H5700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

really move a bill on the floor, so I’ve 

been trying to do a tally of where these 

Senators are. Either in public statements or in having cast votes either in 

their Chamber or as former Members of 

the House, 55 say, yes, Yucca Mountain 

should be our long-term geological repository and that we should be taking 

all our nuclear waste and putting it in 

a safe, secure cave in a mountain in a 

desert. For 22, we don’t know their positions, and that’s a lot of Senators. 

For 23, we have ‘‘nays.’’ So, if Senator 

CANTWELL would move from a ‘‘nay’’ to 

a ‘‘yea,’’ you’re at 56. Then you really 

need only four more Senators, and 

there is a whole boatload. Some of 

them are up for reelection, and they 

haven’t had a chance to make a public 

statement or to have a position on nuclear waste in 6 years. 

What I find very confusing is that, in 

these 6 years, a lot of them come from 

States that have nuclear waste. Again, 

I like to talk about Hanford because 

this is Department of Defense waste 

that was created in developing the 

atomic bombs to win the Cold War— 

not the Cold War. Well, actually, they 

won the Cold War, too. They will say: a 

mutual assured destruction, an ability 

to have nuclear weapons to help protect Western Europe and to, really, 

protect the world. A lot of those weapons were created and developed right 

here at Hanford, but we still have the 

waste remaining. So we are looking for 

five more U.S. Senators to be able to 

move the bill on the floor and to pay 

for the final scientific study so as to 

keep our promise to the American people and to those who sacrificed land 

and location like Hanford. 

The U.S. Government just kind of 

swooped in and said, We need this 

place. I think the story goes, We’re 

going to do hydroelectric power. It’s 

going to be cheap fuel because we’re 

going to need a lot of energy. They displaced farmers. They took over the 

land, and we’ve left 53 million gallons 

of nuclear waste on site. We owe it to 

them to get it to a safe, secure location. 

The Federal Government realized 

that in 1982 by passing a law called the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Federal 

Government then amended that law in 

1987. In the years following, we moved 

diligently to finalize the preparations 

so that we could move forward. Then 

we hit a roadblock, and that roadblock 

was the election of President Obama, 

who made a promise to the majority 

leader of the Senate that we’ll stop 

movement on Yucca Mountain—after 

30 years, $15 billion, and no solution in 

sight. Now there is talk about, well, 

maybe we can do something else. I can 

guarantee you, if we do something else, 

it’s going to take—what?—30 more 

years, and it’s going to take $15 billion. 

At the end of that, we’re going to come 

to the same conclusion where we’re not 

going to have a solution. 

So, when you hear people talk about 

interim storage, we have interim storage. Guess where it’s at? It’s around 

our major metropolitan areas. It’s 

around Chicago. It’s around Boston, 

Massachusetts. It’s around Los Angeles. We have interim storage, and 

that’s our nuclear utilities. Now we 

have interim storage in Hanford, Washington. 

It is time for us as a body to man 

up—to accept our responsibilities, to 

finish the scientific study, and to have 

a long-term geological repository underneath a mountain in a desert so 

that we keep our promises and so that 

we protect this land for future generations. 

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time 

and the diligence. With that, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

f 

b 2000 

TROUBLING TIMES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) 

for 30 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these 

are interesting times we live in, and 

it’s nice to follow my friend, Mr. SHIMKUS, a graduate of the United States 

Military Academy, a servant of this 

country in the military, and still a 

servant in this country. It’s good to 

call him friend. Hopefully he calls me 

friend, as well. 

These are troubling times. When the 

name Justice Department depicts 

something other than justice, it’s a 

very troubling time. Some of us are extremely familiar with the prosecution 

of what most would consider the most 

significant, largest prosecution of terrorism support and funding in the 

United States history, which occurred 

in Federal district court in Dallas, 

Texas. It was begun under the Bush 

Justice Department, all part of the 

aftermath of 9/11 because, as President 

Bush indicated, we can’t just go after 

the people that actually plotted and 

carried out the events of 9/11, who plotted and carried out other terrorist attacks against the United States. It’s 

not enough. We’ve got to go after those 

who have supported those efforts at 

terrorism, have supported the killing 

of innocent people around the world. 

And particularly, we have to protect 

Americans. And for those who have 

supported terrorism and continue to 

support terrorism, the United States 

must step forward in order to protect 

itself. 

The Justice Department in November 

of 2008, I believe, got convictions of the 

individuals they had prosecuted in the 

Holy Land Foundation trial. Not only 

did they get convictions, they got over 

100 different counts in which they got 

convictions. Through that, there were 

names of coconspirators who were 

named and set forward in the pleadings, and evidence was introduced, admitted into evidence at trial that 

showed there were groups and individuals in the United States that were 

supporting terrorism, and there was 

significant evidence to support that. 

In fact, two of those groups, CAIR 

and the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA, had moved that their names 

be stricken from the pleadings as 

named coconspirators in supporting 

terrorism. At that time, the acting 

U.S. Attorney did a very good job not 

only in the prosecution, but also in the 

pleading to the Federal district court 

there before Judge Solis, and he established plenty of evidence so that Judge 

Solis found there was plenty of evidence to support the coconspirators 

continuing to have their names in the 

pleading, and they were not satisfied 

with the ruling of the Federal district 

court. They appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended up ruling 

that, yes, there was plenty of evidence 

to support the fact that CAIR, ISNA, 

and others were supporting terrorism, 

so their names would not be stricken 

from the pleadings, they would be kept 

in the pleadings as named coconspirators of terrorism. 

After that very successful prosecution that was in conformity with President Bush’s promise that if you’re not 

with us, you’re with them, and those 

who support terrorism would be made 

to account, that began the first stage 

of the prosecution of supporters of terrorism. Those were people and individual cases, those were organizations 

right here in America that were supporting terrorism, funding terrorism. 

Yes, they were supporting charities. 

Yes, they were giving money to good 

causes. That acted as a cover for them 

also funding terrorism, funding known 

terrorist organizations who had actually killed people and destroyed things, 

committing acts of war. 

Then, the Attorney General became 

Eric Holder. The President, the Commander in Chief, became Barack Hussein Obama. We know it’s okay to use 

the President’s full name, because he 

proudly uses it when he goes to Muslim 

nations. In fact, the first nations the 

President went to and apologized for 

America’s arrogance and divisiveness, 

dismissiveness were Muslim nations. In 

fact, going to Cairo, he snubbed America’s ally, Israel’s ally, Mubarak, who 

is not a fine, upstanding wonderful 

man but a man who had managed to 

keep some peace along the Israel border, a man who had agreements with 

this government just as this government had agreements with Qadhafi, despite the blood on his hands from terrorist involvement himself. In fact, 

I’ve read of reports of people even from 

our own Senate who have been over 

there, one who had tweeted that he had 

met with Colonel Qadhafi: ‘‘He was an 

interesting man. I met with him at his 

ranch.’’ I understand that Senator now 

says that tweet didn’t come from him. 

But there were Americans from this 

government negotiating with Qadhafi, 

working out agreements, and then they 

turned their backs on people with 

whom they had worked agreements: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5701 

Mubarak, Qadhafi. I don’t think we 

should have worked agreements with 

Qadhafi because of the blood on his 

hands, American blood on his hands. 

But it had been done, and yet this Nation turned its back on allies. It was no 

surprise to me to read that the King of 

Jordan—another person with whom we 

have a relatively good relationship— 

had sought an appointment with 

Ahmadinejad in Iran once he saw the 

way this administration not only 

turned its back on allies, but also 

would contribute to bombing to get 

them out of office. It’s an amazing 

thing. 

Then, being part of the Judiciary 

Committee here in Washington, some 

of us became very troubled that despite 

all of this substantive evidence—I’ve 

got a stack of it in my office from that 

Holy Land Foundation trial—substantiating allegations, at least to the satisfaction of the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals and the district court, that 

CAIR and ISNA and others should be 

named coconspirators, this Justice Department chose not to prosecute anyone else. Once again, using the old tactic, Well, the Bush administration 

didn’t prosecute them. They did stage 

one, they got the initial prosecutions, 

and if those were successful, they intended to continue looking and pursuing all those who were implicated 

and could have cases proved, especially 

where there was substantial evidence, 

as there was with CAIR and ISNA. 

Instead of prosecuting CAIR and 

ISNA, this administration—and there’s 

no question about this—despite the 

fussing and nay-saying of some once 

proud journalists of some once proud 

journalistic television networks, once 

proud newspapers, despite their failure 

to do their homework, despite their 

taking the easy road and simply asking 

opinions, Well, what do you think 

about these terrible accusations, and 

getting opinions instead of simply 

digging and looking at the facts and 

presenting the fact, they sought opinions on things that people had not even 

read. They asked opinions about letters 

that people had not read. They asked 

opinions about general tenor without 

actually showing people the tenor of 

the letters. 

b 2010 

And, unfortunately, some are always 

willing to respond without having read 

or reviewed the matter before them 

which they are being questioned about. 

But the facts are the facts. On the 

White House’s own Web site, last time 

I checked, there were references to 

ISNA. There are references to ISNA’s 

president, Imam Magid, who, as I understand, has now written a letter 

wanting condemnation of me and others who simply set out factual recitations to five different departments and 

then asked the question, Would you 

please investigate to see the extent of 

Muslim Brotherhood influence in this 

administration in this department. 

We know there’s Muslim Brotherhood 

influence. The question is how much 

influence is there? 

When the White House’s own Web 

site was carrying compliments, such as 

those spoken by Denis McDonough, the 

number two person in our National Security Agency, complimenting Imam 

Magid for the wonderful prayers he had 

given inside the sanctity of the White 

House itself, for the White House’s 

iftar celebration during Ramadan. 

Compliments to Imam Magid, the 

president of the main coconspirator, 

for the wonderful introduction he gave 

the number two person in the National 

Security Agency. 

And within the FBI itself—it took 

until 2009 for the FBI to finally write a 

letter saying, Gee, because of all this 

evidence that came out about CAIR 

supporting terrorism in the Holy Land 

Foundation trial in 2008, we have suspended our relationship with them. At 

one place in the letter, they referred to 

it as a ‘‘partner’’ or a ‘‘partnership.’’ 

So there’s no question there is Muslim Brotherhood influence in this administration. Anybody that says otherwise will likely find that they will end 

up at the lowest level of Nielsen ratings in their history, or at least in 20 

years or so, because they simply are 

not doing their homework. It’s much 

easier to bash the messenger than it is 

to actually do homework. And in fairness, I know there have been lots of 

budget cuts. It’s tough for some entities, some networks to do the research 

they once did when they were much 

more popular. But, nonetheless, the 

truth is the truth. Facts are facts. 

The question remains: Just how extensive is the influence of the Muslim 

Brotherhood in this administration? 

We know that the ACLU and CAIR 

have been demanding documentation of 

what trainees have been taught in our 

Justice Department, in other departments, making FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, requests trying to get 

information on what we are training 

our undercover agents, if any we have. 

Apparently, this administration has 

no problem outing people we have undercover in dangerous situations. At 

least somebody who has information 

about the very inner workings of this 

administration has leaked classified information. It remains to be found out 

who it is, but it is somebody that has 

access to some of the most important 

classified inner workings. 

Yet you’ve got CAIR and the ACLU 

demanding information about the information that was used to train these 

people. And the facts are that if you 

ever disclose that—and as I understand, our Justice Department was preparing to provide all that information 

to CAIR and to ACLU—and if they provide all of the information on exactly 

how people who have been undercover 

in radical Islamic situations, it will be 

easy for those individuals to be outed 

and killed because they’ll know what 

their training is and their approach to 

radical Islam. They’ll know the methods and means of our undercover, of 

our intelligence. And yet this administration continues to cater to such requests to accommodate complaints 

about CAIR. 

CAIR individuals can call the White 

House, as apparently was written up in 

material in the media after last August. They were complaining about 

people who were going to give a seminar to hundreds of law enforcement individuals. CAIR makes one call, as it 

was reported at least, makes a call to 

the White House. The seminar gets 

canceled. Hundreds of law enforcement 

individuals do not end up being taught 

about the inner workings of those who 

want to kill and destroy our way of 

life. And CAIR is happy. 

Just how far does the influence of the 

Muslim Brotherhood go? We know from 

the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial that ISNA is the largest Muslim Brotherhood front organization in 

America. And President Obama has had 

President Imam Magid in the inner 

sanctum of the State Department to 

listen to the speech that he gave, trying to upstage Prime Minister 

Netanyahu when he was on his way 

over here in May of last year. 

The report was that Imam Magid had 

actually given him advice on what he 

should say. Who knows, perhaps what 

Imam Magid said was, Oh, yes, Israel 

has agreed to go back to the 1967 

boundary lines, so you can include that 

in your speech. Who knows. 

We wanted an Inspector General investigation to find out in the State Department, Defense Department, intelligence department, in these five departments just how extensive is the 

Muslim Brotherhood influence. We 

know it’s there. Most Americans know 

it’s there. There are some that still 

drink the Kool-Aid and refuse to acknowledge the facts that have been 

proven in court. 

There are facts that actually the 

prosecutor of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings has pointed out in his article—that’s Andrew McCarthy—he has 

pointed out, We proved to New York jurors, wonderful New York jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was 

this radical Islamic presence in America; and they did want to take over our 

country, that there is a civilization 

jihad. Some want to do it radically 

with violence. Some want to take over 

from inside our own governmental and 

civic organizations, and they’re working toward that goal. 

There’s no question about so many of 

these things. The question is, How far 

does the influence go? That’s what we 

need to know. 

So we asked the question, and we had 

Attorney General Holder before our 

committee last year. And he was asked 

the question, Did you or did politics 

have any consideration in the refusal 

to prosecute any of the other named 

coconspirators about which the Fifth 

Circuit said there is plenty of evidence 

to support their involvement? Was 

there political involvement in that decision? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

Well, we didn’t know it at the time; 

but since then, more recently, in the 

last couple of months, we’ve had the 

Attorney General testify before our 

committee that there are political aspects to justice, from his standpoint, 

which fly in the face of everything that 

any good law school, any legitimate 

law school has ever taught its law students. 

Justice is supposed to be blind. 

That’s why the statue that depicts justice, holding the scales of justice, is 

blinded, is wearing a blindfold. Because 

justice is blind if it’s real justice. And 

if justice is not blind, if we’re looking 

to who it is and politically what the 

consequences will be, it’s not justice. 

There are no political aspects to justice—or it’s not true justice. And I’m 

afraid that’s where we’ve gotten to in 

this so-called Justice Department. 

So we had the Attorney General say, 

Oh, no, no, no. There is no political involvement. In fact, I said to my friend 

TRENT FRANKS, Gee, in fact, the U.S. 

Attorney handling that—I believe it 

was quoted in a newspaper—I believe it 

was the Dallas News—he said there was 

no politics involved in those dismissals 

because there was just no case there. 

There was no evidence to support it. 

b 2020 

Well, I happened to have read that 

Dallas Morning News report, and I happen to have read the quotes from that 

acting U.S. Attorney. And yes, he did 

say it was local; politics weren’t involved. But that is not what he said. He 

says no, the evidence wasn’t there, 

which is entirely different since he was 

not under penalty of potential jail 

when he spoke to a reporter, but he was 

under potential penalty of jail. If you 

ever commit a fraud upon a court by 

not giving all of the information or 

misrepresenting to a judge or tricking 

a judge by not being truthful, you can 

be looking at jail time. Lawyers before 

me knew that. I didn’t care about politics, but I cared about truth. 

I cared about it in the Bush administration. So when we found out there 

were abuses of the National Security 

Letter, I was furious. And I grilled the 

Bush director of the FBI at that time. 

I was surprised there weren’t more 

Democrats that were nearly as outraged as I was because that was so offensive. It was so improper. It was so 

unjust. I don’t care who the President 

is; justice is justice. And for our Attorney General to act like oh, no, no, 

there wasn’t anything. And then I 

know. I read the pleadings of that U.S. 

Attorney where he said there’s plenty 

of evidence to support the name of 

CAIR and others being in here. And he 

convinced the Fifth Circuit of the same 

thing. So he was either lying to the 

courts or he was lying to the paper 

about the evidence. 

And now, after having had the head 

of civil rights of this Justice Department, Mr. Perez, testify that gee, there 

was no political aspect in the decision 

not to pursue the New Black Panther 

Party for what they did at a polling 

place in Pennsylvania, and now we 

have found out this week, Human 

Events has a great article, ‘‘Federal 

judge rules political appointees interfered with voter intimidation case.’’ 

That’s from August 2, posted at 2:12 

p.m. 

There’s one from the American Spectator about the fact that Thomas 

Perez, assistant attorney general, is 

one of the most destructive forces 

against the rule of law in this Nation, 

including being the man responsible for 

the DOJ dropping charges again the 

New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia during the last 

Presidential election. It goes on to talk 

about he appeared before the House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Constitution, which is a subcommittee of 

the Judiciary Committee, and it goes 

on to say that he questioned Assistant 

Attorney General Perez over the administration’s commitment to First 

Amendment rights. His questions were 

prompted by a Daily Caller article 

from late last year in which Perez was 

quoted as warmly embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George Washington University, 

among them a request for a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of 

Islam constitutes racial discrimination. 

Well, we know that one of the 10-year 

goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to 

subvert the U.S. Constitution to sharia 

law. And once they convince enough 

people that it should be a crime to 

burn a Koran or to criticize Islam, then 

they can check that box. 

I believe in the Bible. My eternity is 

based on belief of the Bible. But I also 

know under the U.S. Constitution, you 

can burn a Bible. I took a pledge and 

was willing to lay down my life, my 4 

years in the Army, for our flag, but I 

also understand it’s constitutional to 

burn a flag. And yet we have people in 

this injustice department saying they 

want to make it a crime to criticize 

Islam. No wonder they’re purging their 

training materials, eliminating references to Islam. 

As one intelligence officer of this 

government told me, we are blinding 

our ability to see our enemy, and that 

can and will have dangerous consequences if we don’t turn it around. 

Mr. Speaker, wrapping up here before 

we take this August recess that isn’t a 

recess because we will be in pro forma 

session, we’re willing, most of us, Republicans are willing to come back. All 

we have to know is that the Senate is 

finally doing something to pass some of 

the jobs bills we’ve sent their way. And 

in fairness, what we need is Republican 

leadership that will say okay, Senate, 

you want this bill, then you are going 

to have to pass some of the economic 

and jobs bills that will get this economy going, but we haven’t used the leverage Republicans in the House have. 

And, unfortunately, with all of the talk 

about agreeing to another CR, it just 

means that we’ll have finished out 2 

years without cutting anything significant, as we promised 2 years ago after 

the biggest wave election in American 

history since the 1930s. 

It’s time for Americans to make 

clear you want Congress to do what 

was promised when the Congressmen 

got elected. And if we do that, it 

doesn’t matter how obstructive the 

Senate is, it will make it even more 

clear if we use our leverage and say: 

Hey, people, the government is shut 

down on weekends, you seem to live 

okay. Let’s get back to just essential 

needs of the government. Allow a shutdown of other things. Pass my bill that 

will make sure our military gets paid 

during a shutdown, we know Social Security recipients will still get their 

payments in the event of a shutdown, 

and keep the government shut down 

until everybody understands we’re 

going to start living within our means 

as a Congress, like all Americans have 

to do, or declare bankruptcy. They 

have to do that. We can’t afford to declare bankruptcy. We must get this 

government under control. I hope that 

constituents across the country during 

this month will make that clear, and 

we’ll replace the Senators who are 

standing in the way of getting this 

economy going, that we’ll replace the 

administration who is creating injustice and allowing radical Islamic 

jihadists to have any influence at all. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security 

sat there and told me that it did absolutely not happen, that a member of a 

terrorist organization had been allowed 

in the White House; 6 days later, she 

not only admits to the Senate that it 

did happen after she told me absolutely 

not, but she said: Oh, but it’s okay; we 

vetted him three times. 

It’s time for a government that is 

more considerate and concerned about 

providing for the common defense, of 

getting out of the way and letting the 

economy grow than they are about 

playing favorites, playing to their cronies, and playing against religious freedom. 

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

f 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to: 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas (at the request of Ms. PELOSI) for today on account of attending a memorial service 

for her first chief of staff in Houston, 

Texas. 

f 

SENATE BILL AND A JOINT 

RESOLUTION REFERRED 

A bill and a joint resolution of the 

Senate of the following titles were 

taken from the Speaker’s table and, 

under the rule, referred as follows: 

S. 1409. An act to intensify efforts to identify, prevent, and recover payment error, 

waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal 

spending; to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE