King of new york, a republican, that his bill could be brought to the interior and all of us ce the responsibility of selecting whose side do we stand on . We stand for the safety of americans and prevent people that are too dangerous to fly being able to buy a gun or do we stand with those on the nofly list and say, you ought to be able to buy a gun even though you can fly. All of you, voters and non voters, dont you think it is time for your representatives to stand before you in this house and say we agree that if you are too dangerous to fly and too dangerous to buy a gun, or stand here before all the American Public and say, no. No. No. Go ahead and buy a gun. Thats what a discharge petition will do. It will take mr. King to bring it to the floor and put it before the house of representatives, the representatives of the American People, and cause us to make a choice for your safety or for the presumed right of a person who is too dangerous to fly, to buy a gun. Well see what happens. That issue is now bubbling around here on the floor. There were four motions to adjourn which is a jay to causing he floor and the attention of the membership of the house and the press and the press box or wherever they happen to be, to focus on this ne, one issue, whether the 16,000 or so people who are on and fly list can go out buy a gun. And we ought to discuss this no of there is constitutional issue here or there is a stugsal issue, they are on the list but have no ability to get on. Not true. Not true. When it was first put together following 9 11. E issue was raced that the constitutionality by the Civil Liberties union said no we disagree with you and this is an authorized protection of the American Public and there is a procedure for an individual to petition to get off the list. So this issue of congress stution nationality was decided some years ago by a federal court. The arguments that you hear about this being an infringement of the rights to buy a gun. You are on the nofly list, you have a program under way to emove yourself from the nofly meetsnd the court says it constitutional muster. We know a lot of americans of certainly classes that cannot uy a gun, criminals convicted, felon, some people who have been involved in domestic violence, ople that have exhibited Mental Health issues. And so we would add to that calt gore, people that are Law Enforcement agencies that have deemed to be terrorists or abiding and assisting organizations. Cant fly. You cant buy a gun also. My republican colleague, mr. King is correct. The issue is not resolved. Sue will be back before us tomorrow. And those of us who believe that if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. We continue to push this issue for the safety of americans. 16,000 may not be able to fwy a gun,000 people who are on the nofly lift have been able to buy a gun. Aybe they shot quail or maybe, pray not. So, the issue is before us, as are many, many important issues. I dont think there is any issue more important than the safety of the American People. And we know if somebody is thought to be dangerous, they out not to have a gun. With that, mr. Speaker, i yield back my remaining time and hope this house will see the wisdom of taking the small step in denying 16,000 people probably those who arent american citizens, denying thm the opportunity to buy a gun. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert, for 0 minutes. Mr. Gohmert thank you, mr. Speaker. And so much in the news and our friends here on the floor have en raising questions about responsible, reasonable gun control. We want gun control that does not violate the Second Amendment of the constitution, the purpose of which is to allow citizens to protect themselves. And to allow citizens to protect themselves. And the thing i noticed, mr. Speaker, in my decade as a judge, the criminals that came before me for crimes used with a gun, they did not i cant remember any of them. 6,000 cases of felony cases, went through our court. I cant remember anywhere they went down to a gun store and bought a gun store. And with the 100 million guns that understand that have been purchased and in recent years, doesnt look like there quib any chance to remove guns except from lawabiding citizens. But it has been interesting. We inquire my republican friends, coloogs here, we inquired over and over and still seffvench years after president obama took office, we know that shortly thereafter, there was a scheme hatched within his administration to sell guns to criminals that would get to mexico and fall into the hands of drug cartels and they didnt add equal monitor. There were nothing they couldnt betraysed exactly where they were going. Ne one of those was killed one of our government agents. And government agents life who was working for the president and have one of the president s zears or employees and end up lling one american agent and apparently hundreds of mecks ons and we dont know the full extent. Eric holder withheld evidence. I felt like he should have been impeached and thrown out of office. We never got absence answers about fast and furious. We sent amails. Even after they got caught, this administration had facilitated weapons being provided and sold to people that would take them to the drug cartels. Even after they got caught, they were wondering if it would be foss to use these weapons to create violence to address attacks and taking away Second Amendments rights. And apparently, black friday, ast week, has been a record, but just a massive number of guns being sold. 185,000 requests for gun purchases, on friday after thanksgiving. Regardless of what the number was, thats not completely accurate, its staggering how many people are now in fear for themselves and their families because of the policies of this of nistration now because fast and fewer rouse and how many people in the administration that were contemplating the sale of guns to drug cartels that this administration facilitated as a reason to have more gun control, it questions you the administrations policies. We know the last five years of george w. Bush presidency, his administration was vigorously prosecuting gun violations. But this administration has never prosecuted in the seven years and has never prosecuted as the Bush Administration did in those times. D we find out, not only were this they were not progress in the last five years of the Bush Administration, but in recent years, they have been cutting back on the prosecution of gun vigses. We find out in 01, gun violation prosecutions by this administration diminished. And we find out in 014, they diminished even further by this administration. And we find out in 015, this administration sket a record for the last seven rears of prosecuting fewer gun violation crimes than any administration well, this was the lowest year, any of his last seven years. The administration as they have increased the demand for more gun control to take guns away from lawabiding citizens, they have been decreasing the number f gun violations they have prosecuted and promote more george w. Bush control and what is the reason this administration continues to rosecute fewer and fewer gun crimes . Its as if this administration and im not saying, mr. Parliamentarian, im not saying a specific person and im violating the house rules, but has administration somehow had this policy of prosecuting fewer and fewer gun crimes at the same time increasing rhetoric to have more gun control. Its as if and im alleging, its as if they wanted gunning violence to increase to get more gun control as it appears their meet vacation in using what happened with gun violence as a rilt of their 2000 weapons they forced to sell to people they shouldnt have. When i heard the policy, nobody who cant fly on a plane should be able to buy a gun, seemed reasonable. I was talking to my friend, tom price from georgia, back here earlier, mr. Speaker. He said the same thing. It struck him, wow, that seems reasonable. Until you start considering how one gets on the nofly list. Whos been on the nofly list, the massive abuses of individual Constitutional Rights by this administration, of uses of the i. R. S. Lawabiding citizens, that Richard Nixon could have only dreamed of abusing the way this administration has. But the trouble is, theres no due process for someone to be adjudicated, to put on the nofly list. Theres no due process to get off the nofly list. Nd in fact, one of the men i respect as much as anybody i know, hes a constituent, hes an army veteran, hes a retired general, lives in east texas, weve had to help him a number of times, once again, to get off the nofly list. And unfortunately we never can find out why hes ever put on the nofly list in the first place. The only thing i know, he is a devout christian. He is a supporter of mine. He would never knowingly violate the law of the United States. So i dont know, is it because hes a supporter of mine . I mean, a year ago i was trying to fly back from london and an official there in london airport with their security said, sir, i understand who you are, very sorry, but your Homeland Security says youre somebody that has to be personally, physically searched along with everything that you have. Gee. Maybe somebody didnt like the way i cross examined them in the judiciary hearing. When you know that this administration has abused its power repeatedly, and you find out that actually the nofly list is so obscure, its like something from a kafka novel, never really enjoyed his novels, but the trial, it makes you think of, wow, you mean, this obscure Government Entity can charge you with something but you cant just like in the trial, you cant find out what youre charged with, you cant find out which youre on the nofly list, you cant find out if its part of an enemys list, you cant find out whats the best way to convince the government to get you off. Are there mistakes made . Well, gee, mr. Speaker, could it be that a mistake was made when one of my constituent families from texas was going to take their dream vacation to disney world, they felt like the kids were old enough to enjoy it now, and when they tried to check their bags, they couldnt because of their five children, their middle child was on the nofly list. He was a potential terrorist. I come from a family of four kids. And if i was going to pick one of my siblings, including me, to be a terrorist, i would say its probably the young one. Well, this child was 5 years old. He was the middle child. Not the youngest. Nd they pulled him aside thinking hes, well, gee, his names on the nofly list. He must be a terrorist. Well, thankfully in houston they had some common sense and quickly figured out, this is not a terrorist. This 5yearold kid, hes not. Not so when they tried to leave orlando to fly back home. He was pulled aside, the 5yearold, he was separated from his parents, his parents were fit to be tied. They were threatened, they were not allowed to be with their child. They take him off to interrogate him. A 5yearold child. But hes on the nofly list. And they couldnt figure this out. They think hes a terrorist. They ask him his date of birth. Hes freak out. Hes separated from his parents and his other siblings. He knows the month and day. He cant tell them the year. So now they think hes withholding information. They endured a lot of counseling and nightmares because of the abuses of this administrations policies and, yes, mistakes are made like that. And sometimes when peoples names get put on the nofly list, you dont know what its for. Heres an article, i sure dont read from these folks very often, but the Los Angeles Times says it seems simple enough, the federal government based on intelligence or policy policing puts a person on its watch list, a suspected terrorist decree, that he or she is too dangerous to be put on an airplane. Surely it would be foolish to let that person buy a firearm in the United States. Makes sense, doesnt it . That was the thrust of a law a proposed law by senator feinstein. Goes on down, one problem is that the people on the nofly list, as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn, have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having terror connections. I thought it was outrageous that senator ted kennedy was on the nofly list. I dont know. Maybe Homeland Security knew something the rest of america didnt know. But seems silly to me. Senator ted stevens, the late senators wife, catherine stevens, her name was on the nofly list. She had those problems. So, it could be that youre guilty of only having a name similar to somebody that was put on the list for who knows why, but that is not a good way to take peoples guns away, to say, yes, we want to pass a law so that this administration, behind close doors, with the lowest learners of this administration, can put peoples names on a list, they can never buy a gun, can never fly on a plane. That is a scary proposition. And how about the 72 department of Homeland Security employees that are on the nofly list . And then we find out also, thanks to senator jeff sessions, that weve had two refugees in this country who this year have been either charged or convicted convicted of terrorist activities. And one worked around ohare airport, and another worked around here, over, i believe it was a cab driver working around reagan airport. How about we take care of the people that we know for sure are a threat to america . Anyway. The article from wyoming says, according to technology wimentse, according to from the washington times, accordingly, 280,000 are considered to have no affiliation with recognized terrorist groups. All it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion, someone could be a terrorist. Theres no hard evidence required. Standard is notoriously vegas and elastic vague and elastic. So an article from adam credo, from free beacon, about the 72 employees, tip of the hat to congressman Stephen Lynch for finding that information, this article from neil monroe, bright batter, california shooting shows jihad risk from muslim migrants u. S. Born children. The San Bernardino shooter, who killed 14 americans, is jet another name on the growing list of u. S. Born children of muslim migrants who grew up to embrace violent jihad. Seems like somebody has talked about that before. The notorious example was anwr al maliki. He subsequently embraced the violent commandments of islam, complete with its many calls for attacks on nonmuslims, his career as a jihadi advisor, recruiter, cheerleader ended when he was killed by u. S. Missile strike in yemen in september, 2011. Another example is nadal malik hassan, the virginiaborn son of arab migrants. Who murdered 13 americans in fort hood, texas, in 2009. That attack was down played by federal officials as workplace violence. Even though hassan had described himself as the soldier of allah on his u. S. Army business cards. The problem is worse among muslims because muslim culture and religion is hostile to integration, spencer says, quote, islamic law announces itself as a superior model for society and government, so youve got no communitydriven reason for muslims to integrate or adopt American Values because their way is better. Thats what spencer says. I do know muslims here in the United States that dont believe that they should adopt sharia law. Ive got muslim friends in afghanistan and all over north after africa and the middle east they dont want radical islam. And in fact in egypt, so proud of the people of egypt, they rose up and said, we dont want radical islam. Of course, this president , this administration wants to punish them for throwing out the muslim brother president. But this article back to this article, he says, in august, 2015, the f. B. I. Arrested a u. S. Born son of a supposedly moderate imam as he began his journey to join isis in syria. He was accompanied by his Young University educated american wife who was a convert to islam. Thats the quintessential example of the risk involved because the father is supposed to be moderate and were supposed to think the son subscribes to a violent islam completely different from the father. But theres no evidence of a riff between the father and son. In october, 2014, two u. S. Born teenage girls were nabbed by the f. B. I. As they began their journey to syria. The left wing Southern Poverty Law Center lists at least five additional u. S. Born jihadis or wouldbe jihadis including james, who tried to detonate a tarik, wally, his family name comes from the arab term for holy warrior. And nasser jason who planned to ttack fort hood in 2011. So, i also would like to tip the hat, mr. Speaker, to secretary johnson, that went back out to the all dulles area muslims society, adams for short, im sure john adams appreciated that appreciates that very much, dont know if the president s friend, the imam, oh, wait. Lets see. This article mentions him. One of the most meaningful discussions on his tour, talking about jay johnson, he called it, was in june with the adam center imam which began with a Boy Scout Troop leading the pledge of allegiance. That imam is the past president of the i Islamic Society of america, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. By the way, it was listed as a coconspirator in the Holyland Foundation trial for supporting terrorism and once this they got the convictions of the five main people being prosecuted, isna, care, some other folks tried to get their names withdrawn from the pleadings being specifically named as coconspirators in support of terrorism. But the Federal District judge and also the u. S. Federal court of appeals, fifth circuit, said, no, theres plenty of evidence to support that you are coconspirators in supporting terrorism. I was told by a lawyer that the plan was, once they got those first five convi