tv [untitled] CSPAN June 12, 2009 12:30pm-1:00pm EDT
-- that agreement. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. i would simply point to the vote taken yesterday on the motion to instruct conferees, 267 meers of this house support the inclusion of the language parring -- barring release of the photos. i am at a loss to understand the thinking behind this action when we bring this report to the floor that strips that language. not only the majority by far the members of this house, on both sides of the aisle said that they think the language is important, the american people do, it is counterintuitive to think at all that congress should not take action to secure the safety of our troops and stop the release of those photos. lastly, madam speaker, i would just say to the gentleman, we have been somewhat dismayed again about the clouding of the issues and underlying principle of this bill which is to fund our troops and provide for their safety. we've seen this process delayed
over unrelated items and it is unfortunate, and i'm hopeful that our troops are not getting the wrong message, that somehow their safety, security, and the funding of their efforts doesn't come first. i would lastly like to ask the gentleman, how is it that when we left the house and had the broad bipartisan support of the provisions which fenced off the money so that we would not endanger the citizens and the communities of the targeted facilities that the detainees from guantanamo would come to, how is it that we took that fencing off of the money to preclude the funding of shipping terrorist here to now say that we're going to be safer? it is a better policy for us to try and achieve the rights and protect the rights of the terrorists at the potential
expense of endangering u.s. citizens. i yield. . mr.er hoyer: as the gentleman knows there's no money in here for transferring, the $80 million requested, not incded in the house or senate. still not included. the bill prohibits current detainees from being released in the continental united states and alaska and hawaii and d.c. prohibits current detainees from being transferred to the continental united states except to be prosecuted only after congress receives a plan detailing risks involved, a plan for mitigating such risk, cost of transfer and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of receiving state 14 days before transfer with certification by the attorney general that the individual poses little or no security risk. in addition, the bill provides current detainees cannot be transferred or released to
another country unless the president smits to congress 15 days prior to such transfer the name of the individual, country the individual will be transferred to, and an assessment of risk posed and actions taken to mitigate such risk. the terms of the transfer agreement of the other country including any financial assistance. lastly, it describes the disposition of each current detainee before the facility can be closed. but let me say in the final analysis, many republicans including the former secretary of state, colin powell, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, advisor to a number of republican presidents, said on news program almost a year ago now that he believed that guantanamo ought to be closed. he believed it should have been closed yesterday when he was speaking, that was a year ago.
the president of the united states has indicated he thinks guantanamo ought to be closed. there is disagreement on that i understand that. but if it's going to be closed, a plan has to be affected for the purpose ever dealing with those who are at guantanamo. and the president is working on such a plan. the congress in both bodies made a determination until we have such plan we are not going to take action to facilitate that. that's what i think the conference agreement sets forth. and i think it sets forth the protections that can give the american people a confidence level. let me say something additional to the gentleman. i'm older than the gentleman. when i was a child approximately four or five years of age, i was living in texas. mexia, texas. my father, born in denmark, served in the u.s. army. he was in his 40's and went
sent overseas. he was the finance officer at a p.o.w. camp in mexia, texas. it's a town of about 7,500 people. apparently then and now, i asked somebody about it just recently there, were 4,000 nazi troops in a p.o.w. campp there. they were kept there. they were not necessarily terrorists. we need to take special precautions. but in the pursuance of the policies enunciated by the president of the united states, when he ran for office, when he was substantially elected by the american people, he told them exactly what he thought ought to be done. he is pursuing what he said to the american people he would do. he is doing in my opinion in a thoughtful way that will protect the american public and will bring to justice those who have committed international crimes.
and i think that is something that we are trying to work through. i want to reiterate the gentleman has now mentioned so many times that we have allowed the funding of the troops to get caught up with other issues. surely the gentleman i know does not mean because he's been here long enough to know when the house and senate and the presidency were in the hands of his party, funding of the troops got tied up from time to time with other issues. that's the nature of the legislative process. but i'm hopeful that the gentleman because he's so focused on getting this money to the troops quickly, i'm hopeful that the gentleman will urge all of of his colleagues on tuesday to join with us in voting to fund the troops. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman and his plea for support in his bill knowing good and well that this bill did not go out of this house
without some support from republicans that were necessary for its passage in its original form. i would just say to the gentleman and thank him for his description of the p.o.w. camp in texas, but here we are dealing with individuals who are not necessarily soldiers of war. they are enemy combatants. an entirely different set of of circumstances that we have today and i would say that if it is satisfy to the -- satisfactory to the gentleman -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. he and i are probably two of the strongest supporters in this body. those p.o.w.'s were part of a regime that killed six million people. and the gentleman doesn't need reminding of that, but these were not simply soldiers of a regime that was -- mr. cantor: reclaiming my time. mr. hoyer: a war that you and i
might view in a different way. mr. cantor: i would just say to the gentleman as he does know there were applicable provisions of law which govern the treatment of soldiers at war and there are -- there is a much less definitive, more nebulous environment in which we are to look towards enemy combatants which is my point, because with the trial of enemy combatants, on u.s. soil, we are confronting, as the gentleman knows, cases ever first impression at every turn. we are confronting uncertainty as to disposition of these cases which brings up potential harm for u.s. citizens. and i just go back to the gentleman's plea that he would like to see us support this bill. if the primary purpose is to maintain, promote the security and safety of our troops and provide them with funding, it is a far -- it is a reach for
me to understand how allowing for release of photos, how allowing for the transfer of enemy combatants, terrorists, to u.s. soil furthers that end. so i would say in closing, madam speaker, if the gentleman is satisfied with deferring to the white house and deferring to this president on the very core purpose of securing this country at all levels and doesn't feel that congress should take affirmative action, then i believe his support of this bill is well put. but it is certainly the opinion of many of us in this house as indicated by votes as late as yesterday that we can do better. that we can take action to secure our troops, get them the money they need, and get rid of the unrelated items in this bill.
and i yield back. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i simply want to observe as i pointed out in the five or six points i made, particularly the current detainees cannot be transferred or released to another country without notice to us, nor can they be released here in the united states without further action. so that the gentleman's premise is i think not correct that we are going to -- this president has the authority to or the intent to release people at this time in the united states before or after trial. now, having said that i would say the gentleman continues to talk about the add-ons. but will i tell the gentleman as the gentleman knows, over 80% of this bill deals with the funding and security of our troops and the prosecution of the effort to defeat terrorism. over 80% of this bill.
it is in that context that i would hope the gentleman would see his way clear to urging his colleagues to join with us in passing this needed legislation. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman very much for his suggestion and counsel. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on monday next for more hour debate. and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday, june 16, 2009, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to commend south
orange town schools superintendent ken mitchell in my district for his quick reaction and bravery as he single-handedly prevented what could have been a terrible tragedy in south orange town middle school. according to reports a man came into the school, stormed past security, and demanded at gun point that mr. mitchell make changes to a letter on swine flu. he certainly picked the wrong person to threaten when he took on mr. mitchell, a former hockey player and coach. the 55-year-old superintendent was able to tackle him and disarm him before police were able to break into the locked office to apprehend the suspect and thankfully no one was hurt. why someone would enter a school with a gun is something i'll never understand. it's disturbing to even fathom what could lead someone to choose to do that. however it is heartening to realize that someone like ken mitchell is standing in their way. the dedication shown by mr. mitchell to the children should be be an example to all. our nation has witnessed too many deaths of our children in their schools.
the people of the south orange town school system and the community as a whole owe him a huge debt of gratitude. hero is an overword today in today's world, but i can think of fewer situations which more warrant than word than protecting children in their classrooms, ken mitchle is truly a hero. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. cao: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cao: madam speaker, although we live in the 21st century, many people today are still deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of love by governments that lack the rule of law. one such government is the socialist republic of vietnam. about 10 years ago the vietnamese ministry of labor and social affairs directly oversaw and operated two
state-owned labor companies that were involved in the largest human trafficking case ever prosecuted by the u.s. department of justice. the case thoroughly documented the exploitation and abusive conditions faced by more than 230 workers at the factory in american samoa. these victims were beaten, starved, sexually harassed, and threaten with deo portation. the high court of american samoa subsequently found these state-owned labor agencies libel for the aatrocities and make them pay $3.5 million to the victims. almost 10 years after the ruling, vietnam still refuses to acknowledge its part in these atrocities and pay. madam speaker, i ask that the u.s. congress demand the vietnamese government pay the damages and respect the rule of law. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one
minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you. madam speaker, since january the american people have endured another loss of $1.33 trillion of their wealth, having already faced the worse drop in wealth since 1951 in the prior quarter. yet despite being at the root of our economy's tailspin, wall street continues to issue huge bonuses. for example, merrill lynch has issued $4 billion in bonuses, the very bankers and finance years who created this mess that are now nes t'd over at the bank of america. this is yet another sign that america needs to rein in the false money wizards and reward real wealth, those who create real wealth in our society starting with hardworking americans. let me ask the question, when will wall street's profits translate into a better life for everyone else? with wealth declining and unemployment rising, america should not be hollowed out by
wall street, rather wall street's business should translate into a better way of life for the american republic. . we've wandered far from that mark. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize plsmed smith: madam speaker, quote, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attorney present during questioning. if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. end quote. american citizens are read these rights when they're taken into police custody. but though because ma administration decided to give these rights to suspected terrorists overseas. why would the obama administration give terrorists the same rights as american citizens.
members of al qaeda and other terrorist groups should be treated as what they are, america's enemies engaged in a war against the united states. giving terrorists constitutional rights is like giving a burglar the key to your house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, republicans are committed to health care reform and we have and will continue to offer alternatives to achieve health care for all americans. unfortunately, as democrats sat behind closed doors to develop their plans, it appears they failed to answer some troubling concerns about what seems to be likely an unwarranted government takeover of the health care system.
in the spirit of honest debate, i ask my democratic colleague house they expect to pay for a government insurance plan without raising taxes or driving up the national debt. how will a government-run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other countries? how will a government-run health plan protect the doctor-patient relationship when washington will now be empowered to pick and choose what procedures and treatments are in their opinion cost beneficial. before we turn congressional office into waiting rooms, i hope my democratic colleagues will answer these questions. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i just finished speaking to the bunker
hill and willchester elementary schools. i want to bring to the attention of the audience the cover of the new "the economist" magazine, which expresses the terrible burden this liberal congress is passing on to our kids. there was debt run up by the previous administration, i voted against $2.3 trillion of new spending under the previous administration, already voted against $1.6 trillion under this administration and no matter who you are, each of us need to remember as parents, as husbands, as responsible citizens, that we cannot pass on a burden of debt to our kids. on every vote on every issue, we need to remember that our children are inheriting the biggest debt and biggest deficit in our nation's history. as bad as the deficit was under mr. bush, the economist points out it will quadruple and stay
over $1 trillion out into the future. on every vote, on every issue, this congress needs to cut spending, no new taxes, no new spending, no new debt. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislation and any special orders heretofore entered into the following member mace be permitted to address the house and revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. hensarling today for five minutes, mr. smith of new jersey today for five minutes, mr. burton for june 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 for five minutes, myself, mr. poe, for june 19, mr. jones for june 19 for five minutes, mr. flake for today
for five minutes and mr. fleming june 18 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. ms. woolsey of california, mr. schiff of california, ms. richardson, california. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. paul of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?
mr. poe: i wish to claim mr. paul's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. the out of control violence along our border is made up of more complex elements than most people realize. the criminal cartels controling our southern border are a lot more powerful than we are led to believe. they are international organized crime cartels that make money off the weaknesses of others. they traffic drugs, money, weapons, and human beings across our southern border. they leave death, doom, and destruction in their wake. make no mistake about it, there is corruption on both sides of the border that facilitates the lawlessness taking place there. just last month, former sheriff of starr county -- stark county, texas, ray guera pled guilty to federal markets charges he admitted to facilitating intelligence that helped mexican drug traffickers invade the united states and evade countermarkets efforts,
include tryinging to find out the ident i have to confidential informants he needs to be locked up forever for his betrayal to this country and law enforcement. he's just one of a growing number of recruits from both sides of the border facilitating this avalanche of corruption and an arty kentucky along the southern frontier. the mexican -- but mexican criminal cartels have added a layer of intelligence that better resemblings foreign recruitment of spies in the cold war than a traditional criminal enterprise. the huge amounts of money paid to these officials allow the criminalings to traffic people and drugs into our land. there is a huge difference in the size and scope of these international criminal activities and the typical domestic law enforcement agencies and their duties. as more and more of the violence spills over into texas and other border states, there is an urgent need to get this lawlessness under control the cost of this culture of crime is hammering bordestates.
the f.b.i. is stretched too thin they don't have the manpower to address this cross-border corruption and they are fighting domestic federal crime and jihaddists. right new we're asking local sheriffs in border states to do double duty as if they're agents of interpol. our domestic police forces should be fried up to do what they do west, fight crime in their counties and communities. our drug enforcement agency is doing a noble effort to control the international criminal cartels that more and more resemble an army at the border than the coe is a northeast rah but -- than the cosa nostra. the border patrol is outmauned and outgunned. our government has limited their rules of engagement. their standard operating procedure is nonconfrontational. heavy-armed bad guys come through with their contraband and humans yet little is done.
these cartels are made up of a hybrid of the worst elements of organized crime they include terrorist crells, internationalest peenpee nagy agencies and others. why are we acting as if we can no longer defend our borders? this is absolute nonsense. the mexican organized criminal cartels are sophisticated and they are deadly. maybe it's time to put the united states military on the border. there's no higher duty for the american military than to protect the borders of its own nation from international criminal invasion. it's interesting, madam speaker, we use our military a thousand miles away to fight the drug war in afghanistan, but we won't use them at home. why not? there is no answer from the administration. we should rotate deployments of our military to the southern border.
our brave men and women are routinely deployed for desert training. why not concentrate these deployments on the border rm this frees up domestic law enforcement to do the job they should be doing, root ought corruption on our side of the border. madam speaker, i have flown with the national guard along the texas-mexico border. they do a tremendous job working with the border patrol and the d.e.a., but a handful of helicopters is not enough to secure the border. the air national guard needs more equipment, more money and more troops to capture the outlaw cartel gangs. the u.s. gave mexico $1.5 billion to fight the cartels. that money should have been given to our border protector, not the culture of corruption on the mexican side of the border. a lot of attention has been rightly focused on our southern border over the last few years. we have increased the boods on the ground, installed cameras, erected barriers and sensor the efforts have not sealed the border, however theasms
violence gets worse in mexico we must get a border strategy in place now before it erupts into a level of widespread violence and corruption that engulfs our own citizens. it is not going away, madam speaker. the drug cartels are in it for the long haul because of their lust for money. there's a war of drugs going -- drugs going on on the border even though we're told now we should not, because of political correctness, use that term. the first duty of government is to protect the people. the government needs to focus on border protection. meanwhile the border war continues. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: madam speaker, the supplemental appropriations bill to continue our military operations in iraq and in afghanistan will soon return to the house for another vote. i voted against it in the first place, and i'm going to vote against it again.
i cannot support it because it will prolong our military involvement in iraq. it will increase our military buildup in afghanistan. i would gladly vote to fund the safe withdrawal of our troops and contractors out of iraq. but the supplemental gives me a feeling of deja vu. haven't we been there before? voting to include billions of dollars for the occupation of iraq. congress has voted to increase funding for iraq many times. even though the american people want the occupation to end. it seems the iraqi people want us out of their country as well. the supplemental also calls for sending more troops to a foreign land, this time afghanistan, with no exit strategy. talking about repeating the
past mistakes, talk about deja vu, afghanistan feels exactly the same as iraq did to me. president obama has said that a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets and bombs alone. he is absolutely correct about that. but the money in the supplemental is overwhelmingly devoted to military operations. it includes very little for the economic development, humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts that we really need to stop extremists in afghanistan and in pakistan. the ratio is 90 to 10. 90% to department of defense, 10% to the smart alternatives. i believe the supplemental also violates the spirit of president obama's historic speech in cairo. he offered the muslim world the hand of friendship.