May 10, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 78 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H3719-H3724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we have heard a great deal today--
actually, from both sides of the aisle pointing fingers across the way 
at the opposing party--about the issue of children: taking care of 
children that are brought here illegally, taking care of children that 
supposedly come here on their own.
  But since we know that nobody crosses from Mexico into the United 
States illegally without having the permission of the drug cartel that 
controls that section of the Mexico-U.S. border, it is not really 
accurate to say a child comes unaccompanied, because a child can't 
cross Mexico by himself. A child is brought by somebody.
  Unfortunately, as we know, the figures from both government groups, 
Doctors Without Borders, and others are pretty staggering when you 
realize that such a large percentage--25 percent, 30 percent--of girls 
who come to the United States through Mexico are raped.
  I have seen too many rape trees that it breaks my heart. It is just, 
as the poet said, incredible, the inhumanity to man. It is staggering.
  And sometimes it is difficult to tell people no that want to come 
here, but there is not a country in the world that lets more people 
into that country than the United States does. There is nowhere.
  Countries that are much bigger geographically, countries that have 
many more people, countries that have more space per person, there is 
no country that is as generous with the right being given to come in to 
a country legally as the United States, and I love that about our 
country.
  But it is important to have rules about who gets to come in. 
Obviously, some have projected that there may be 1 billion, 1.5 billion 
people who would like to come to the United States. If the 300, 350 
million or so people here were to have a billion people come in, 
obviously, this country would cease to exist as it has or is or could 
be. It would cease to exist. It would become a Third World country. 
There would be so much massive unemployment overwhelming the social 
services. Disease would become rampant.
  As we see people coming here from other countries, there are diseases 
that we had completely eliminated in the United States that are now 
being reintroduced to the United States because we have not enforced 
our borders and made sure that people coming in, as welcome as they are 
to come in legally, that they are not coming in with a disease that 
puts people in the United States in jeopardy. Once you do that, then 
you don't continue to be that light on the hill that so many want to 
come to. There is no place left.
  Last year, there were some people here who said: Well, you know, if 
we keep losing more and more of our freedom here in the United States, 
maybe we just can all go to Australia.
  I had a few guys that I met with from Australia. I thought they would 
find that amusing. But they didn't smile; they didn't laugh. They said: 
Do you not understand? If you lose your freedom here in America, China 
will take

[[Page H3720]]

us over in a heartbeat. There will be no place you are going to be able 
to go.
  The United States of America is the place that gives everyone else in 
the world hope for freedom.

                              {time}  1315

  I ran into the same thing in Nigeria, people imploring, in fact, some 
West Africans who were Christians wanted to meet with me before I left. 
The oldest gentleman said: You know, we wanted to make sure, before you 
went back to Washington, you understood we were all so thrilled when 
you elected your first Black President.
  They said: But since President Obama has been the leader in the 
United States, we have seen America get weaker and weaker. And you have 
got to make sure people in Washington understand, when America gets 
weaker, we suffer.
  Ebenezer was his name. He said: You know, we know where we are going 
when we die. We are Christians. We are believers. But our only chance 
of having some degree of safety in this life is if America is strong.
  Unfortunately, as I heard from people there, as I have read since, 
the Obama administration was putting requirements: Look, we will give 
you more help in neutralizing Boko Haram, but you are going to have to 
legalize abortion, start paying for those, and you have got to legalize 
same-sex marriage, and then we will give you some serious help with 
Boko Haram.
  In the meantime, the American administration had a hashtag, 
#bringbackourgirls. It didn't really do much. Actually, it didn't do 
anything, really. The hashtag went around and around, but thank God for 
people who stepped up like our government did not and actually helped 
girls, and some continue to be helped. I won't talk about where they 
are, how well they are doing.
  But it is just really tragic when the United States Government that 
so many people around the world look to for hope, look to as an example 
of what perhaps their country could be someday, start losing hope when 
they see what happens here. It is tragic.
  I know some say, and we have seen this over the years, whether it is 
Dr. Spock's book on how to raise children, don't ever say no. Gee, you 
might hurt their pride or enthusiasm. Don't ever punish, just 
encourage.
  But the fact is that the reason we have laws that don't allow 
children to enter into binding contracts is because we understand that 
children can be too easily persuaded. That is why criminals are able to 
dangle candy or in some way entice children into situations wherein 
their lives are destroyed.
  There is a time to say no out of love and caring.
  I don't know anybody on either side of the aisle here, either party, 
who wants to see children harmed, but the fact is, as the border 
patrolmen tell me constantly both when I am down there all night or 
when I am up here and hear from them: When you guys make it sound like 
anybody is welcome, especially if they have a child in their group, 
well, we have more children now coming, often to their own detriment, 
than we have ever had in our history.
  So I understand the feeling, gee, let's don't say no to any child who 
wants to come into America accompanied, unaccompanied. We extend our 
arms.
  But what happens? We know every time caravans, groups are coming in, 
big, small, people die trying to get in. The drug cartels are so 
corrupt, they will utilize children. They have no problem taking young 
girls and using them in sex trafficking.
  And by our leaving that open, I hear it all the time from people who 
work the border: You guys lure them up here to their own harm. If you 
would just secure the border, these folks will quit coming, and you 
won't have thousands of girls being raped. You won't have people being 
sold into sex slavery.
  And I say ``sold,'' but it sounds more like, from the stories we get 
down there that what happens, and it is not on the list of questions a 
border patrolman asks as they are in-processing people, but sometimes 
it is asked: How much did you have to pay? And sometimes they will add: 
to the gang or the drug cartel to get you in here illegally?
  The answer normally is 5, 6, 7, $8,000.
  And again, the question is not on their list to ask, but sometimes 
they ask: How did you get that money? You don't have that kind of 
money. Where would you come up with that kind of money?
  So often, the answer is: We got a thousand here. We had a thousand 
sent, $1,500 sent from people in the United States, and they are going 
to let us work the rest off when we get where we are going.
  So, so many are not sold into slavery. They just agree, without 
realizing, they are about to become an indentured servant to a drug 
cartel, and they are going to be a servant either in sex trafficking or 
drug trafficking.
  So often I have stood there and watched people waiting to be 
processed, and they will have an address in a city in the U.S. And I 
have seen them, different times, exchange, and they would switch 
cities, and then they would tell the border patrolman: Here is the city 
where I have relatives, where I can go and be taken care of.
  And it is where the drug cartels told them to go. So, technically, 
they are not sold into slavery, but they have agreed to be indentured 
servants to the drug cartels.
  So it is amazing how many people seem shocked when they read story 
after story about how the drug cartels in Mexico have big operations in 
cities all over America. That is why the border patrolmen say: You know 
what the drug cartels call us? They call us their logistics.
  Like the commercial?
  Well, yeah. Like the commercial.
  They get them across the border, and then the U.S. Government ships 
these people wherever the drug cartels want them to go.
  Right now, they are so overwhelmed on our border, it is just tragic.
  I know there are Christian groups that receive millions of dollars 
for going down and helping get people in and taking care of them. And 
it sure makes it appear like they are scared of losing the millions of 
dollars they get for assisting illegal aliens, but we need to be 
realistic.
  When you are in a country that is self-governing, where you have an 
obligation as part of the government, if you are a citizen serving on 
juries, that makes you a judge of the facts of a case, or running for 
office, or voting, you vote because you are supposed to be the one who 
hires the servants who come to work in the county seat, the State 
capitol, the Federal Capitol.
  But the people are supposed to be the real rulers, and those of us 
elected are supposed to be the servants. But there is an obligation 
that goes with the freedoms, and that obligation means you have got to 
enforce the law across the board.
  Some people quote Scripture, saying, we have got to be good to the 
foreigners--true; we have got to help the widows and orphans--true; we 
ought to be encouraging and embracing of families--true.
  But when you are acting as the government, you have a different role, 
and that is a role to ensure that the law is enforced evenly and fairly 
across the board without regard to someone's financial situation, 
social status, or anything else.
  That is why there are verses in the Bible that say something to pray 
for is people who will not show favoritism to the rich and, also, 
verses say, not show favoritism to the poor. You treat everyone fairly 
across the board.
  I sure got a lot of hateful things when I was a judge, and I revoked 
the probation of a daughter of one of the wealthy oil families in my 
hometown. They even had many of my supporters in the courtroom, 
thinking that would intimidate me from doing what I would have done to 
anyone else.
  But as a judge, that is the job. You don't show favoritism to people 
because of their wealth or because of their lack of it. You enforce the 
laws fairly across the board.
  Just as it would be crazy for a parent to welcome a child who can't 
swim to come jump in the pool, you say: No. No. That is dangerous. No, 
don't touch the hot stove. No, don't stick anything into the electric 
socket.
  There is a time to say no. But some think that being loving and 
caring means never to say no. There is a time to say no.
  If we enforce our borders and do so fairly and are fair about the 
over a million visas that we give out in this country--again, the most 
generous of any country in the world--just do so

[[Page H3721]]

fairly, then you don't have people forced into sex trafficking, forced 
into drug trafficking.
  You know, the best, most compassionate thing we could say or do to 
help people in Mexico would be to totally secure the border so only 
people come in who are legally coming in and to shut down the money 
that the drug cartels are making off the drug trafficking and the sex 
trafficking because, according to some estimates, before they started 
getting so much money from human trafficking, they estimated $80 
billion, one source, $80 billion or so from drug trafficking.
  And what an incredible business model. They are making all this money 
off drugs, but they don't have to hire employees, because the employees 
come to them and pay them a fee to help them get to a place where they 
can sell the drugs for them at no charge to the drug cartels.
  And don't think the drug cartels don't know how to say no and take 
lives. They know how to cut heads off and put them on pikes to 
intimidate people, to keep them in line.
  There is nothing more difficult in Mexico than being a law 
enforcement officer who is dedicated to truly enforcing the law fairly, 
including against people in the drug cartels. Their lives are at great 
risk, as are their families'. But if we secure the border, build a wall 
where we need it, secure the border, then the money dries up to pay for 
corruption in Mexico.
  Mexico, you think about Mexico. They ought to be a top ten economy. 
They have incredible natural resources. They have got a better location 
than North America. They are between North and South America. They are 
between the two oceans. They ought to be the greatest trader: all the 
natural resources, and, of course, they have got some of the hardest 
working people in the world.
  Why are they not a top ten economy? Because of corruption.
  How is corruption funded? From money coming across our border 
illegally for drugs that come in illegally or sex trafficking coming 
in.
  What an incredible gift to the people of Mexico, so many of whom 
dream of a day when they could have an incredibly vibrant economy and 
they didn't have to worry about corrupt police or corrupt government 
officials.
  That is why I know, when you hear some Mexican elected official say 
they don't want the border secured, then you can pretty well take it to 
the bank they are taking money to the bank from the drug cartels; 
otherwise, they would want to see Mexico reach its potential that 
cannot be reached as long as we are allowing tens of billions of 
dollars to flow from the United States to the drug cartels for the 
corruption of government and harm to people.

                              {time}  1330

  Now, there used to be an unwritten rule, as I understood it, that the 
drug cartels would not kill anybody, rob, they would not let crime go 
on around Mexico's resorts. But that has certainly gone to the wayside.
  My wife and I went on our honeymoon in Mexico. We celebrated our 25th 
anniversary in Mexico. But, as a government official, going to Mexico, 
with people and cartels knowing who I am, it is a dangerous place to go 
now, so we haven't been back in a long time. I look forward to the day 
when we can, and that day will be when we secure our border and Mexico 
achieves the status in the world's economies that it should because of 
what is there and the people. That would be a gift we should give them. 
But in the meantime, we make clear that we are securing our border, you 
are not coming in unless you come in through a port of entry, a legal 
port of entry, and you come in legally, you are not coming in.
  Now we hear the stories, we read the stories and get the accounts, 
children are now a commodity. The drug cartels know that if somebody 
comes in with a child, with them or with their group, oh, gee, this is 
a big family. We saw all of the wild screaming and gnashing of teeth 
over children not being with parents. So they know they are not going 
to be separated and they are going to be able to stay in the country. 
So they are coming. They are coming in greater numbers than ever 
before.
  If you look back at some of the numbers from the nineties, it was 80 
percent, as I recall. And somebody was just referring to the numbers 
recently, about 80 percent were single adults from Mexico, men, who 
were coming for jobs. And now, because of the dramatization over what 
happens every day, in every county in the country, and that is an adult 
who has committed a crime or is arrested for committing a crime, being 
separated from a child. It happens every day.
  I used to sign warrants to arrest people, and they certainly didn't 
bring the children to the jail with them. They were separated from 
their children. It is what happens when a government is trying to be 
fair and not make the children suffer or be punished for the sins of 
the parent. That is what a caring society would do. You don't punish 
the children for the wrongs of the parent. But now, children are a 
commodity. They are being rented, purchased, and used in order to 
better ensure that people coming in illegally will be able to stay 
here.
  I did vote against my own party's motion to recommit. That is not the 
way that kind of spending should be done. Two billion dollars will end 
up luring people again to this country. If we advertise, and people 
will know, the drug cartels will use it. Look, they just voted through 
a provision that will provide $2 to $3 billion for medicine, 
medication, for people who come into the country illegally. That is not 
something we should be playing a game with. That is why I voted no. 
This is too serious to be taken lightly.
  We shouldn't be playing politics with things like that. Let's secure 
the border and take care of folks who are here and ensure that people 
who come into this country do so legally.
  Actually, I asked a question to Secretary Nielsen when she was at 
Homeland Security this year. I asked her: What if we were to have 
immigration judges, not in an interior courtroom somewhere across 
America, but had immigration judges there at the border, even if we had 
to just set up big tents, have the immigration judges at the border? 
She said that would solve the problem. You wouldn't have to give 
somebody a notice to come back for a hearing 4 years from now to 
determine whether they can stay in the country legally or not, and for 
which most people never come back for their hearing.
  I am hopeful that, at some point, President Trump will say: Do you 
know what, let's don't set hearings years off. In fact, Secretary 
Nielsen, as I recall, indicated, if somebody is kept there at a 
facility near the border, they normally have a hearing 90 to 100 days, 
120 days, from when they are picked up. But if they are released on 
some kind of recognizance or bond, it is years, on average, before they 
have their hearing. Well, let's solve that.
  Let's just send our immigration judges to the border. If you come 
across and claim asylum, let's have your hearing today, and we will 
know by tonight whether you get to stay or whether we are taking you 
back across.
  But it doesn't do much good to ``deport'' someone who is here 
illegally if you don't secure the border. That is why a guy who ended 
up in my felony courtroom, who had nine DWIs and didn't speak English, 
and he finally came to my felony court after--normally, a third DWI 
gets charged as a felony, but somehow, he had gotten by. And on the 
ninth DWI--he was driving while intoxicated--he ended up causing an 
accident, nearly killed some folks, and did serious damage.
  But I figured if he had nine DWIs, this guy is a threat to the safety 
of everybody in this country. Everybody legally and illegally in this 
country is at risk if this guy is here, out, and driving.
  So I went ahead and sent him to prison. Nine DWIs is far too many, 
especially when you start doing serious bodily injury to people. And I 
was shocked that within 6 months he was back in my courtroom. He was 
driving drunk and hurt somebody else.
  Through the interpreter, I asked him: How is he back here in my 
courtroom? I sent him to prison. And he said: Well, about 3 months 
after--well, at that time, it was not even 3 months, it may have been a 
month--he was picked up and deported. They carried him to the border. 
And through the interpreter, he explained that they made him walk 
across the border. And I said: So how are you back here? He said: I 
waited until the deportation officers drove off. And then he came back 
across the border as soon as they left, got back to

[[Page H3722]]

drinking and driving, and ended up back in my courtroom.
  So, this time, I thought, well, if he is going to be here, obviously, 
he is an alcoholic, so I sent him to a substance abuse felony 
punishment facility because everybody there is either an alcoholic or a 
drug addict. They go through a 12-step program. And I figured, well, if 
he is going to be in the country, for heaven's sake, he at least needs 
to be clean and sober. And I got word that at that facility he was 
there about 90 days before he was deported. I would imagine he came 
back in the country somewhere, but, obviously, not back to my county.

  So why wouldn't we enforce our borders? A country that has no 
borders, or that has borders that are not enforced, it is not a 
country, it is not definable, it is just kind of an area where people 
go.
  If we are going to continue to be a shining light for so many 
countries and so many people around the world, we need to follow the 
law, not show favoritism, not to people because they are poor, not to 
people because they are rich, but to be fair and enforce the laws 
across the board.
  That brings me to an important point that has been in the news a 
great deal lately, and, actually, it has been going on for some time. 
This country, regardless of how many people may want to rewrite 
history, was largely inhabited and founded by people who were 
Christians, different denominations, who were looking to have a place 
where they were not persecuted for being a Christian. And I know, we 
are told, as Christians, we are going to suffer for Christ's sake. And 
I know Jesus said, remember, when they hate you, they hated me first.
  But, for whatever reason, we have been allowed to have a country, 
unlike most any place in history, where you are not persecuted for 
being a Christian. Now, there are different denominations that would 
have big controversies with other denominations. Some of that was 
playing out in the first 5 weeks of the constitutional convention in 
1787.
  That is when Ben Franklin gave his famous speech. How do we know what 
he said? Well, Madison was taking notes. But afterwards, Franklin was 
asked for a copy of his speech. He sat down and wrote it out. Everybody 
who was there who saw the speech said: Oh, yeah, this is word for word 
everything he said.
  And I know most children apparently in the country are taught that 
Ben Franklin was a deist, you know, someone who believed that there was 
some force, some being, something that created the universe. And if 
that thing, being, force still exists anymore, it never interferes with 
the laws of nature or the activity of human beings, it never gets 
involved. And kids are being taught Ben Franklin was a deist.
  But he stood up. He is 82 years old. He has gout, he has advanced 
arthritis, he is overweight, he has trouble getting up and down the few 
steps into Independence Hall, he has trouble getting up, he has a cane, 
and often had to have help.
  And he hadn't really spoken to that point at the convention. One of 
the people at the convention wrote that President Washington--he wasn't 
President of the country, he was President of the constitutional 
convention--that President Washington looked relieved when Dr. Franklin 
sought recognition because there was so much screaming going on. 
Franklin didn't have an M.D. or a Ph.D., but he was certainly 
recognized as being worthy of being a doctor.
  But Franklin gets up--he probably had help--and we know what he said 
because he wrote it down. And he starts about saying, you know, we have 
been going on for nearly 5 weeks. We have got more noes than ayes on 
virtually every vote. And then this is his verbatim, he says:

       How has it happened, sir, that we have not thought of 
     humbly seeking illumination from the source of all life?

  That is not verbatim, but close.
  He said:

       In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we 
     were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. 
     Our prayers so were heard, and they were graciously answered.

  Then he goes on to point out that everybody in there should remember 
specific things that they prayed for as leaders in the Continental 
Congress during the Revolution, and that they should remember how 
specific things they prayed for were answered by God.
  And then back to verbatim he says: ``I have lived, sir, a long 
time.'' He is a year or so away from meeting his maker. And he said: 
``And the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this 
truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot 
fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire 
can rise without his aid?''

                              {time}  1345

  He is talking about the Bible: We have been assured, sir, in the 
sacred writings that no empire is going to rise without his aid.
  He says that we have a chance to create something special. These are 
not his verbatim words. He said if we take advantage of that and we 
come together, by the grace of God, we are going to have a special 
country. He adds, without God's grace, we are going to succeed no 
better than the builders of Babel.
  He said that we will be confounded by our local partial interests, 
and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages.
  He goes on and ends up making a motion, just like during the 
Revolution, just like with the Continental Congress, that the 
Constitutional Convention should start with prayer every day.
  See, it was really a secular Congress because they voted that down. 
If you go look at what the discussion was, there were a bunch of 
different denominations there. Usually, the Quakers were most 
disagreeable about whom they would approve for saying a prayer for the 
whole group.
  As the debate pointed out, yes, during the Revolution, we had a 
treasury. We had money so we could hire a Christian chaplain to say the 
prayer every day for us.
  There wasn't anybody here that could say a prayer that everybody else 
in the Convention would feel got a fair shake for their denomination. 
But we could hire, agree on, one chaplain, one minister who would say a 
prayer for everybody.
  Here we are at the Convention, and we are not getting paid. We don't 
have a treasury, so we are going to have to put off hiring a chaplain 
to do the prayer every day until we get this constitution done. That is 
why it didn't get approved.
  Then Randolph from Virginia gets up. He says he understands that we 
don't have money to hire a chaplain to do the prayer every day, but 
here we are at the end of June--this is 1787. He said it is the end of 
June, and we are about to celebrate our Nation's birthday. We are not 
accomplishing anything, so why don't we recess here now and reconvene 
together in a church that we all agree on, a Christian church. We all 
go there together, and on our Nation's birthday, we worship God 
together. Then we come back and try to work this constitution thing 
out.
  That passed. The Delegates at the Constitutional Convention came 
together and worshipped on our Nation's birthday at the Reformed 
Calvinist Church in Philadelphia, Reverend William Rogers presiding. He 
was the minister. I think you can even find online one of the prayers 
that he prayed for the Convention.
  As somebody wrote back then, when they came back together, there were 
differences. There was a different spirit, and they were able to come 
together. They were able to reach an agreement.
  There was such strong division among the most populous States. They 
said we are the most populous States, so we ought to have more 
representation. Others said, no, we can't come together unless we all 
have equal representation.
  The Great Compromise came together, that we will have two separate 
bodies within the Congress. We will have one where States have 
representation based on the population, and it won't be like the House 
of Lords where they really don't have any power. This will be a 
separate body. They will have just as much power as the other house, 
but every State gets two representatives, and then we will balance.
  That was the Great Compromise. It enabled them to come together. 
There

[[Page H3723]]

were great concerns about human rights and government intrusion into 
people's private matters. They wanted to make sure that a king or 
President couldn't just sign an order to go search somebody's home, 
take over a home, or go gather up anything they wanted.
  They agreed that if we come together on this Constitution, then we 
also agree that it must have a Bill of Rights that comes with it.
  The first of the Bill of Rights that was approved, the first 10 
amendments, they didn't want to have a Church of England that was the 
official government church. They didn't want a government church.
  Of course, now we got one. It is called, informally, the church of 
secularism the Supreme Court has forced us into. Regardless of what 
anybody thinks, a government--and I used to say in college that you 
can't legislate morality. Eventually, I have realized a government 
legislates somebody's morality. It may be no morality, and we have kind 
of come to that.
  Moses' face is up there because at one time he was considered to be 
the greatest lawgiver of all time. You have Hammurabi, the Justinian 
Code, started by Justin. Napoleon, Jefferson--Jefferson didn't help 
with the Constitution, but these are all the great lawgivers, 
considered as such. We have two or three Popes up here. But Moses was 
supposed to be the great one.
  In recent years, children are being taught there is no real right or 
wrong. It is whatever you feel in your heart is wrong, and it is all 
relative. Right and wrong are relative. That is not what Moses said.
  I was hearing Dennis Prager earlier today saying you cannot have a 
free country based on secularist beliefs, based on atheism. You can't.
  The only way you can have the level of freedom we have had is not 
requiring everybody to be a Christian but to base the government upon 
Judeo-Christian beliefs. That has been our history.
  We welcome people. We don't mind anybody having any religion or no 
religion. But the only way you can have that kind of freedom is to base 
it on Christian beliefs.
  I know from visiting with General Jay Garner, who President Bush 
initially sent to Iraq to talk to people and get a feel from the Iraqis 
what kind of government they should have, he talked to a direct 
descendant of Mohammed.
  There were a lot of people with him. After they left, General Garner 
asked if everybody heard what they said.
  They all agreed they heard. There was a reporter there. They asked if 
he was going to write that in a story. He said, no, nobody will believe 
it. They would think he was crazy.
  But this very devout Muslim, descendant of Mohammed, said, in 
essence--summary--we need a government that is based on a constitution 
that Iraqis write, that the government be composed of Iraqis, and the 
constitution needs to be based on the teachings of Jesus.
  After he left, General Garner asked: Did you guys all hear that?
  He said, yes, he said they need a constitution based on the teachings 
of Jesus. A devout Muslim descendant of Mohammed agreed that if you 
really want a free society, use the teachings of Jesus.
  The Founders knew, just like the descendant of Mohammed, that is the 
best way to have a free country. But now we are seeing more and more 
the persecution of Christians.
  Now the U.N. General Secretary, back when he was in charge of all the 
refugee programs, was asked about why there is not as high a percentage 
of Christians in the U.N. refugee program as there is a percentage of 
Christians in the areas where refugees are coming from, like Syria.
  He basically made the statement that Christians are so very important 
to those geographic areas that we think it is important to leave them 
where they are. They were being wiped out where they were.
  The truth is, when Christians were coming to the U.N. refugee camps 
to be reassigned or sent elsewhere after that, they were often victims 
of violence.
  I read many reports, talked to people over in some of the refugee 
camps. The Christians didn't want to go there. They didn't like the way 
they were picked on, so you didn't find that many Christians in those 
camps.
  Here is an article from May 3. This is from the BBC because this 
stuff is not being reported properly in the mainstream media in 
America.
  The title is, ``Christians Are `Most Persecuted Group.' '' It says, 
``The persecution of Christians in parts of the world is at or near 
`genocide' levels, according to a report ordered by the Foreign 
Secretary Jeremy Hunt.'' That is the Foreign Secretary in England.
  Christians were the most persecuted religious group, is what this 
study found.
  ``The interim report said the main impact of `genocidal acts against 
Christians is exodus' and that Christianity faced being `wiped out' 
from parts of the Middle East. It warned the religion''--talking about 
Christianity--`` `is at risk of disappearing' in some parts of the 
world, pointing to figures which claimed Christians in Palestine 
represent less than 1.5 percent of the population, while in Iraq they 
had fallen from 1.5 million before 2003 to less than 120,000.''
  `` `Evidence shows not only the geographic spread of anti-Christian 
persecution, but also its increasing severity.' ''
  It says, `` `In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is 
arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of 
genocide, according to that adopted by the U.N.' . . . Its findings 
come after more than 250 people were killed and more than 500 wounded 
in attacks at hotels and churches in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday.''
  I mean, this is the kind of stuff going on.
  The article goes on, again from the BBC, `` `What we have forgotten 
in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians 
that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the 
planet.'
  ``In response to the report, the president of the Board of Deputies 
of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, said Jews had often been the 
targets of persecution and felt for Christians who were discriminated 
against on the basis of their faith.
  `` `Whether it is authoritarian regimes or bigotry masked in the 
mistaken guise of religion, reports like the one launched today remind 
us that there are many places in which Christians face appalling levels 
of violence, abuse, and harassment.' ''
  Pretty tragic. Then here in the United States, this story from CBN 
News, May 7, this year, the Pacific Institute, ``The Pacific Justice 
Institute, PJI, announced Tuesday that a Bible study for elderly 
residents of the Veterans Home of California has been restored.''

                              {time}  1400

  ``The facility is owned and operated by the California Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  ``The nonprofit PJI,'' Pacific Justice Institute, ``also says its 
attorneys will continue to fight for full restoration of religious 
freedom in the facility.
  ``After some negotiation, CalVet''--that is California Department of 
Veterans Affairs--``said it would allow Artis Breau and her Bible study 
attendees to resume the Bible study, effective immediately, after it 
had been shut down for weeks.
  ``However, CalVet''--that is California Department of Veterans 
Affairs--``continues to insist that it can investigate and substantiate 
allegations against Breau and her fellow residents for expressing 
religious views that it''--the California Department of Veterans 
Affairs--``deems `offensive,' and even for discussing Heaven and 
salvation.
  `` `We are encouraged that CalVet realized it could no longer 
prohibit and threaten the veterans' Bible study,' PJI President Brad 
Dacus said in a press release. At the same time, the agency's position 
that it can continue to punish religious''--and really, Christian 
expression is specifically what CalVet is going after--``expression it 
deems discourteous or offenses is unacceptable. We've won an important 
first round in this battle for these heroes''--the veterans--``and we 
are committed to seeing this through to complete victory.
  ``PJI attorneys began representing Breau last fall when staff at the 
veterans home complained that she had committed `emotional abuse' and 
`elder abuse' by allegedly causing another

[[Page H3724]]

resident to lose sleep after a discussion about Heaven and hell. Last 
week, CalVet admitted the allegation was unsubstantiated. . . . ''
  ``This past March, a CalVet attorney threatened to have Breau removed 
from the home if she did not immediately halt her longtime Bible study.
  `` `What we've seen at the Veterans Home of California should concern 
every freedom-loving American' . . . `Of all people, our veterans and 
their widows from the Greatest Generation should enjoy the greatest 
blessings of liberty--not the least. We're not about to let up until 
these veterans have complete freedom.' ''
  That is from the PJI attorneys. It is just outrageous how wrongheaded 
people have gotten, and that is because they are imposing a court-
ordered imposition of secularism.
  We have come to a point in political correctness where the only group 
that is politically correct to abuse, belittle, and discriminate 
against is Christians. You don't have to like Christians, but for 
heaven's sake, that is the kind of freedom in allowing Christians to 
worship freely that made us the greatest country in history.
  Now we have got the Equality Act. Supposedly, it is going to come up 
next week.
  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed by a huge 
majority of Democrats in 1993 because they were concerned, in 1993, 
some of them, including our current chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Jerry Nadler, about the persecution of Christians and Jews, 
and they saw the need to have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 
1993.
  Back then, these same people believed that Moses knew what he was 
talking about, and when Jesus quoted Moses verbatim about marriage, 
that he knew what he was talking about.
  In fact, we knew that that still was true in 2008, from David 
Axelrod's book. They knew that Barack Obama could not win the 
Presidency if he said of marriage with the same sex, that that was 
fine. It was not sufficient to say--you could have same-sex 
relationships. That was fine. But marriage is what the Bible said is 
between a man and a woman.
  Apparently, they had polled it every which way, and in 2008, if you 
thought marriage was something besides what Moses believed and that 
Jesus said as he quoted Moses verbatim, then you couldn't get elected 
President.
  Now, if you say: I still think what Moses and Jesus said is what 
marriage ought to be. Same-sex relations are one thing, but marriage, 
historically, except perhaps during the days of Moses--my understanding 
is even in Sodom and Gomorrah, obviously, same-sex relationships were 
fine, but even there, marriage was for procreation; therefore, it was a 
man and a woman. Now if you say that, you are to be persecuted. You are 
to be destroyed for believing Moses and Jesus knew what they were 
talking about.
  But some of those same people who rammed through the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 have now added this provision that that 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a claim or 
a defense to a claim under this bill, and there is even a provision 
here that you can have a claim filed against a bank, a lending 
institution, if they don't lend money to someone who is gender 
confused.
  That is what gender dysphoria is. That is what the DSM-5 calls it, 
gender dysphoria, like the opposite of euphoria. It is confusion about 
one's gender, biological gender, which may disagree with what they feel 
like that day.
  We are seeing great gains made by women in women's sports. If this 
becomes law, that will be destroyed. You will have men's sports, and 
you will have coed sports.
  As the lady who was the first to ever benefit by having a women's 
scholarship from Villanova said--she is a Ph.D.--when she testified: 
Look, you have got thousands of men who can beat the best time in the 
world for the women's 400 meter in the 2016 Olympics. Women won't be 
the ones getting the scholarships anymore if this Equality Act becomes 
law.
  Martina Navratilova, she makes no bones about being a lesbian, and 
she has been basically destroyed in social media for saying that a 
woman should not have to compete with a biological man. It is unfair.
  We had a lady who tells us, she was a lesbian testifying: Look, 
women's sports are going to be destroyed if you pass this bill. All the 
great gains made for women being treated fairly and equally are going 
to go by the wayside.
  I know from my days as a judge, hearing the tragic stories of sexual 
assault and aggravated sexual assault, that women suffer from a greater 
percentage of post-traumatic stress disorder than soldiers do if they 
have been sexually assaulted.
  One of the things that can trigger the trauma again is being in a 
confined space and a man comes in. But the response from the majority 
is, well, they just basically need to get over it because we don't want 
to hurt the man's feelings if he thinks he is a woman.
  I hope this doesn't pass. I hope it doesn't become law. There are 
some great things in here for equality, but that is not one of them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________