(House of Representatives - April 26, 2013)

Text of this article available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H2380-H2385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  It is indeed an honor for me to yield to a friend, a man that I am 
delighted was elected to join us last year, my friend, Mr. Yoho from 
Florida, for such time as he may consume.

                          The Second Amendment

  Mr. YOHO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard many gun control supporters say that the 
Second Amendment is outdated. They point out the phrase ``a well-
regulated militia'' as their proof that armed and alert citizens belong 
in the 18th century and not the 21st century. We saw last week in 
Boston that they couldn't be more wrong.
  When the Constitution and the Second Amendment were written, the 
story of the Boston struggles during the Revolutionary War was still 
fresh in America's memory. British troops looked at every American as a 
threat and treated them like virtual prisoners in the communities that 
they built. That's why our Founders made sure that it would be law, and 
a birthright for every law-abiding American, that everyone would have 
the freedom to protect themselves.
  These days, many of America's enemies don't wear the uniforms of a 
nation. They try to avoid confrontation with our military and our 
police force; and they lurk in our streets, they hide out in our 
universities, and they wait for our defenses to go down. They don't 
save their hatred for our heroes in uniforms. They unleash it on anyone 
who is free.
  The line between crime and terror is a thin one. Any victim of a 
violent crime has experienced terrorism in its most intimate and 
intense form. When we talk about guns and we look at the true meaning 
of the Second Amendment, it's clear that the passage of a couple of 
centuries hasn't changed its intent much.
  The Second Amendment is a uniquely American value, as relevant today 
as when it was written. No other nation before ours has trusted the 
people to arm and protect themselves. When tragedies happened in 
Tucson, in Aurora, and in Newtown, guns were to blame. When the tragedy 
happened in Boston last week, we rightly blamed the person and not the 

                              {time}  1320

  Allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their freedom of self-
defense can help keep us safe, and I will fight to protect this 
precious constitutional right.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Florida.
  At this time, I'm proud to yield to a friend from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy). I'm proud Wisconsin and Texas are in the same country because 
Wisconsin has certainly produced some great Americans.

[[Page H2381]]

                        Protecting Our Children

  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding.
  Over the past 5 months, our Nation has seen unspeakable horrors 
bestowed upon the children of our country, from the massacre in 
Newtown--the 23 innocent, young first graders who lost their lives--to 
just recently in the Boston bombing, where many lost their lives, but 
specifically, a third grader, Richard Martin, lost his life.
  Richard, a couple weeks before, had just made his First Communion. 
There is a picture of Richard in a sharp white suit with a proud, 
toothless smile. He lost his life in Boston. His little sister, Jane, 
who was by him was also hit by the bomb. She lost her leg. She was just 
starting to take Irish step dancing classes. She will now be in 
recovery for months and years from that bombing.
  We have to look at what's happening in our country with regard to 
violence against children. As a country, we have to soul-search about 
violence against our children, and we have been soul-searching. Our 
families, our communities, we've been soul-searching in this 
institution about that very violence. We've had a conversation about: 
How do we protect our children? How do we keep them from this violence 
and scourge that is spreading across our country? But we soul-search.
  Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, dozens--if not hundreds--of babies have 
had their lives taken from them, where they've been murdered, left to 
lay in cardboard boxes, left in toilets trying to swim for air, only to 
have the backs of their necks snipped, basically decapitated. That kind 
of horror is being bestowed on children in America, and yet where is 
the media? Where are the protests? Where are the congressional 
  Listen, where are the parents on Air Force One flying to the White 
House having a meeting with the President? Where are the high-powered 
meetings with the Senators across the aisle? They're not happening.
  I don't have the picture for you today, but many have seen it, a 
picture of the courtroom where the Kermit Gosnell trial is going on. 
There's a section reserved for the media--the media that loves great 
stories, loves fanfare. There's a section reserved for the media at 
this trial and there's nobody there. There's been a blackout. The media 
has refused to cover this story.
  How about a poor, immigrant mother who can't speak English, who looks 
to her local community organization in Philadelphia, who gets a 
recommendation for an abortion to go to the nice-sounding Women's 
Medical Society clinic, a clinic that is well known for its filth and 
well known for its health violations. Poor minority immigrant goes to 
this clinic for an abortion, and she loses her life.
  So I think we have to ask: Where is NARAL? Where is NOW? Where is 
Mrs. Barbara Boxer, standing up for poor minority women who are losing 
their lives in Philadelphia at the hands of an abortion provider? Where 
are they? The silence is deafening. Can't hear them.
  There's no voice given to that poor minority immigrant. There is no 
voice given to these little babies who are so vulnerable at the start 
of their lives and they're voiceless. But no one--even those who say 
they stand up for women and babies, they're unwilling to stand up at 
this time.
  However, if you are a white, privileged law student from this town, 
the doors swing wide open and the media wants to cover your story. They 
want to cover your point of view. But when we're talking about an 
abortion clinic that provides late-term, partial-birth abortions where 
babies are born alive, there is no outrage; there is no story.
  Where is the NAACP for these minority babies? Where is La Raza? Where 
is the Black Congressional Caucus? Where is Maxine Waters? Where is the 
leader of the Democrat Party? Where are they, lending their voice to 
these atrocities, this murder?
  You know, I'm a father of six. I've been there for the birth of all 
my babies. I know we have a lot of parents in this institution and 
across the aisle. Listen, newborn babies coming out, they are 
voiceless; they're defenseless; they rely on us for everything.
  Here's a picture of my sixth baby, MariaVictoria, Mighty V, just 
born. The pictures of the babies that died in Philadelphia are bigger 
than this; they're more developed than this. And yet no one wants to 
stand up and shed light on these atrocities and these unspeakable 
horrors, the dehumanization, the desensitization of what happened in 
  I think we have to ask ourselves why. Why aren't my good friends on 
the other side of the aisle, who have families, who have had children, 
who care about minorities and the poor and care about children--I know 
it because I hear them--where are they? Why won't they join us to 
expose this? Is it that they care more about the abortion clinics than 
poor defenseless babies that are born alive and aren't provided care, 
aren't provided love, but are abandoned and left to die? I can't 
believe that's true. Is it that they agree more with partial-birth 
abortions that are botched and babies are born alive and they're not 
willing to provide aid? I cannot believe that; not offering lifesaving 
treatment for the most vulnerable among us.
  I think we have to look around in our communities, in our country, we 
have to look at this very institution, and we have to be better than 
this. We are better than this.
  We might disagree on abortion. I'm a pro-life guy. I know we have a 
lot of people who are pro-abortion in this institution. I can accept 
those distinctions. But how can anybody come forward who even supports 
abortion and say, I'm not going to defend a baby that's born alive? 
What kind of position is that? Or that you won't lend your voice to 
this cause? You can come out and say, I support abortion, but I don't 
support this.
  This is wrong. We're better, as Americans, than that. We're better 
Congressmen and -women than that. We have bigger hearts than that. This 
is unacceptable in our country.
  We're going to have the abortion debate for a while, and that's okay, 
but we have to draw the line somewhere. When do we step forward and say 
we are going to defend the most defenseless and the most voiceless 
among us? When does that start?
  I think in this institution most of us have agreed that that starts 
at birth--at least. I think it starts at conception, but everyone has 
agreed it starts at birth. So why, when we have this atrocity, this 
death of our children in Philadelphia with Dr. Gosnell, haven't people 
loaned their voices to these children? They deserve better than that.
  So I think it's incumbent upon this institution, our communities, our 
country, and the media to make sure that we provide a voice, we provide 
a platform for those babies because we care more about those lives than 
we care about the abortion industry, and we care more about those 
babies than we care about exposing the horrors and atrocities of 
partial-birth abortion. We're better than that.
  I'm going to tell you this: though we may disagree on some issues, we 
do agree on protecting these little ones as they come into the world. 
I'm going to continue that fight.
  I know the gentleman from Texas is passionate on this topic and has a 
lot of things to talk about today, but I appreciate him yielding a few 
minutes for me to chat.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Wisconsin so much in giving 
voice to those who have no voice. We hear so often on this floor from 
people who mean what they say as they say: We have an obligation to 
help the most vulnerable amongst us, to help those who cannot help 
themselves. And having held my first-born child in both hands--I could 
have held her in one, but I didn't want to take a chance--I held a 
child that was smaller than some of these in this tale of horror of 
abortions, to think that someone could take scissors and cut the back 
of the neck and cut the spine and literally kill a child, it's 
virtually too much to take in.
  I hope others will see the wisdom of what Sean Duffy was talking 
about. But it does seem people have been desensitized to so many things 
they need to be re-sensitized to. Every country, no matter what its 
strength, how strong, including this country that has become the 
strongest country in the history of the world, which is already the 
most free country in the history of the world, more freedom, more 
opportunity than anyplace, including the great Israel under Solomon as 

[[Page H2382]]

we are told that there's never been a king wiser than Solomon--but the 
way this country was founded, the way it was molded, the way we gave 
credit to the Creator, to divine providence, to the Lord, as referenced 
in the date of our Constitution itself--and it's dated in the year of 
our Lord 1787--they knew, and they pointed out repeatedly, that our 
rights, our liberties, will not last beyond this country's recognition 
that all rights, all freedoms, all gifts, all liberties come from a 
source. George Washington referred to the Divine Author of our blessed 
religion in one of his writings. It is actually the prayer that he 
included in his resignation as commanding general of the Revolutionary 
  And I know that in this Nation we accept everyone, all religions, all 
people, no matter what their religious convictions are, including no 
religious convictions whatsoever. But it is critically important that 
we know where we come from in order to have any idea where we're going. 
And it is the nature of man, it is the nature of humanity, that as a 
Nation reaches a peak--some in my history classes in college would 
refer to the cycle that countries go through, some referencing back to 
the ancient Greece government--that there was a cycle of its rise and 
fall. I felt like it was more of a bell-shaped curve that once you 
reach the peak, then people take their freedoms, take their 
opportunities for granted, they stop believing that there's a threat to 
those. And as they get less and less sensitive to the fact that all 
glory, all liberty, is fleeting, then they would lose them. Whether 
it's the cycle of rise and fall or a bell-shaped curve, it depends on 
  Tom Brokaw had described the Greatest Generation as those who 
recognized the danger of fascism and the oppression that existed in the 
1940s and rose up and fought against it. Unfortunately, the guy that 
knows our history so well, that could write a great book on the 
Greatest Generation, could turn around and a few short years later be 
completely desensitized and show himself to be part of anything but a 
great generation because he could not even recognize a threat to this 
civilization's existence.
  So, hopefully, people, situated as is he, will begin to recognize 
there are people that want to destroy our freedoms, they want to take 
what has been made into the greatest country, that's been blessed more 
than any country in history, and they want to act like there's no such 
thing as a threat to our security, to our freedom, to our own lives, to 
our lives and fortunes. Whether there's a threat to our sacred honor 
has been completely up to us. As the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence pledged, Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.
  So the question arises: Is there any honor in trying to buy off your 
enemies, make them love you with cash, make them love you with tanks, 
make them love you by sending them F-16s, make them love you by sending 
tear gas to use against those they don't like? Is there any honor in 
that? We have Muslim Brotherhood, a group in Egypt, the Freedom and 
Justice Party in Egypt. They helped overthrow Mubarak as this 
administration here in America turned our back on an ally. And we got 
Muslim Brotherhood.
  I continue to have people approach me, say they're from Egypt, and 
they get so frustrated; they cannot believe we're supporting the wrong 
people in Egypt, just as those I've met with in Afghanistan have begged 
us to stop trying to buy a friend in the Taliban, especially those in 
the Northern Alliance who lost family and friends trying to fight the 
Taliban--and successfully defeating them on our behalf by early 2002. 
Then we took back the weapons that we provided and said, we got it from 

                              {time}  1340

  Now, 11 years later, we are turning our backs on our allies--the 
moderate Muslims who fought the Taliban for us--and are now trying to 
buy off the Taliban, who still want to destroy us. They still want to 
end our freedom, make us suffer because they consider us so decadent. 
From what I'm told in Afghanistan--and it has been reported widely in 
the news--this administration has offered to buy them first-class 
offices in Qatar so that they'll have a world presence and have instant 
respectability around the world. This administration has offered to 
release some of their murdering thugs who have spilled the blood of 
American patriots in the most cowardly and conniving ways. So they have 
no respect for us.
  I wondered if, perhaps, President Obama were going to be right. 
Perhaps he will be right. Maybe it will help America with countries 
that have shown hatred for this country. President Obama said it was 
going to basically be a game-changer that Muslim countries would have 
far more respect for us since we had a President, as President Obama 
said, who grew up in a Muslim country, with admiration for the 
practices and teachings of Muslims, a President who loved the call for 
prayer, who loved hearing that.
  It has been over 4 years now, and we've seen the polling that, in 
Muslim countries around the world, this United States' favorability 
rating has fallen far below what it was under George Bush, who did not 
grow up in a Muslim country. So we found that that didn't work despite 
4 years under this administration of trying to pander to those who want 
to destroy our way of life, who want to force a caliphate over America 
as they now are trying to do in Egypt, in Libya, and are trying to do 
in other Middle Eastern countries.
  But our Constitution is what those of us who serve here took an oath 
to support and defend. That's where we are supposed to stand--in full 
defense of our Constitution, not the United Nations Charter, not sharia 
law. We took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States.
  It has been determined in this country by the courts that people have 
a First Amendment right to burn, destroy a United States flag--the same 
flag that has draped countless coffins--bodies--of Americans who, as 
Lincoln said, gave their last full measure of devotion for our freedom. 
People have a First Amendment right to destroy that flag--that symbol 
of freedom and liberty. They've said there is a First Amendment right 
to destroy Bibles regardless of how holy those books are held to be by 
so many in America.
  A story is written and told of Thomas Jefferson's taking one of his 
many trips down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, on a Sunday 
morning with a big Bible under his arm.
  Someone said, ``Mr. President, where are you going?''
  He said, ``Well, I'm going to church up in the Capitol.
  Well, Mr. President, you don't believe everything they do there.''
  He said, ``Sir, I am the highest elected magistrate in this country. 
It is imperative that I set the proper example.''
  Jefferson felt he was setting the proper example by going to a 
nondenominational Christian church here in the Capitol, which was held 
down the Hall in what was then the House of Representatives Chamber, 
now called Statuary Hall.
  I have a bill that would require a plaque be put up to inform people 
of the amazing history. Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase 
``separation of church and State,'' said there needs to be a wall of 
separation between church and State. He saw it as more of a one-sided 
wall where the State would not interfere in religion. Certainly, for 
this country to be at its greatest, people would bring their religious 
convictions to the State and make it stronger and better. That man who 
coined the phrase ``separation of church and State,'' not found in the 
Constitution, even felt it was appropriate to often have the Marine 
Band come and play hymns down the Hall for those who were at the 
Christian worship service.
  I'm not advocating we go back to that--there is no need--as we have 
churches all over this place now, but it is not appropriate to act as 
if those parts of our history are not true. They are true, they are 
part of our history; and it was the church that was so strong in the 
abolitionist movement to try to bring about equal treatment. It was the 
church--not all churches, because there was prejudice and bias and 
bigotry in some churches, but those who truly understood the teachings 
of Christ stood so firmly and strongly against slavery.
  Then 100 years later, an ordained Christian minister named Martin 
Luther King, Jr., fought for civil rights; but he did so as a complete 

[[Page H2383]]

not advocating violence, and his efforts succeeded. He freed up young, 
little White boys, like me, who were Christians to treat brothers and 
sisters of any race, any color, any creed as brothers and sisters. It's 
all part of our history--the good parts, the bad parts. We shouldn't 
try to rewrite history. You've got to know where you came from.
  In the wake of the horrors of Boston, people were there, excited to 
see the finish of the race, of the world-famous Boston Marathon. So 
many friends of mine have dreamed of qualifying to run in the Boston 
Marathon. I have a number of friends who have. There is a lot of 
excitement even in their exhaustion as they near the finish line. 
That's where cold-hearted, calloused individuals filled with hate could 
set down bombs knowing they were going to kill very innocent people.
  How do you see a little 8-year-old child knowing that child is going 
to be killed by what you put together and set down? How do you do that? 
How do you have such evil in your heart that you can do that? How do 
you have such evil in your heart you set a bomb down knowing that 
people who are still around it, as you walk away as a coward, are going 
to have their legs blown out from under them and never walk again? How 
do you do that?
  You have to be so full of hate or evil or some sick religious 
convictions that somehow you believe that there is someone or 
something--some deity--that smiles upon that and thinks it's wonderful 
when you kill or maim innocent people and that somehow you'll be 
glorified by killing and maiming innocent people.

                              {time}  1350

  It's very tragic.
  But we know for some time that the FBI, the State Department, the 
Intelligence Department, a number of departments have been trying to 
soften the language that they've used, that they've used to train so 
that they don't offend people who want to kill us already. I mean, I 
didn't know anybody back in the eighties that talked about radical 
Islam, yet 79 people were killed, hostages were taken, an Embassy was 
taken over, hostages held for over a year. In 1983, people were killed, 
marines waylaid as our Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up. We 
didn't really talk about radical Islam.
  Yet over time, instead of recognizing the danger to this country, we 
have people in authority in this administration who've decided that we 
must not use the terms that accurately describe what our killers 
believe, our want-to-be killers believe. We can't use those words. They 
might be offended.
  For heaven's sake, 9/11 of 2001 was plotted while Bill Clinton was 
President. And no one who has any fairness at all about them could ever 
accuse President Bill Clinton of demonstrating bias or prejudice 
against Islam. He sent troops to protect Muslims in Eastern Europe.
  Whether we agree or disagree that it was appropriate use of American 
troops and American lives, he sent American lives that were lost to 
help Muslims. And all the while President Bill Clinton, as Commander in 
Chief, was trying to help Muslims, there were radical Islamists who 
were plotting and planning an incredibly egregious and heinous act and 
attack against the United States of America. And that was before 
anybody ever used the words ``jihad,'' ``radical Islam,'' or ``al 
  There's an article that my staff called to my attention last night in 
the Washington Examiner, an editorial, posted April 25 at 9 p.m. The 
title of their op-ed is, ``How the FBI Was Blinded By Political 
Correctness.'' It says:

       As the initial elation over the swift identification and 
     ending of the brothers Tsarnaev manhunt fades, a steady 
     stream of facts are emerging that strongly suggest the need 
     for a more sober assessment of the FBI's performance in the 2 
     years prior to the Boston Marathon bombing.
       FBI counterterrorism agents interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 
     the older of the brothers, in January 2011 after receiving a 
     tip from Russian intelligence. Since the interviewing agents 
     thought they heard nothing to indicate Tsarnaev was a 
     terrorist, little else was done and the case was closed 2 
     months later.
       A few months after that, Tsarnaev went to Russia and 
     encountered somebody or experienced something that apparently 
     prompted him to become quite open about his devotion to a 
     radical vision of Islamic jihad. The FBI visited him a second 
     time after he returned to the United States, but again 
     concluded that Tsarnaev was not a threat.
       It is speculation now, of course, but it's difficult to 
     believe the Tsarnaevs would have been able to carry out the 
     bombing had they been under active surveillance before the 
     2013 Boston Marathon.

  The editorial from the Washington Examiner goes on and says:

       Whatever else may yet be discovered about what the FBI 
     missed, there is no excuse for the agency not grasping the 
     significance of the radical Islamist video Tamerlan posted on 
     his Facebook page, entitled, ``The Emergence of Prophecy: The 
     Black Flags from Khorasan.'' The video explains and glorifies 
     the prophecy of a mighty jihadist army rising from the 
     Iranian region of the near east to conquer the world and 
     establish an enduring Muslim empire. The Khorasan connection 
     is a staple of al Qaeda ideology, and the video's presence on 
     Tsarnaev's Facebook page was a red flag that should have 
     alerted agents to a very real potential danger.
       It is quite possible, though, the FBI agents who 
     interviewed Tsarnaev on both occasions failed to understand 
     what they saw and heard because that's what they were trained 
     to do. As the Washington Examiner's Mark Flatten reported 
     last year, FBI training manuals were systematically purged in 
     2011 of all references to Islam that were judged offensive by 
     a specially created five-member panel. Three of the panel 
     members were Muslim advocates from outside the FBI, which 
     still refuses to make public their identities. Nearly 900 
     pages were removed from the manuals as a result of that 
     review. Several Congressmen were allowed to review the 
     removed materials in 2012 on condition that they not disclose 
     what they read to their staffs, the media, or the general 
       With the recent proliferation of revelations about FBI 
     blindness on the brothers Tsarnaev, a comment made last year 
     by Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, to 
     Flatten now has a tragic resonance: ``We've got material 
     being removed more because of political correctness than in 
     the interest of truth and properly educated justice 
     officials. We are blinding our enforcement officers from the 
     ability to see who the enemy actually is.''
       The Boston bombing showed the tragic consequences of that 

  This is an op-ed from yesterday by the Washington Examiner quoting me 
from over a year ago. In fact, on February 16, 2012, I gave a speech 
from right here on the House floor that was recorded where I talked 
about this very issue, and something of assistance was a poster. This 
poster points out the terminology that was used in the 9/11 Commission 
report because in that 9/11 Commission report, before this 
administration took over and implemented political correctness, the 9/
11 Commission didn't know they had to be politically correct in the 
terminology they use, according to the new standards by the FBI, so 
they referred to ``violent extremism'' three times. They referred to 
the ``enemy'' 39 times. They referred to ``jihad'' 126 times. They used 
the word ``Muslim'' 145 times. They referred to ``Islam'' 322 times. 
They referred to ``takfir'' one time. They referred to the ``Muslim 
Brotherhood'' five times. They referred to ``religious'' 65 times.

                              {time}  1400

  They referred to ``Hamas'' four times, ``Hezbollah'' two times, ``al 
Qaeda'' 36 times, ``caliphate'' seven times, and ``sharia'' twice.
  And then it's easy to see that when it comes to ``enemy,'' neither 
the National Intelligence Strategy of 2009 under this administration, 
nor the FBI counterterrorism lexicon, the words that are allowed to be 
used by FBI agents in their terminology, apparently it is okay to talk 
about violent extremism, which is why Homeland Security Secretary 
Napolitano, she created a Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. 
Although she could not tell me how many members of the Muslim 
Brotherhood were part of that working group, we knew that there were 
some. She also could not tell me how many members of the Muslim 
Brotherhood who would like to see a giant caliphate in which the United 
States was included, how many she had in her Homeland Security Advisory 
Council that she gave secret clearances to. There's no way they 
could've been properly vetted and still gotten secret security 
  But we see with the new FBI terminology and the new intelligence 
terminology, they can't talk about the enemy. They can't talk about 
jihad. They can't talk about Muslim. They can't talk about Islam. They 
can't talk about the Muslim Brotherhood. They can refer to religion; 
but as we know from the Homeland Security reports that they've yielded, 
the thing they're worried about really is more people

[[Page H2384]]

who believe in the Constitution and veterans and Christians who are 
evangelical Christians. They'll talk about religious there; but, 
obviously, not in terms of radical Islam. They won't talk about Hamas. 
They won't talk about Hezbollah. The FBI counterterrorism lexicon 
doesn't even include reference to al Qaeda or sharia, nor does the 
Intelligence Strategy.
  So the question comes to my mind about that interview, the interviews 
back in 2011, because I know so many FBI agents that are incredible 
Americans, real patriots, smart, a lot of wisdom and judgment, but they 
follow orders like I did when I was in the Army. You do what you're 
ordered to do, and they do.
  But what kind of interview must that have been of the guy who was 
going to blow off arms and legs and kill a child and who had dreams of 
killing so many more? What kind of interview must that have been when 
you can't use the word ``jihad''? You can't talk about his Muslim 
faith. Did they even bring up Tamerlan's Muslim faith in that 
interview? I mean, they're not supposed to talk about it. And I do not 
believe in using religion to discriminate against anybody; but when you 
find out that there is a radical sect, not like the vast, incredibly 
vast majority of Muslims who don't want to kill people, and don't want 
to maim, and don't think it's right to cause that kind of human 
suffering, but there is a sect, a radical Islamist sect, and they can't 
talk about it. What kind of interview was that?
  Is it any wonder that the FBI came away from their interviews and 
said, we don't find any problems.
  Well, I guess not. If you can't talk in detail about Islamic faith to 
find out whether someone is a radical, whether his beliefs have now 
embraced the book ``The Milestone'' that Qutb of Egypt embraced, that 
some in this country, some that our own Homeland Security Secretary 
think are wonderful people, they've embraced the same writings that 
Osama bin Laden said helped radicalize him, if you can't know about 
those things, how in the world can you do a legitimate interview and 
find out is this a peace-loving Muslim or is this a radical who wants 
to kill people? And if I don't get this conversation right, 2 years 
from now there will be people dead in Boston. How silly must we be as a 
Nation to blindfold our law enforcement and not let them see an enemy 
that wants to destroy us.
  Now, I've talked to enough intelligence officers, Justice Department 
officials, people that love this country, Homeland Security, and they 
are so frustrated with the shackles that they have to wear, 
figuratively speaking, while they try to protect this country, where 
you can't talk about the beliefs of people who want to destroy this 
blessed country. What kind of interviews must those have been when you 
can't use the terms that let you get to the bottom of what may be a 
plot to kill people down the road?
  There's no problem in the Justice Department. There is a problem with 
leadership that will not let them do their job, and it needs to change.
  I'm blessed to be joined by a colleague, and I yield to Mr. 

                      Remembering Howard Phillips

  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of 
Howard Phillips, a statesman, a patriot, and to the very end of his 
life, a brilliant thinker and tireless organizer for constitutionally 
limited government. He sought to limit the Federal Government at almost 
every turn.
  In 1974, he founded the Conservative Caucus, which we might call the 
Tea Party movement of its day. He helped forge the New Right, and 
perhaps more than any other leader, he never put party above principle.
  He organized behind the scenes. He was a mentor to today's 
conservative mentors; and above all, he believed in the sovereignty of 
God and not of the State.
  He was a brilliant speaker, and a brilliant thinker. Any American 
searching for the meaning of American values might look to Howard 
Phillips for guidance.
  Tomorrow's young conservative leaders may not learn Phillips' name, 
but his ideas will live on, and for that, we should be grateful. The 
conservative movement lost a lion last week, and it is my privilege to 
remember him.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you for that worthy tribute.
  Well, I want to reference a part of a Special Order address that was 
delivered here on this floor February 16, 2012, by me, and in that I 
had before me a transcript of a hearing where the FBI Director 
testified, and I pointed out--well, I just read the transcript, as I 
will do now, part of it. I pointed out before reading that I don't have 
a problem with the FBI having an outreach program to communities, but I 

       Why would the FBI see the need to make positive outreach 
     into any community of a specific nature?

  So after Director Mueller had indicated, yes, we have this wonderful 
outreach program with the Muslim communities, and those communities are 
exactly like every other community, I said:

       You had mentioned earlier and it's in your written 
     statement that the FBI developed an extensive outreach to 
     Muslim communities, and in answer to an earlier question I 
     understood you to say that Muslim communities were like all 
     other communities.

                              {time}  1410

       So I'm curious. As a result of the extensive outreach 
     program the FBI has had to the Muslim community, how has your 
     outreach program gone with the Baptists and the Catholics?

  Director Mueller said:

       I'm not certain of necessarily the thrust of that question. 
     I would say that our outreach to all segments of a particular 
     city or country or society are good.

  I said:

       Well, do you have a particular program of outreach to 
     Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics, or is it just 
     an extensive outreach program to----

  He interrupted and said:

       We have outreach to every one of those communities.

  I asked how he did that, and then he started to filibuster. And I 

       I have looked extensively, and I haven't seen anywhere in 
     any one of the FBI's letters information that there's been an 
     extensive outreach program to any other community trying to 
     develop trust and this kind of a relationship, and it makes 
     me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like 
     that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.
       And just so there's no mistaking, let me just read directly 
     from the judge's opinion in the Holy Land Foundation case in 
     response to the effort by ISNA, the Islamic Society of North 
     America, CAIR, Council on American Islamic Relations, NAIT, 
     the Holy Land Foundation and others.

  And I read this:

       The judge said: The government has produced ample evidence 
     the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT and the Holy Land 
     Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas. 
     While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced by the 
     government largely predates the Holy Land Foundation 
     designation date, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to 
     show the association of these entities with the Holy Land 
     Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.
       There was plenty of evidence to support that, according to 
     the judge. That was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
       It's important to note that, out of concern for the FBI's 
     outreach program, and the State Department and the White 
     House for reaching out, bringing in people who courts have 
     said supported terrorism, and these people are being brought 
     in, in the military we say brought inside the wire, in this 
     case, brought inside the State Department, brought inside the 
     White House on a regular basis, brought inside the Justice 
     Department, my friend, Frank Wolf had this language added to 
     the continuing resolution that was passed, that President 
     Obama signed into law. This is language in the law, and my 
     friend, Mr. Wolf included it to reference the FBI's policy.

  It says, and this is the language in the law:

       Conferees support the FBI's policy prohibiting any formal 
     non-investigative cooperation with unindicted co-conspirators 
     in terrorism cases. The conferees expect the FBI to insist on 
     full compliance with this policy by FBI field offices, and to 
     report to the Committee on Appropriations regarding any 
     violation of the policy.

  Well, guess what? We didn't get this from the FBI. We had to get it 
from the Islamic Society of North America's own Web site. They reported 
that on Wednesday, February 8--that was last year, 2012--that the 
American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, the Arab American 
Institute, the Interfaith Alliance, the Islamic Society of North 
America, ISNA, which has been pronounced by the Fifth Circuit as having 
plenty of evidence to support that they fund terrorism, and have, and 
then it mentions other groups, including the Shoulder-to-Shoulder 

[[Page H2385]]

  But they, it says:

       They had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the 
     Public Affairs Office of the FBI. Director Robert Mueller 
     joined the meeting to discuss these matters with 
     representatives from the organizations.
       The conversation with Director Mueller centered on material 
     used by the agency that depicts falsehoods and negative 
     connotations of the Muslim American community. The use of the 
     material was first uncovered by Wired magazine.

  And that was uncovered by an organization that seems to be right in 
there with those who were unindicted but named co-conspirators in 
funding terrorism.
  From ISNA, they say:

       Director Mueller informed the participants that the FBI 
     took the review of the training material very seriously, and 
     he pursued the matter with urgency to ensure that this does 
     not occur again in the future.

  ISNA President, Imam Magid, who's a frequent visitor to the White 
House, who the White House consults on speeches, or has, and welcomed 
to the inner sanctum of the State Department, other departments here in 
Washington, Magid stated:

       The discovery of FBI training materials that discriminated 
     against Muslims did damage to the trust that was built 
     between dedicated FBI officials and the American Muslim 
     community. We welcome and appreciate Director Mueller's 
     commitment to take positive steps toward eradicating such 
     materials and rebuilding trust in an open dialogue.
       The Director also informed participants that, to date, 
     nearly all related FBI training materials, including more 
     than 160,000 pages of documents, were reviewed by subject 
     matter experts multiple times. Consequently, more than 700 
     documents, 300 presentations of material, have been deemed 
     unusable by the Bureau and pulled from the training 
     curriculum. Material was pulled from the curriculum if even 
     one component was deemed to include factual errors or be in 
     poor taste or be stereotypical or lack precision.

  I guess stereotypical would mean if they point out that terrorists 
have one thing in common, that would be stereotypical.
  ISNA also reports:

       It was clear to all meeting participants that the issue of 
     trust between community Members and the FBI needs to be taken 
     seriously by all our Nation's decisionmakers. It was evident 
     the Bureau must strengthen its efforts to build trust.

  How about trust from the other side?
  How about condemnation of terrorist acts?
  How about coming out and making clear all ties have been severed with 
Hamas and Hezbollah and those who would seek to make terror on innocent 
  Anyway, ISNA's rejoicing because they got the FBI to actually go 
through and cull material that has words like ``jihad,'' words like 
``extremist,'' words that have been purged from the FBI lexicon.
  Now, I was one who was allowed, in a classified setting, which I felt 
was totally unnecessary, to see the names of the so-called subject 
matter experts. I was allowed to go through material and see what it 
  And it's time, Mr. Speaker, that our FBI agents and intelligence be 
allowed to remove the blindfolds and see who the enemy is when they do 
interrogations and questioning.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.