a vote to prevent any of that precious money that is 
going to save the lives of our military members, the amendment lost by 
five votes, 214-209. In other words, if three people had changed their 
vote, that amendment passes, and no money could be used out of that 
precious money they need for bulletproof vests, they need for up-
armored vehicles to save their lives when an IED hits them, all of 
these things that are so important to our military.

                              {time}  1345

  We are told to account for $3.5 to $3.9 billion over 10 years they 
are projecting to be spent, but that, of course, means that is before 
word gets out that if you want a sex change operation, if you can get 
through basic training--I am not sure about that, you may not have to 
get through basic--but if you can join the military and demand a sex 
change operation, then you are not deployable. They can't send you to 
combat for at least 2 years.
  We will pay you as a military member. We will provide you, free, the 
hormonal treatments. We will take that money that could save another 
member's life and we will spend that on this expensive surgery to 
change your organs, maybe cut them off or add some, and then we will 
spend more of that money that could save other military members' lives 
and spend it on your follow-up and your rehab, all while you can't help 
them because you are going through this transition.
  This is a difficult time, and it breaks my heart. And it is not a 
civilization-ending thing that happened last night, but when the book 
one day is written about the rise and fall of what so far has been the 
most free and greatest nation in the history of mankind, this would be 
something listed as a symptom of why this country lost the next great 
war, because they were more concerned about playing societal 
experiments than they were with defending their lives and their 
freedom.
  I see my friend, as good a friend as I have here in Washington. I 
yield to my friend, Steve King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding. And I have no better friend in this city either--or this 
country, for that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just called to come to this floor to add a few 
words to the topic that the gentleman from Texas has courageously 
brought forward and so few others would want to even speak to: the 
societal experiment that is going on in our military, the greatest 
military in the history of the world.
  When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) talks about how history 
will be written one day, this isn't a civilization killer, but it is an 
indication of a civilization killer. I think of the circumstances in a 
little bit older history, back in the 16th century and the 17th century 
when the Ottoman Empire and the Muslim armies were sweeping across the 
countryside, and whoever they captured, they pressed into slavery.
  And when they pressed them into slavery, they wanted to have their 
crack troops--they were called Janissaries, and there were other troops 
too, as well. But what they did in order to keep them from reproducing 
was that they did reassignment surgery on those slaves that they 
captured, that they had put into their Janissary troops, and that 
reassignment surgery was they took them from being a virile, 
reproductive male into being a eunuch.
  Now, they were suitable to work in the harem, but they found out when 
they put them out in the field to do battle against the enemy that they 
didn't have the testosterone to take on the fight. And so over a period 
of time, a generation or two, they finally realized: I guess we are 
going to have to stop turning these men into eunuchs if we are going to 
have them as a fighting machine. That is the Janissaries.
  And the old history through that is replete with narrative after 
narrative of them taking out the knife and actually cutting the flesh 
off of these anatomically complete men. Some would die from that and 
some would live, but none of them had the will to fight. And so they 
decided that they were going to keep anatomically complete men, men 
that were producing testosterone, in

[[Page 10937]]

their crack Janissary troops, where they fought well.
  That is a lesson of the military, the Ottoman military from 200, 300, 
400 years ago. And today we are here thinking somehow we are going to 
make the military better by letting people line up at the recruitment 
center who have planned that they want to do sexual reassignment 
surgery, know that it is expensive, and believe: I can just get into 
any branch of the United States services--the Army, the Navy, the Air 
Force, the Marines, maybe become a Navy SEAL--and then submit to sexual 
reassignment surgery and go from a man to a woman.
  By the way, it doesn't look like there are going to be any women 
becoming men after they go through SEAL training. I don't think that is 
going to happen, at least currently.
  But there is no way that this enhances the capabilities of our 
military. There is no way it enhances the morale of our military, and 
you will never see a platoon that is made up by all of the folks that 
are likely to line up to sign up into our military.
  This policy clearly enacted, clearly advertised, is a neon sign for 
people who want to have sexual reassignment surgery. They will line up 
at their recruiter's office and they will go into the military, and the 
military will be saying: You know, we had to turn this person away 
because they were too heavy, and this one had flat feet, and this one 
had a bad eye, and this one had a congenital defect of one kind or 
another, but if they don't have those and they want sexual reassignment 
surgery, we will cut them up and remake them into something different, 
to the tune of $3.5 or $3.9 billion over a 10-year period of time, and 
put them off in the recovery room for 2 years before we can put them to 
work and use them.
  And, by the way, they are likely then to be discharged to come back 
into society if their only purpose was to get the free surgery.
  And can you imagine someone who has now gone into Walter Reed 
Hospital, taken up a bed in Walter Reed Hospital, maybe a roommate with 
someone who was hit by an IED, someone who lost a couple of legs, 
amputated in the dangerous, dangerous service of the freedoms of our 
country, can you imagine those two beds, side by side, and one of them 
missing a couple of legs, or an arm, or an arm and a leg, or two arms, 
and the other one saying, ``Well, I just came in for sexual 
reassignment surgery''?
  I won't say the next thing that is in my mind. I think the public 
understands the image of what this is.
  This is one of the most appallingly stupid things I have ever seen 
the United States Congress do, and it has got some competition, but I 
don't even know what is second, it is so bad. And the long-term 
thinking of this, the implications of this are awful, Mr. Speaker. We 
need to reverse this somehow.
  I would add, also, that Bob Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, 
testified before the United States Congress that we had an obesity 
problem with our young people in America that is a national security 
risk, it is a national security concern, and we ought to be adopting 
Michelle Obama's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that cut the calories 
down on these kids, because we didn't have enough of them that were 
available to meet the physical standards to get into the military, and 
it was a national security risk. Those were his exact words, ``a 
national security risk.''
  Well, if we can put the kids on a diet in school because it is a 
national security risk for getting people to meet the weight standards 
of our military, isn't this a national security risk when you have all 
of these resources that are redirected from F-35s and pension plans and 
a raise for our military and housing on our bases, and the list goes on 
and on, redirect those resources to sexual reassignment surgery and 
then have them mustered out of the service as soon as they get what 
they went into the service for in the first place? This is idiocy on 
the part of the United States Congress.
  I salute the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for 
introducing this amendment. I had a similar amendment that was turned 
down in the Rules Committee. But this is something this Congress made a 
significant error on. Twenty-four Republicans and every single Democrat 
voted against this.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing up the topic, and I 
would be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments.
  In fact, some people sometimes think that we exaggerate, but my very 
good friend from Iowa and I have stood there on the mountaintop outside 
of Vienna where Western civilization stood there in the gap, and it was 
all at risk. The odds were that Western civilization was going to end 
with the fall of Vienna. If the radical Islamic group that had taken so 
much of the territory already, if Vienna fell, then the rest of Europe 
would fall. There would be no stopping this radical Islamic movement 
through Europe, and there is a good chance we are not even here in this 
fashion today.
  I thought about that and my friend and I standing up there getting a 
briefing from an individual that knew the history so well, that this is 
where one group was, this is where the siege was, that is where the 
Polish group brought cannons, and no one in the Islamic group thought 
it was possible to get cannons up there.
  I thought about that and reflected on that as President Trump was 
speaking in Warsaw, Poland, and it was clear how desirous the Polish 
people have always been for freedom: Yes, you can practice what 
religion you want to, but don't come try to take over our country and 
tell us we can't pursue Christianity.
  I did not realize until President Trump gave that speech that there 
in Warsaw, when Pope John Paul II, came, that they were screaming ``We 
want God'' as a group--amazing.
  So as I recall, though, it was a Polish prince or king that came 
down, King Jan Sobieski who came to the aid of the Viennese people. 
They were under siege. They were going to be defeated. It meant the 
fall of Western civilization; perhaps we headed into a new Dark Ages. 
And this Polish king comes down, determined, gets cannon up on this 
mountaintop that no one who was in the 2 years of seeking a sex change 
operation and sex reassignment, as they call it, could possibly help do 
during that 2-year period. They got cannons up the mountain in position 
to help stop the obliteration there of the Western-civilized Vienna, to 
stop the fall of that radical Islamic empire from taking over and 
destroying Western civilization, making slaves of all of those whom 
they overtook.
  And some, of course, in their party believed that if an individual 
refused to become a Muslim, they should be killed. Others believed in 
the more humane treatment that, no, you make them slaves, and as long 
as they keep paying their tax, which is really an admittance that there 
is no God greater than the Islamic God, as long as they are willing to 
subjugate themselves and worship at the altar by paying that fee to 
show that they were subservient to the Islamic God, then they could be 
allowed to live.
  Those were two problems back in that day: Do we let the people live 
if they won't become Muslim, or do we just go ahead and kill them? And 
many humane thinkers thought: Well, no. As long as they will submit to 
our god, pay the tax to show they are submitting to our god; and 
Christianity's God, they have got to forget talking about that or they 
do need to be killed. Just pay the tax and they can go about still 
living.
  If Vienna doesn't stand, if it falls, as was anticipated, we are 
done.
  And I can assure my friends here in the House that there was no one 
who was out there defeating the radical Islamic desire to wipe out 
Western civilization who had undergone a sex change operation in the 
prior 2 years.
  This is a risky time in our history. As others have pointed out, no 
matter what societal experimentations people want to undertake, what 
type of lifestyles people want to undertake, the military is intended 
to protect our freedom so that we can pursue these things.

[[Page 10938]]

  And I know President Obama was fond of saying: Gee, Guantanamo is a 
greater recruiting tool. But as I have talked to Muslim friends--yes, I 
do have them around the world. As I have talked to Muslim friends in 
other parts of the world, whether Afghanistan, Egypt, other parts of 
the Middle East, North Africa, they say: You have got to understand, 
some of the things you do in the United States make for incredible 
recruiting posters for radicals in our Muslim faith.
  When it is advertised that the United States Congress is in favor of 
taking men and surgically making them into women with the money that 
they would use to protect the Nation otherwise, or taking women and 
doing surgery to make them men, the United States Congress would rather 
spend that money on that surgery than defeating radical Islam, then it 
is an advertising, just a bonanza for the radical Islamists.
  My Muslim friends tell me, they then agree, the recruits: You are 
right. If that is how stupid they are, their society has no right to 
remain on the Earth. We need to take them out. They are too stupid.
  A disappointing night last night and a disappointing week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________