tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 14, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
and fortunately we took 30 seats then and i'm still here and i do like the job. it's frustrating on a daily basis, but it also is very rewarding on a daily basis. host: congressman, you're also a member of the oversight and government reform committee. you've been holding a couple of kind of big hearings, especially with the former senator corzine, correct? guest: well, the corzine hearing was in the senate. we haven't dealt with -- host: oh, that's right. sorry about that. guest: the house ag committee did it. we haven't dealt with that yet. . now back on it in my third term. it's a very important committee. one of the things i think we don't do nearly a good enough job is in providing oversight of government programs. the public is rightly concerned about waste and abuse and things that just don't make sense that go on in government,
departments and agencies as well as in congress and that's really the role of the oversight committee. as well as other committees. but my concern about what's happened this year is that the committee is basically been used to kind of just advance ideological points for the most part. not in every point, not in every case. but as opposed to actually looking at problems in government. now, we are looking at things like the nuclear regulatory situation. we got a hearing on that today. and we do important work. we have had a series of hearings about government contracting in iraq and afghanistan, and i think very important hearings. so -- and they've been frustrating as well because right now we have 50-something thousand defense department contracts which are in line to be audited and haven't been audited and we know this represents hundreds of millions
if not billions of dollars being wasted. the magnitude of our government requires that we do a lot better job in stewarding that money. host: next call from congressman yarmuth. we have about 20 minutes left. cleveland, ohio, bob, independent line. you are on "washington journal." caller: yes. thank you, congressman, for voting against that stupid, stupid, stupid bill, and do you see solar technology moving into the south? that's all. guest: you know, there's an awful lot of important and positive things going on in the energy field and particularly in the solar field. i know there's a company out in -- near denver, colorado, that has developed a -- kind of a film that you can put over things and it actually has -- it's a solar power film that you can future on roofs and you can put on cars and so forth. it's almost like saran wrap. there are so many things going on. if you look across the entire
range we're dealing with and all the issues we're dealing with, the real positive news is in the energy field and the important thing from my perspective is most of these projects and these developments are public-private partnerships, whether the federal government provided some incentives and the public sector ran with them. i'm frustrated a lot of times when we say, well, the government put up $100 million and it only created 1,000 jobs. the idea behind these programs is that those 1,000 jobs can be 50,000 jobs if the company develops appropriately. they can be the next intel or the next microsoft. so these are incubator-type investments even though they are large investments. the company in denver went from handful of people and now employs 2,000 or so people. it's on its way doing great things. so that's a long way of answering yes, i think there's great potential in solar energy and the technology is advancing at very, very rapid levels in
ways that i think will make the cost benefit much more attractive when you're considering it versus energy provided by fossil fuels. host: orlando, bob, republican, please go ahead with your comment. caller: good morning. i want to make three points and please bear with me. guest: i have a brother named bob in orlando but you're not him. caller: that's good. that's good. number one, given tax cuts, you just made that comment and somebody mentioned on playing on words and phrases. you don't give tax cuts, mr. congressman. it's already that individual's money and then there's a percentage of the people that you're talking about that's actually paying taxes so it's already their money. when you say you give somebody a tax cut you make the assumption it's your money or the government's money. so what you're doing is taking folks' money and want to redistribute it for whatever reason, whether it's a good program or a bad program. there never seems to be any
oversight to see if the things work. number two, you're talking about paying for this payroll deduction bill in which they're adding on the keystone pipeline and things of that nature. i think if you remember -- and somebody made reference to the health care bill -- obama, one of the things he wanted in the health care bill was dealing with pell grants. had absolutely nothing to do with health care. and i'm sure you voted for that bill because somebody asked you earlier talking about how the house and the senate did whatever it was that they did, the fact is this bill doesn't take effect until 2014 so you as well as everybody has had more than enough time to review this bill and see what was in it and whether or not it was good for the country. thank you. host: congressman. guest: i didn't quite get the bill to what he was talking about the bill that takes effect in 2014, was that the health care bill? host: that's what i presumed it was. he was talking about the keystone bill. guest: i was a little bit confused on that. on the first point, clearly taxes are paid by individuals
out of their income and that's so that the caller makes a valid point. the question is -- this has been the history of our country that we do things that as a government that the people can't do for themselves. that's the abraham lincoln line. and taxes pay for that. taxes pay for the military. taxes pay for the roads you use. taxes pay for the schools that educate students. so it's always been a well-accepted thing that you contribute to these common projects and common benefits and that's the way we do. i'm sorry if you object to my use of that we give a tax break. you can characterize it any way you want. you can say we're reducing taxes if you want to say that. as to the issue of pell grants, i'm not sure exactly what piece of legislation you're talking about. in the debt ceiling bill which we passed a few months ago there were carveouts so that in
the sequestration the cuts across the board did not hit medicaid, did not hit pell grants and some other categories. if that's what you're talking about, that was -- it was very much relevant to the bill because you're saying cuts -- you had to decide at that point, and if you went to sequestration where those cuts fell and if you wanted to exclude areas and that's why we excluded some of those areas because we said we don't want to impact medicaid any more. we don't want to impact -- we limited medicare cuts to 2% to providers and so forth and pell grants. as well as food programs, nutrition programs as well. that was part of a budget document. so virtually any kind of expense would be relevant to the entire legislation. host: congressman yarmuth, tweet -- guest: well, i don't think that the president's opposed to
keystone pipeline. in fact, the administration was on its way to approving the permit for the keystone pipeline. all the president said is they wanted to delay that analysis until after 2013. he has said he would veto the bill over it but i think the veto was you don't want to basically hold the payroll tax reduction to extraneous legislation. they could have brought the bill on the keystone pipeline up as an individual piece of legislation. they chose not to do that. they saw that the only way to get that through -- i think they were trying to make a political point. they really are not that concerned about that pipeline but they could have brought it up as a free-standing piece of legislation and that's what they should have done rather than put this package together that makes it basically unacceptable. we know in the senate and to the president. host: last call for congressman yarmuth comes from kathryn, an independent in staten island. hi, kathryn. caller: hi, good morning.
i have three points. i agree with the guy from florida. my point is, one, they can agree after they spend. the second point is all the things they're doing for the rich and millionaires and fat cats, how come they go after -- get money from them to get re-elected, not the poor president. and i know how the president got -- went to new york city four times in two months to have fundraising for $35 a person. $35,000 -- excuse me -- per person. ok. the poor person can't afford that. but turning it around and the democrats also are bashing them. and the wall street people. ok. so why you don't say the truth? on one side you want bashing those people and then you go back and you get the money from
them. guest: well, i haven't bashed anybody to speak of today. i guess that's a comment about the president. you've hit a point where i think is the most important issue facing this country right now and that's the issue of money and politics. we have to get big money out of politics because it is poisoning the system. there's no question it influences policy in a way that the average american has lost his and her voice. so you've hit on be something that i'm very tense tif about. i am introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn the citizens united decision that allows unlimited anonymous funds to come into the system. i'd love to see a public financing system for all federal elections and get that kind of influence peddling out of the system. it would do a great thing to restore confidence. let me say one thing about spending. every budget, your household
budget, federal budget, house and city budgets has the spending side and revenue side. we need to deal with both of them in the federal budget. when we took over the house -- when we had control of the house after the bush administration, c.b.o. did an analysis of that first year $1.4 trillion deficit and about $1.1 billion of that deficit was from the reduced revenues from the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the war spending and the prescription drug plan that was put into effect without being paid for. that was the vast majority of the deficit -- >> we'll take you live over to the capitol to hear from house speaker boehner and other republican leaders. >> it's pretty clear to all of us that president obama and
senator reid want to threaten the government shutdown so that they can get leverage on a jobs bill that because the united states senate can't pass one. so we got an agreement between appropriators in the house and the senate, democrats and republicans, a bipartisan bill to fund our government. we believe that the responsible thing to do is to move this. but i'm tired of hearing what the senate can't do. i think it's time for us to wait and see what the senate can do. so i'm hopeful that the president and that senator reid will allow the appropriators to sign the conference report and allow that bill to come to a vote in the house and the senate to keep our government open and allow the conversations that continue -- to continue about how best to put the american people back to work. >> speaker boehner, we're getting reports --
>> mr. speaker -- >> oh, go ahead. >> are you going to introduce the conference report -- >> there have been no decisions about how we're going to proceed at this point. >> millionaire surtax has been dropped from the payroll tax cut holiday bill and what's your reaction to that that millionaire taxes have been dropped? >> the house has passed a bill on a bipartisan basis that would extend unemployment insurance with reforms. it would extend the payroll tax cuts. it would include the doc fix, keystone pipeline and other priorities that would help put americans back to work. it's time for the senate to do its job. >> [inaudible] >> it's time for the senate to pass their bill. >> do you expect for here -- >> if the house is able to pass -- if the house is able to pass an appropriations bill as a house bill, would you allow members to go home and leave the senate to figure out how to
-- >> i don't think it's appropriate to be speculating on what could happen several days from now. the house has done its work. it's time for the senate to do their. we've got an agreement in a bipartisan way on the appropriations process to fund our government. there's no reason for it to be held hostage to try to give leverage to one side or the other. thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house speaker boehner and other republican leaders following a long meeting of the republican conference at the capitol. and here on c-span we expect to take you back live when the
house gavels back in. the pending business is finishing up work on the 2012 defense authorization bill, the conference report agreed to by negotiators from the house and the senate. the speaker there talking about the payroll tax cut. republicans in the senate blocked the democratic -- democrats -- twice today in the senate to bring forth the bill that was passed to the house yesterday by a vote of 243-193. on the defense authorization bill, congressional quarterly reporting this afternoon the white house has backed off its threat to veto the 2012 authorization bill saying that changes made in conference were enough to satisfy its objections to provisions relating to terrorism detainees, so the president -- the press secretary stating there -- they won't recommend that the president veto the authorization bill. so votes coming up in the u.s. house. while we wait for the house to gavel back in we're going to show you some of the authorization bill debate from earlier today from the house floor. you, mr.
speaker. i rise today in support of fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act conference report. as you know the ndaa is the key mechanism by which the congress fulfills its primary constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense and this year will mark the 50th consecutive year we completed our work. the ndaa passed the armed services committee with a vote of 60-1. it passed the full house by a wide margin of 322-96 likewise the senate adopted this version of the bill by a vote of 93-7. we negotiated every provision in the two bills and have delivered this conference report using regular order. this is a bipartisan product from start to finish with a wide base of support. let me further assure members
that the bill's authorization levels have been reduced to comply with the budget control act. the bill would bring the total authorized funding for the national defense to $554 billion for the base budget, and $115.5 billion for overseas contingency operations. this represents a $19 billion reduction from last year's authorization. nonetheless, what makes our bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained therein. ourill provides for pay and benefits for our military and their families, as well as the authorities that they need to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. in addition, we include landmark pieces of legislation sanctioning the central bank of iran and strengthening policies and procedures used to detain, interrogate, and prosecute al
qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them. however i must be crystal clear on this point, the provisions do not extend any new authorities to detain u.s. citizens and explicitly exempt u.s. citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists. the conference report covers many more critical issues but i'll close in the interest of time. however, before i do i'd like to thank my partner, the ranking member from washington, adam smith, the ranking member on the committee. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, want to thank the
chairman, mr. mckeon. we always say our committee is the most bipartisan committee in congress. we strongly believe that. republicans and democrats on that committee are committed to doing our job which is to provide the troops and make sure that our national security is protected in this country. mr. mckeon was an excellent partner to work with. it's a model for what happens when you sit down and try to legislative together. something i think could be emulated by many more committees and issues. thank you. it'seen great working with you on this. i think we produced a good product. . i want to address the issue surrounding detainee policy. i have never seen an issue more distorted as to what people said is in the bill versus what is actually in the bill. number one, habeas corpus is protected, not touched, in this bill. pursuant to court rulings, anyone picked up pursuant to this has pursuant to the authorization for the use of military force has habeas
corpus rights. that is not touched categorically. now, i understand that a lot of people have a problem with what is current law. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is right. the house is not in order. the house will come to order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. and current law, something we have been debating since 9/11, both the brucks and the obama administration has taken the position that indefinite detention is an option. a u.s. citizen was briefly subject to indefinite -- sorry -- indefinite detention. the circuit upheld that right. that is current law and i actually share some of the concerns amongst my colleagues about that current law. but this bill doesn't affect that. we in fact make it clear in our category on military detention
that it is not meant to apply to u.s. citizens or lawful resident aliens. read the bill. it is in there. nothing in this section shall apply to u.s. citizens or lawful resident aliens. now, if you have a problem with indefinite detention, that is a problem with current law. defeating this bill will not change that. won't change it at all. but i'll tell you what it will do, it will undermine the ability of our troops to do their job, to do what we've asked them to do. if we defeat th bill we defeat a pay raise for the troops, we defeat milc projects for the troops, we defeat endless support programs that are absolutely vital to them doing their jobs. and i don't think i need to remind my body in a 10000 of those troops are in harm's way in afghanistan right now facing a determined enemy in the middle of a fight. it is not the time to cut off their support over an issue that isn't going to be fixed by
this bill. and let me emphasize that just one more time. current law, as interpreted by the bush administration, the obama administration, and the judiciary of this country creates the problems that everybody's talking about. not this bill. we put language in under detention policy because we think it's about time the legislative branch a least saidomething on the subject, but we are not the ones to create that problem. i urge support of this bill. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds, if i may. one issue i want to talk is about military construction projects for guam. there is some limiting language in this bill on that issue based on the fact that the department of defense is rethinking their posture in ia between okinawa and guam and other places. let me make clear, guam is a critically important part of our asia presence. they have presence of our military there now. language in this bill was not meant to cut off existing military construction projects
or indeed other ones that may not be related to this and i want to make sure that's clear and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rse in opposition to the conference report and yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: we are in daer of losing our most precious heritage, not because a band of thugs are risking our freedom, but because we forgot who we are. we have let go of our freedoms bit by bit. with every executive order, court decision and yes, congress. laws of detention have major implications for our fundamental rights. we should not be considering this as a der to the defense authorization bill. this should have been the subject of close scrutiny by the judiciary committee. the complex legal and
constitutional issues should have been properly analyzed and the implications for our values carefully considered. you will hear that this bill merely recodifies existing law. but many cleel scholars tells us it goes a great deal further than what the law now allows. that it codifies claims of executive power against our liberties that the courts have never confirmed. you'll hear it really won't affect u.s. citizens, although again there is credible legal authority that tells us just the opposite. you will hear that it doesn't really turn the military into a domestic police force but that clearly isn't the case. most of all, you will hear that we must do this to be safe when the opposite is true. we can never be safe without our liberties, and this bill continues a decade long campaign to destroy those liberties. this bill goes far beyond the authorization for the use of military force. that resolution authorized all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, or committed
terrorist attacks that occurred oneptember 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. this bill is not limited to those responsible for the september 11 attacks and those who ided or harbored them. it includes anyone who, quote, substantially supported al qaeda and the taliban or, quote, associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners, unquote. it is not clear what is meant by substantially supported or what it takes to be associat with someone who substantially supported them. it refers to any belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. it doesn't, as does our criminal law, says material support so we really don't know whether that support could be merely a speech or an article or something else. so let's not pretend this is the same as the aumf. if it were there would be no need to pass this law. we already have it. courts operate on the assumption that congress
doesn't write surplus language that it must have been intended to do something. here it is pretty clear that we are stretching the aumf beyond the 9/11 commission. whoever it reaches, and we don't know, the government would have the authority to lock them up without trial until, quote, the end of hostilities, end quote. given how they have been used to justify actions far beyond afghanistan might mean forever. and who will be taken out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned forever without a trial, it says anyone who is under this statute. it doesn't say what protections a person doesn't disappear into marlte prison. that's not america. we also need to be clear that the so-called feinstein amendment does not provide the protection the sponsor intended. it should not construe existing laws or scrutiny of the united
states citizens, lawful aliens of the united states or anyone captured in the united states, closed quote. so what are existing laws and authorities? as william sessions has recently written, the provision does not limit suchdetention authority of those captured on the battlefield. the reality is that current law and the scope such executive authority is unsettled. director sessio says in the two case where is the supreme court might have questioned u.s. citizen, legal permanent resident, the president had the authority, the administration claimed the president had the authority toetain a suspected terrorist captured in the united states indefinite without charge or trial. the government changed course and decided to try them in civilian court in order to avoid a supreme court ruling on that question and that question remains undetermined. so when the feinstein amendment references existing law it deprives the president of this
dangerous power. we should ensure that our liberty is protected and not leave that question to some future court. and we should certainly not enact a law codifying -- and that's what this law does. it codifies, it puts into law terrorfying claims of power made by presidents but never approved by the courts or until now by the congress. and that's the fundamental reason we should reject this bill. we must take great care. our liberties are too precious to be cast aside in times of peril and fear. we have the tools to deal with those who would attack us. i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields himself an additional 30 seconds. mr. nadler: we should not do this. because of this moment us challenges to one of the founding principles of the united states that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due procs of law, this bill must be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from texas, vice chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities and member of the congress of the conference committee, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from texas two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this conference report and it is a broad-ranging conference report th affects everything from personnel policies to weapon systs to research and development across the department of defense and the military. and i especially commend chairman mckeon, ranking member smith and the staff who have worked since -- all year to make this possible but worked especially hard in the last few days to make this conference report possible before the congress adjourns. there are a number of good, important provisions in this bill that strengthen our country's national security. but in light of the comments we have recently heard, mr.
speaker, let me talk just a moment about this issue of detention. you know, one can put into law the sun comes up and if somebody comes and says, no, it doesn't, you can present all the evidence and you can present words that have clear meing and if somebody just wants to say, no, it doesn't, you know, at some level reach an impasse. the two provision related to detention in this bill, the words have been put into the law are very clear. one says it does not apply to u.s. citizens. it does not. nothing here affects u.s. citizens. the other provision says that nothing in this section can be construed to affect existing law or authorities related to the detention of u.s. citizens. now, it seems to me there may well be people who are uncomfortable with the current law, and i unrstand that. and the proper thing to do is to introduce a bill and try to get that amended in some way,
to get it more to your liking. but to argue that this bill changes in some way the current law when the words say nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities is just not credible. this is a small step, the provisions in this bill, mr. speaker, are a small step towards having this congress back involved in making this detention decision. i think it is the right small step and it should be supported. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state seek recognition? mr. smith: i yield two minutes tohe gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, a very important member from the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i asknanimous consent to revise and extend inside remarks. the speaker pro tempore: seeing no objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with profound respect for our constitution and for my
colleagu and friends who care deeply about the impact of this bill on the constitution. it ibecause i have considered those issues that i would respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues and argue for the propriety and constitionality of this bill. i would deplore the idea that an american citizen or a permanent resident alien could be rounded up and put in a prison in the united states of america. this bill does not authorize that scenario. i would deplore a circumstance or any person, even a person who is not here under some permanent legal status, could be rounded up and put in a prison and only a military prison. that is not what this bill authorizes. it leaves open the option that such a person could be detained in a regular civilian prison or in a military provision. i would reject completely the proposition that any person
could be held in any facility, military or civilian, anywhere in our country indefinitely without the right to have the charges -- that are levied against them held by some mutual finding or effect. it is our interpretation that the habeas corpus provisions already extend to these individuals. that is to say that a nonresident or nonlegal person in the country who's held under such circumstances in fact has the right of habeas corpus. i think the law requires it. i think the constitution demands it. there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not that conclusion is correct. that is the state of present law. this bill does not amend present law in a way that i would like to see it amended by clarifying that right of habeas corpus but it absolutely does not erode or reduce whever protections exist under existing law.
so those who would share our view that the right of habeas should be clarified should work for a statute that clarifies that but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill. i would urge a yes vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nework. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield to the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house of representatives, this issue has never gone before the house judiciary committee. never. and i would like to put in the record a letter from the former
director of the federal bureau of investigation, william sessions, and it's dated december 14. and it says, there has been some debate over whether section 1021 of the national defense act authority merely restates existing law or would for the first time codify authority for the president to indefinitely detain without charge virtually anyone picked up in anti-terrorism efforts. including united states citizens arrested on united states soil. attached please find a letter from judge william sessions, a former federaludge and former director of the f.b.i. under
presidents reagan, bush, and clinton, explaining the current law on this point is unclear and that enacting section 1021 of this act would dangerously expand the power for indefinite detention. i know you gentlemen have studied this in the armed services committee, but i've got a letter from the former head of the f.b.i. and judge william sessions, and another letter from 23 generals and admirals saying the same thing. i know you are very learned people and very consciencious, but, please, when the heads of the f.b.i., republicans, judges all tell you that you are doing the wrong thing, what does it take f us to vote this down
because this provision allows for the first time, we codify a court decision that will now make it ok to lock up u.s. citizens for terrorism. this is what it says, mr. chairman. can'you -- i'll read it again. there has en some debate and he says -- mr. smith: that's what that person -- mr. conyers: woulyou let me recognize you on your own time. i've only got three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to
my friend and colleague, the gentleman from maryland, the chairman of the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, member of the conference committee, mr. bartlett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentleman from maryld. mr. bartlett: thank you. i rise in support of the conferce report for the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. this is the 50th consecutive conference report for the national defense authorization act. i have the honor of serving as the chairman of the tactical error and land forces subcommittee of our armed services committee. under the full committee leadership of chairman mckeon and ranking member smith, our subcommittee's ranking member, and a suburb staff, ours is truly a bipartisan -- superb staff, ours is truly a bipartisan effort. this comes at a critical period for our nation and military. world events and the nation's fiscal circumstances have challenged our government's will and capacity to address the enormity of the challenges we face. we need to develop a new
national military strategy that better reflects the current and projected threat and fiscal environment. this is needed to facilitate full and balanced consideration of force structure and equipment and investment plans and programs. our first priority and immediate requirement is to fully support our personnel serving overseas in afghanistan and the many other countries where we have asked them to serve. under the daily constant threat to their personal survival. this conference report properly reflects this immediate requirement. the nional defense authorization act conference report authorizes an additional $325 milliofor national guard and reserve equipment on funded requirements. $3 billion is provided to support urgent operational needs and counter-- and to counter improvised explosive device activities. $2.7 billion is provided to support mine resistant ambush protective vehicle modernization. and $2.4 billion is provided for army and marine corps tactical
wheeled vehicles, including $155 million for the development of the joint light tactical vehicle. an additional $255 million is provided to support the abram industrial base and national guard tank modernization. increang the request of 21 to 70 tank upgrades, avoiding a production break in the tank upgrade program. $85 billion is provided for >> we are going to break away and fake you back to the house for a series of four votes. live on c-span. following order. h.r. 1905, by the yeas and nays. h.r. 2105 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 3421 de novo. h.r. 1264. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining votes will be conducted as five-minute votes.
the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen to pass h.r. 1905 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 1905, a bill to strengthen iran sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling iran to abandon pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening activities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: i ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frank: madam speaker, i deeply appreciate the solicit tude of my colleagues on my appearance. i want to first assure them that there is much less here than meets the eye. i am going to explain this because as much as i appreciate the slisstude, responding to it 400 times would seem to be a bit excessive. literally adding insult to injury. so, i just want to explain that i discovered a torn ligament, we're not exactly sure how it happened. it was easily repaired today. i am wearing this because the arm was blocked and is not
mobile. it is simply to protect the arm and, madam speaker, i do want to anticipate any question, this has nothing to do with my retirement. i did not discover it until after my retirement and i would just add that at no point during my 31 years here was this ligament ever essential to the performance of my duties. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2105 as amended. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2105, a bill to provide for the application of measures to foreign persons who transfer to iran, north korea, and syria certain goods, services or technology and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the
bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 418 and the nays are 2. the bill is passed and without objection, the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3421, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3421, a bill to award congressional medals in honor of the men and women who perished as a result of the terrorist attacks on the united states on september 11, 2001. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many are in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- for what purpose does the
gentleman from texas rise? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
suspending the rule and passing h.r. 1264. the clerk: h.r. 1264, a bill to designate the property between the united states courthouse and the building located at 109 south highland avenue in jackson, mississippi and to authorize the placement of identification marker on the grounds recognizing the achievements and philanthropy of m.d. anderson. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered members will record their votes by electronic device.
this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418, the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of the conference report to accompany
h.r. 1540 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 1540, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities, of the department of defense, for military construction and for defense activities, for the department of energy, to describe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their seats. and clear the aisles.
for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the conch report? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of georgia moves to recommit the conference report on the bill, h.r. 1540, to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the house to disagree to section 715 regarding the determination of whether tricare network providers are considered subcontractors for purposes of the federal acquisition regulation or any other law. and the conference substitute recommended by the committee conference. the speaker pro tempore: the motion is not debatable. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the ayes have it. the noes have it. mr. bishop: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the noes have it. yes. mr. bishop: i request a recorded vote, please, ma'am. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the conference report. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the ayes have it -- >> madam speaker. >> on that vote, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 283 and the nays are 136. the conference report is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a concurrent recent lution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: concurrent resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to correct the enrollment of the bill h.r. 1540. the speaker pro tempore: is
there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i send to the desk a concurrent resolution providing for a correction in the enrollment of the bill h.r. 2845 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 93, providing for a correction to the enrollment of the bill h.r. 2845. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the chair will postponefurther proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6, rule 20. recorded et votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 443 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number
216, h.r. 443, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain property from the united states to the maniilaq association located in kotzebue, alaska. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. do you propose to pass the bill as amended? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, with that i yield myself as much time
as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend one moment, please. i'm sorry, the gentleman may proceed. i apologize. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 443 is sponsored by our colleague from alaska, mr. young. the legislation directs the indian health service to transfer three parcels of federal -- federal land in alaska in the maniilaq. the association is a nonprofit entity that runs federal indian health services for native people in northwest alaska. the parcels of land subject to this legislation which totals about 15 acres are currently the size of the existing native health facility. and the proposed long-term care facilities and employee housing. the clans have already been
conveyed by the secretary to the association through a quit claim deed. the federal indian health laws, however, under these laws, transferring a land through the use of a quit claim deed could present somes on kls to the future use of the land by the future association. h.r. 443 addresses this problem by directing -- directing the secretary to convey the property through the use of a warnity deed. this provides clean title to the land. the administration testified in support of the land transfer and we have heard no other objection to this bill. the bill was referred to the committee on energy and commerce, the chairman that have committee, mr. upton, has kindly foregone action on the bill in the interest of expediting action on the house floor and i thank him for his cooperation. at this point, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include on the record the exchange of letters between our committees regarding this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. mr. hastings: with that, mr. speaker, i urge the house to pass the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from the mariana islands. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered, without objection. mr. sablan: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 443. this bill would provide the maniilaq association with clear titles to lands previously conveyed by the united states. elimination of this restriction would enable the association to sustain long-term improvements to the property without federal involvement. i ask my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, the
gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank chairman hastings and the ranking member for your cooperation moving this bill. as you said, this is a noncontroversial bill, solves the problem more the health providers in that area and i urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from marianas islands. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge support of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from washington has yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 443 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
mr. hastings: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2719. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 219, h.r. 2719, a bill to ensure public access to the summit of rattlesnake mountain in the hanford reach national monument for educational, recreational, historical, scientific, cultural and other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from
the northern marianas islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 2719 directs the department of interior to ensure public access to the similar its of rattlesnake mountain located on the hanford reach national monument in my district. at 3,600 feet, rattlesnake mountain is the highest point in the region and it provides unparalleled views for miles around the monument of the hanford site, the columbia river and the snake river. unfortunately it took the fish and wildlife service eight years to write a management plan that effectively closed rattlesnake mountain to public access, despite the public comments favoring just the opposite.
after i introduced this bill last congress, the fish and wildlife in october 10 -- october of 2010, offered two public tours for selected individuals and then suddenly reneged on the offer just days before the tours were too to occur without -- were to occur without any explanation. during a recent committee hearing on the bill, the interior department's testimony suggested that the fish and wildlife service supports tours of rattlesnake mountain but very carefully didn't go the extra step of ensuring that the service would allow public access to the actual summit. access to the mountain and access to the summit are two entirely different matters. to put it bluntly, mr. speaker, the services had more than 10 years and they say it will take several more before they can determine if it will allow the american people to have access to this portion of the monument. that is why this bill is so necessary, to guarantee public access by law and to do so in a
very timely manner. and, mr. speaker, i might add, the tallest mountain in washington state is mount rainier, 14,410 feet. people have access to that under certain conditions. this is a mountain that has no trees, is 3,600 feet, there's no reason why people shouldn't have access. to that extent, the legislation is supported by the tricities development council, the board of benton county commissioners in which rattlesnake mountain is located, the chamber of commerce, the tricities visitor an convention bureau and the back country horsemen of washington. the american people deserve to have access to public lands including rat am snake mountain -- rattlesnake mountain and i ask that the house pass this reasonable legislation today to make it possible. i note that the bill was reported by the committee on natural resources by unanimous consent and i appreciate the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this major -- measure. and with that i urge my
colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from northern marianneans -- northern mar yana islands. mr. sablan: -- moriana islands. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2179, which would require the fish and wildlife service to provide both motorized and nonmotorized access to the summit of rattlesnake mountain. this bill would allow the fish and wildlife service to enter into cooperative agreements with the department of energy, the state of washington, local governments and other interested persons to provide guided tours to the summit of the mountain and to maintain access roads to the summit. in 2008 the fish and wildlife service completed a management plan for this area and determined that service tours and hiking trails are appropriate and compatible uses of the area. in october at the hearing on h.r. 2719, the fish and wildlife service supported the bill's
intent to provide appropriate public access on rattlesnake mountain that gives due consideration to all stakeholders including the tribe. i commend chairman hastings from washington for introducing this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask my friends if he has any more speakers. i have none and i'm prepared to yield back if he is. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2719. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is
passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 278 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 278, an act to provide for the exchange of certain land located in the erap hoe roosevelt national forests in the state of colorado and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern marianas islands, mr. sablan, will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, s. 278 will exchange approximately five acres of land between the forest service and the sugar low fire protection district in colorado. the district has operated two fire stations on forest land since 1967 but it has been unable to install septic services or make other improvements to the fire stations since it is -- it does not own the land. this bill would correct this issue by conveying the lands to the district in exchange for an inholding it currently owns within the national forest at no cost to the federal government. the committee on natural resources has already favorably reported the house version of this bill, h.r. 643, and if we pass this bill the bill will go
to the president's desk. so with that i urge adoption of the measure and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from northern marianne annapolises islands -- mariana islands. mr. sablan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since 1967, the forest service has issued two special use permits to the sugar low fire protection district to own and operate two fire stations on national forest system land. the district would like to own the parcels of land on which the fire station sit in order to build an area for firefighter training and bathroom facilities. the land exchange authorized in this legislation will assist the fire district at its mission and is in the public interest. mr. speaker, congressman sponsored this legislation. we commend congress polis for his work on this bill and we support passage of this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman reserves. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the house sponsor of this measure, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman and i rise today to provide a description and some color for this important bill which passed this body last session in the 111th congress without any objection. but it did not make it through the senate last session. i'm proud to say it's cleared the senate now, there are some minor changes to comply with house rules that will be sent pack to the senate. we hope that expeditiously we can get the bill to president opaw ma's desk. it's very simple and noncontroversial what we're trying to accomplish here. it's the result of a longtime effort by the sugarloaf fire
protection district in colorado this fire protection district came to national notice for their heroic efforts in the four-mile canyon fire last year which remarkably while it led to considerable property daniel, led to no loss of life, thanks in no small part to their efforts. sugarloaf fire protection district and the local groups have worked closely together. the volunteer first responders at sugarloaf are key to both wild land andres. endrble fires as well as car accidents and health emergencies in the lands they so capably serve. however, until this bill becomes law, they are unable to make improvements to their facility. they can't even add a hutch-needed restroom facility so their volunteers can have
the same type of plumming we can expect in this day and age. since 1967, the fire district's physical home was established in an existing building thru a special use permit. three years later, a second building was built through a special use permit. this bill will exchange a small amount of federal land on which the facilities exist with private land purchased by the fire district for this transfer, land better suited for the recreational needs for the local public land. it's a net gain for the federal government. wile the forest service special use permits have been greatly appreciated, it's important that the fire district have the autonomy to direct its future, modernize its fa ill sill -- facility, build basics like running water and restrooms. their existence on public lands
has prevented them making these changes. the surrounding communities have grown considerably over the past decades. volunteer fire departments and those who serve them have taken on additional responsibilities as community meeting centers, making it even more critical that we update them to facilitate this role. i appreciate representative hastings' and markey's efforts. in bill has been passed out of both chambers of congress now but hasn't made it past the finish line in a single congress. it barely ran out of time in senate last year. by the house agreing to take up the senate bill i'm hopeful that this will become law. i thank chairman hastings an ranking member marquee for bringing the bill to the floor. i urge a yes vote on this measure and yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the quelt from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i just note to my friend from colorado, he said that the bill passed the house last year an the senate didn't act on it. i think it's a good strategy on his part to take the senate bill, now we have,ing of, have to perfect it but we'll send it back and maybe this will be easier for them to act, i certainly hope so. with that, i urge passage of the bill and advise my friend i'm prepared to yield back if he yields back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers an i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 278 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the pill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present ant make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. the unfinished business is on passing bill h.r. 1668. -- 2668. the clerk: h.r. 266 , a bill to
designate the station of the united states border patrol located at 2131 south niko highway as the brian a. terry border patrol station. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. diaz-balart of florida for today and through friday, december 16.
mr. carter: mr. speaker, 13 adults and one unborn child were killed and 31 individuals wounded in a shooting attack at fort hood, texas, on november 5, 2009. since that time, the department of defense has taken no steps toward combat -- to award combat benefits of the casualties or recognized the attack as a terrorist incident. the house and senate have included two reform measures in the mdaa which we just passed and all while additional attacks have been attempted by similar high profile radical
islamic terrorists. it is past time for the government to deliver on this act. mr. speaker, here we are, almost three years later, i guess three years later, and there's been a recent report that's come out and in that report, it references this incident of this slaughter of american troops on fort hood soil in texas and it references that it shall be taken up as part of workplace violence. obama regime calls fort hood shooting workplace violence. sure it's workplace violence. it's where he works, it's
violence. but we have a con soacht what workplace violence is and the -- your normal workplace violence is not preceded by a shout by the shooter, god is great, in the arabic language. it's not preceded by discussions by the alleged perpetrator, and it's alleged because he hasn't been convicted yet and we in a free american world take the position that all -- all -- are innocent until proven guilty so we will call him the alleged shooter, but there's clear evidence in reports by the defense department and by reports by the news media, reports by witnesses on the scene, reported by -- reports by his fellow soldier rerks ports by folks from walter reed
hospital where this american-trained, military trained doctor worked that he had advocated that the american soldier was wrong and that he was contrary and he spoke and preached islamic terrorism. so your normal workplace violence, that's not a part of the factor. and yet this is what happened in this case. senator collins on wednesday blasted the defense department and bless her for it for classifying the fort hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation's armed forces at home. now i've been talking about this now seasons the day after this happened. we can't have a world where political correctness fails to
define the criminal act. bies its -- by its very nudge -- nature, whether by criminal rellses in military law or criminal acts in scren, they have to have -- we have to be able to define them. just to make the system work. we have to be able to define them but more importantly, we are -- we have a duty and responsibility to the american soldier to call an event what it is and not try to put smoke screen over it or cloud the issue or in any way worry about the feelings of groups that because the definition is the definition. this man identified himself that he was committing this act in the name of god is great in arabic. he acknowledged when questioned
that it was part of his mission. he acknowledged that he had dealt with terrorist spokesmen in the past and that the concept came if his interaction with al mall key and others, i think that's the guy's name, and this guy is an islamic terrorist. there's no other way to describe this gentleman. but we continue, now years after the event, as he sits in the bell county -- county jail in belton, texas, we continue to have reports coming down from our defense department that the folks that are responsible for our soldiers and responsible for those who died in this instance, to down play this to be treated as an instance of workplace violence,
with all the white bread connotation that that has. an it's just, to me, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. let's get the next poster up here. let's look at some of the evidence we have that connects -- my bad. that connect this is to islamic terrorism. recognizing the november 5, 2009, attack on fort hood, texas, as an act of radical islamic terrorism and jihad anwr al awlaki connection. mr. al-awlak simbings no longer with us but the bottom line was
at the time this happened, they were directly connected and this man preached, taught, encouraged violence. islamic terrorist violence. hasan's presentation to the d.o.d. on jihad justification. he would argue with his fellow soldiers about the justification for reason for having jihad against the american military. mr. hasan was a member of the united states army, he was a major, he had been serving in the medical corps, he was a doctor, psychologist, scrift, he was trained -- psychiatrist, he was trained with american taxpayer dollars and he was preaching jihad to soldiers. and there's lots of evidence.
one of the bills -- one of the -- i had a bill which was included in this recent defense bill we just passed which said that this guy was telling people that he believes in this kind of thing from medical school. and now he's a major serving as a psychiatrist advising our soldiers. hasan purchased -- purchase of a -- and practiced with high capacity firearms prior to the attack. he went out and bought firearms, he bought them at a local gun store. both of the guns that were used in the killing, one of them a semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine capacity. he went out to the firing range and familiarized himself with these weapons prior to this incident. you can't think of this as some
guy that goes postal all of a sudden. this guy was planning this whole event. he shouts, god is great, before he starts shooting. and now they refer to it in the context of the broader threat of workplace violence. i think there's a very good argument that the evidence shows, this was a premeditated act on the part of major hasan. and i believe when this case finally gets to trial that the evidence will be overwhelming that it was premeditated. at the time of the event, the base commander at fort hood said that soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage that left 13
people dead reported that the gunman shouted, allah akbar which means got is great, before opening fire at the texas post. the military general told nbc news, on friday, after the shooting, that the suspected shooter, major nadal hasan, made the comment which is arabic for god is great before the rampage and shooting on thursday. so the day after it was being reported that he did this. and yet the initial report that came out from the defense department took the position that you never even heard the man's name didn't even appear in the report. the relationship to any islamic terrorism was not referenced. and was like any major from any outfit, just wandered in and
started shooting soldiers. and like he was just having a bad day or something. and now we get another comment saying, we're going to treat this in the bigger scope of workplace violence. certainly, we want to prevent workplace violence in every workplace. but the connotation is that this is just something that happens. and it's not something that happened because quite honestly, since that time others have been caught and reportedly were acting, trying to imitate this shooter, mr. hasan. we introduced a bill, the fort hood families benefit protection act. it would award both military and civilian casualties of the fort hood attack with combat status to ensure full benefits and eligibility for the purple heart and other awards an for the
civilian award equivalents, the secretary of defense medal, defense of freedom which is the civilian equivalent. now why did i ask for that? because when they flew the plane into the pentagon on 9/11, they wrote, this is what was the finding of the department of defense. that it was an act of terrorism and therefore they should be treated as combat casualties and those two med avels were award -- two medals were awarded. this didn't come off the top of my head. this is what happened with the first terrorist attack in our country. and the second or third or whatever attack this one was. when this man walked into that room, there are people in civilian garb and there were people in uniform. he went out of his way to shoot the people in the uniforms. and the civilians that were injured were injured because of misfire, misdirection, but his
target, as he went down that line of all those soldiers who were doing nothing more than either coming back from being offpost and out of the country or wherever they'd been or being prepared for their next duty station, wherever they may be going, iraq or afghanistan, they were being processed and then this big room, he went down the line, shooting everybody in uniform. now, when you are killing a combat soldiers, you're crying out slogans of the jihad terrorists, why wouldn't you think it's a terrorist attack and why shouldn't these people who died in the line of duty be treated like those at the pentagon who died in the line of duty? and in fact, except for what we were able to put together in circle evidence after the fact, at the time of the incident we
had no idea who flew that plane into the pentagon. we just had an educated guess. and this case, before this shooting started the guy identified himself in what his mission was. and yet for some reason in this world of political correctness we feel like it seems to be -- someone has the idea that this is good for the morale of our military soldiers or it's good for something, as i think the chief of staff said, it would hurt our islamic outreach program. whether it's good for that or not, i hold nothing against the islamic people, nor does anybody in fort hood. but we hold a lot against islamic terrorists that kill soldiers. and we should have the whole department of defense -- they should have the guts to step up and stand up for these soldiers. i see my good friend and
colleague from texas, former judge louie gohmert, has joined me here. congressman gohmert, i'll yield you such time as you may require. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend and i appreciate his taking time to discuss this matter of national security. i have the quote directly here from army chief of staff general george w. kasey jr.. chief of staff at the time of the fort hood attack. he came out and had this prepared quote to give. mr. carter: he was chief of staff of the army. mr. gohmert: chief of staff of the army. mr. carter: correct. goal go -- mr. gohmert: and this was a quote that obviously he and those helping him have prepared to give in response to 14 people being killed, we know one was an unborn child, one of the people was a pregnant woman, female
soldier. but here's the quote that they had prepared after 13 of his soldiers lay either dying or dead at fort hood. quote, i'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our muslim soldiers. our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength and has as horrific as this strategy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty i think that's worse. this is a general who is charged with leading soldiers and directing soldiers in war and in
battle with an avoid enemy. well, we have -- avowed enemy. well, we have an enemy who has sworn to be at war with us. and one of those enemies was major hasan at fort hood that went off in a shooting spree. now, unfortunately our leaders did not bother to monitor the security of our own soldiers, such that when major hasan made actual pronouncements in advance that he could not be deployed and be a muslim because in his interpretation of the koran, thankfully it's not all of our muslim soldiers in the u.s. military that had this interpretation, but his interpretation was that he could not be deployed because that
might require him to kill muslims in a foreign country without cause and under the beliefs of some muslims like major hasan, if he were to kill a muslim without cause, for example, in his way of thinking it is appropriate cause, say, if a muslim were to become a christian, then that is a cause in his mind worthy of killing the individual if they created this horrible crime in his mind according to the koran of becoming a christian. that's worth killing him for. but since he couldn't be sure that in a foreign country, in a battle with muslims that he might not be required to shoot someone who had not committed a postsy, had not committed some act that justified murder under the koran, then he could not be
deployed and if he were deployed he'd have to kill american soldiers to avoid having to go kill soldiers overseas. and it's interesting because you would think that the military would be concerned about this issue and that we would try to make sure that this incident, as happened at fort hood, would not happen again. and so you would think that when this private showed up on al jazeera in uniform and told al jazeera basically the same things that major hasan had, that people like general casey would be concerned. but apparently he was more concerned about our diversity than he was about the lives of his own soldiers. and so when you had this private
on al jazeera and it's not hard, you can go online and find this on youtube, his interview. he spoke in english but al jazeera, the story was done actually in the language that al jazeera prefers and it's not english. he explained basically what major hasan did. that he could not be, as it says , and that's an al jazeera line there, i can't both deploy and be a muslim. and we have the transcript of what he said, the transcript of the story, but by a cliss he was letting people -- but basically he was letting people like general casey who would bother to worry about -- well not general casey because he's worried about diversity and the safety of his soldiers is secondary to that, but for those who are concerned, number one,
about the safety of those in this country and making sure that their own soldiers are tantamount in their minds, they would be concerned when you have another soldier saying the same things major hasan did before the killing spree. so, we know that there are people in our special ops, in our military that noted this, that saw this and said, this is a guy we better watch. but because the people at the top are more concerned about diversity than they are about our soldiers' safety, i mean, it's bad enough that they put their lives on the line, they're willing to do that in combat. but you would think that there would be more concern for their own safety and their own units. nothing was done about this private. and despite this justice department trying to vilify gun
dealers who it forced into making sales to criminals who carried guns across the border, and despite the efforts that were made to maybe -- and in fact there were even names were produced, pictures were produced of gun dealers out of the fast and furious thing. despite that it was actually not general casey, not one of his sboord nats, one of our own -- subordinate, not one of our people in the military that reported this guy. it was -- nothing was done, even though they knew he was ready to pull a major hasan, he could not be deployed, nothing was done. it was not until he weapon to a gun dealer, the gun dealer became suspicious, the gun dealer reported him, thank god for americans. like that gun dealer. who realized, we've got our own
soldiers' lives at stake here. he reported him. and then locally, he was dealt with and interdiction occurred and he was not given the chance to kill the soldier he is wanted to, again, at fort hood. because if it weren't for the gun dealer and those intervening, not the military, not our intelligence, who surely monitor the al-jazeera and should surely note a soldier in uniform with the screaming eagle patch on his arm, that this is something we need to worry about. but because we have become so politically correct, to the detriment and death of our own soldiers, nothing was done, from intelligence, from state, from justice, it took a local gun dealer to protect our soldiers at fort hood.
you wonder how many more times this is going to have to happen. this soldier, you can go on facebook and find that, he notes his activities and interest, care the council of american -- care is named in the holyland foundation trial, there was evidence produced to show that care was funding terrorism. care, fund --care funding terrorism, participating in that venture with the low holyland foundation, when they refused to eliminate cair's
name from the pleadings. he identifies that as one of his interest and activities and our intelligence, our military they didn't pick up on that. why? because that would be politically incorrect and might hurt our diversity. we've got outstanding muslim soldiers in our military serving that love and care about this country like all other soldiers. but it is insane and i believe a violation of the commitment and oath that every officer takes, like i did when i went in the military, not to keep your eyes open and protect those people who are put to your service as your charges. so here he is, nasser abdo he went on al-jazeera, he makes it
clear, he may have to kill american soldiers, he cannot allow himself to be deployed as a muslim. he requested conscientious objector status and all we can do is thank god for the gun dealer that did what the superiors should have done in this case. it's time to end political correctness when it costs the lives of those protecting us. i yield back to my friend. mr. carter: i thank you for yielding back. reclaiming my time, when you read the report ops major hasan, he was acting erratically in the months before the attack, he promoted radical islamic views at walter reed hospital, exchanged emails with a yemen cleric with terrorist ties, all of those references, pertain also to the soldier you were talking about right there. it's all part of a network.
now is every muslim that's involved in the united states military involved in this? absolutely not. i went to the national training center in california and i met loyal, truly loyal and patriotic muslim americans who are help our soldiers understand the nature, the morets, the language, the concepts, everything that they might be facing as they interact with muslim civilians over in iraq and they do it in constructive ville annals, i met a guy, a former cab drive for the chicago, he said i'm now mayor of this town because he was portraying negotiating with a mayor and city councilman for our soldiers as they came inta the national training center. these people are patriots. they're living out in the desert to help our soldiers understand. i'm not anti- those folk bus
you can't have a world where you refuse to identify evil. this is what you do when political correctness overcomes the truth. janet napolitano personally testified violent islamic terrorism was part and parcel of the fort hood killings, homeland security napolitano said on february 24, 2010, about three months after the event, four months after the event in a senate homeland security committee, she testified, accurately, i would -- and i praise her for it, that this was a terrorist act. and yet, we continue to have in the department of defense the soft soaping of this whole issue and the disguising of this whole issue and now with their statement that they're going to deal with it as they would deal with any workplace violence. you know, it just never stops.
the shoe bomber, the christmas following this incident, the shoe bomber, who did exactly what the major did, reading back what the press reported, acted erratically before his attack, promoted radically islamic views, exchanged emails with al-awliki in yemen, he did all those things, when caught, he referenced major hasan as one of his heroes, he got caught before he blew up an airplane. praise god. thank goodness. so, you know, for the now almost -- well, over three years since the incident, the defense department still taking the position that this should be treated as normal work force
violence or something to that effect. mr. gohmert: would the gentleman yield? mr. carter: yes, i will yield. mr. gohmert: i think it's particularly interesting that the determination by the military leaders came here in december. we just observed, wasn't a celebration, we observed the anniversary of pearl harbor. as my friend, as you, judge carter, pointed out, numerous times, the victims of the 9/11 attack on the pentagon have been recognized as victims of warfare. they were attacked by the same -- by people of the same belief as is major hasan. that he secures a place in
paradise if he's killed while killing infidels like his soldier friends. in fact, those soldiers that he was also hired to counsel as a counselor at fort hood. a local imam for fort hood. and yet one cannot help but wonder if these same folks who declared the deaths at the hands of a muslim extremist at fort hood if these same people in charge today had been in charge on december 7, 1941, then there is nothing to indicate their reasoning would have been different. all of those soldiers killed at pearl harbor, those entombed in the arizona, those killed in that horrific surprise attack,
actually, they were at their duty stations, they were at work, and someone came and killed them. therefore, apparently, under the reasoning as applied at fort hood those killed at pearl harbor could also be consider as having been killed in workplace violence. it was violent, it was their workplace. therefore, our mental geniuses that decided fort hood was workplace violence could say that ability pearl harbor. i yield back. mr. carter: don't you wonder, have we changed so much since the attack on pearl harbor that we don't recognize an enemy attack on us, and we just want to stick our head in the sand and act like it didn't happen? here's an interest regular port from "time" magazine.
they're asking the question, they say, the u.s. military just ruled, this is that first report. not once mentioning major hasan's name or discussing or even discussing whether the killings may have had anything to do with his muslim faith. the fort ignores the elephant in the room. that's what i said. it's true. it does ignore the elephant in the room. if before the first bullet was fired, a man shouts what he did, that elephant is in the room. all the coverup and all the writing of reports with references to typical work force violence or standard work force violence or treated as work force violence, it doesn't make sense. it was attack on american soldiers in uniform. i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you.
with regard to that very issue, we know that in the 9/11 commission, there were hundreds of mentions of islam, jihad, all these type things that we know were involved. and again, we thank god that the vast majority of muslims love this cupry like we do, they're not about to kill christians, jews, but, there are those in the radical element believe otherwise, and we ought to be able to talk about it. we now know that this administration has seen to such a purging of our training material for defense department, intelligence, state, that in the current lexicon from which f.b.i., our intelligence folks are trained, there are zero mentions of
islam, zero mentions of jihad, zero mention of the very things that created the worst attack on american soil in american history. as one of our own officers told me, we have been blinded in this war with those using terrorism. we're not allowed to see our enemy, we're not allowed to describe our enemy, we're not allowed to talk about who the real enemy is, we're just expected to protect america with our eyes closed and our mouths shut. that's no way to protect america. i yield back to my friend. mr. carter: this exhibit here is from the "san francisco chronicle"," political correctness on fort hood at the pentagon. political correctness is alive in the pentagon.
witness the protecting the force lessons from fort hood. a department of defense report released last week on november 5, on the november 5 shooting, if the report's purpose was to craft lessons to prevent future attacks, how could they leave out radical islam? ignoring hasan's pro-terrorist web postings, the report instead focusing on workplace violence programs to prevent workplace violence. such as the post office's going postal program and the stress imposed on military health care providers. the whole point of that article is to point out, i think the irony of what we're teaching irony of what we're teaching our