[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8952-H8956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS: WORKPLACE VIOLENCE OR TERRORISM?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, 13 adults and one unborn child were killed 
and 31 individuals were wounded in a shooting attack at Fort Hood, 
Texas, on November 5, 2009. Since that time, the Department of Defense 
has taken no steps to award combat benefits to the casualties or even 
officially recognize the attack as a terrorist incident.
  The House and Senate have included two reform measures in the NDAA, 
which we just passed, 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 3 years later, and there's been a 
recent report that has come out; and in that report, it references this 
incident of this slaughter of American troops on Fort Hood soil in 
Texas. It references that it shall be taken up as part of workplace 
violence.
  The Obama regime calls the Fort Hood shooting ``workplace violence.'' 
Sure, it's workplace violence: it's where they work and it's violence. 
But we have a concept of what workplace violence is. And 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. It's alleged because he hasn't been convicted 
yet. And we, in a free American world, take the position that 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, 
reports by his fellow soldiers, reports 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. 
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.
  I've been talking about this now since the day after this happened. 
We can't have a world where political correctness fails to define the 
criminal act. By its very nature, whether we're talking about military 
law and the criminal relations in military law, we're just talking 
about criminal acts in general, 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 owe a duty and a responsibility to the 
American soldier to call an event what it is and not try to put a 
smokescreen over it or cloud the issue or in any way worry about the 
feelings of groups, 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 from his interaction 
with Awlaki and others.
  So this guy is an Islamic terrorist. There's no other way you can 
describe this gentleman.
  But now years after the event as he sits in the Bell 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 incident want to downplay this 
to be treated as an incident of workplace violence with all the white 
bread connotation that that has. To me, we ought to be ashamed of 
ourselves.
  So let's look at some of the evidence we have that connects this to 
Islamic terrorism, recognizing the November 5, 2009, attack on Fort 
Hood, Texas, as an act of radical Islamic terrorism and jihad.

                              {time}  1930

  Anwar Awlaki connection. Now, Mr. Awlaki is no longer with us. We 
have taken that boy out. Yet the bottom line is, at the time this 
happened, they were directly connected.
  This man preached, taught, and encouraged violence--Islamic terrorist 
violence: ``Hasan's presentations to the DOD on jihad justification.'' 
He would argue with his fellow soldiers about the justification 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 as a psychiatrist. He was trained with American taxpayer 
dollars, but he was preaching jihad to soldiers, and there was lots of 
evidence.
  I had a bill, which was included in this recent defense bill that we 
just passed. It said that this guy was telling people that he'd 
believed in this kind of thing since medical school. Now he's a major, 
serving as a psychiatrist, advising our soldiers.
  ``Hasan purchased and practiced with high-capacity firearms prior to 
the attack.'' He went out and he bought firearms. He bought them at a 
local gun store. Of the guns that were used in the killings, one of 
them was a semiautomatic 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 who goes postal all of a sudden. 
This guy was planning this whole event. He shouts, ``God is great'' in 
Arabic, before he starts shooting, but they refer to it in the context 
of the broader threat of workplace violence. I think there is 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, Lieutenant General Cone, the III Corps 
Commander at Fort Hood, told NBC's ``Today'' show on the Friday after 
the shooting that the soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage that 
left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted, ``Allahu 
Akbar''--which means ``God is great''--before opening fire at the Texas 
post.
  The day after, it was being reported that he did this. Yet, in the 
initial report that came out from the Defense Department, the man's 
name didn't even appear. The relationship to any Islamic terrorism was 
not referenced. It was like any major from any outfit just wandered in 
and started shooting soldiers, like he was having a bad day or 
something.
  Now we get another comment saying that we're going to treat this in 
the bigger scope of workplace violence. Certainly, we want to prevent 
workplace violence in every workplace, but

[[Page H8953]]

the connotation is that this is just something that happened. It's not 
something that just happened because, quite honestly, since that time, 
others have been caught who reportedly were trying to imitate this 
shooter, Mr. Hasan.
  We introduced a bill, the Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act. 
It would award both military and civilian casualties of the Ford Hood 
attack with combat status to ensure full benefits and eligibility for 
the Purple Heart and other awards and for the civilian award 
equivalence to the Secretary of Defense's Defense of Freedom medal.
  Now, why did I ask for that? Because there was a precedent for it. 
When they flew the plane into the Pentagon on 9/11, 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 medals were awarded. This didn't just come off the top of 
my head. This is what happened with the first terrorist attack in our 
country and with the second or third or whatever attack this one was.
  When this man walked into that room, there were people in civilian 
garb, and there were people in uniform. He went out of his way to shoot 
the people in uniform. The civilians who were injured were injured 
because of misfire or misdirection. As he walked down that line, his 
target was all of those soldiers who were doing nothing more than 
either coming back from being off post and out of the country--or 
wherever they'd been--or preparing for their next duty stations, 
wherever they may be going--Iraq or Afghanistan. They were being 
processed and they were in this big room. He walked down the line, 
shooting everybody in uniform.
  Now, when you're killing our combat soldiers and when 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?
  In fact, except for what we were able to put together in 
circumstantial evidence after the fact, at the time of the incident, we 
had no idea who flew that plane into the Pentagon. We just made an 
educated guess. In this case, before this shooting started, the guy 
identified himself and what his mission was.

  For some reason, in this world of political correctness, someone has 
the idea that this is good for the morale of our military soldiers or 
that it's good for something as, I think, the Chief of Staff said when 
this happened: Oh, this is sure going to hurt our Islamic outreach 
program.
  Whether it's good for that or not, I hold nothing against the Islamic 
people nor does anybody at Fort Hood; but we hold a lot against Islamic 
terrorists who kill soldiers, and the Department of Defense should have 
the guts to step up and to 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 yield such time as you may require.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend, and I appreciate his taking the time 
to discuss this matter of national security.
  I have the quote directly here from Army Chief of Staff General 
George W. Casey, Jr., who was the 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.
  Mr. GOHMERT. This is a quote that, obviously, he and those helping 
him had prepared to give in response to 14 people being killed. We know 
one was an unborn child and that one of the people was a pregnant 
woman--a female soldier. So here is the quote that they had prepared 
after 13 of his soldiers lay either dying or dead at Fort Hood:
  ``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 as horrific as 
this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's 
worse.''

                              {time}  1940

  This is a general who is charged with leading soldiers and directing 
soldiers in war and in battle with an 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, who went off on 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 have 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 belief 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 
committed this horrible crime, in his mind, according to the Koran, of 
becoming a Christian. That's worth killing them 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 
apostasy and not committed some act that justified murder under the 
Koran, then he could not be deployed. And if he were deployed, he would 
have to kill American soldiers to avoid having to go kill soldiers 
overseas.
  It is 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 that happened at Fort Hood would not happen again. 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.
  So when you see 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 the story was done actually in the language that al 
Jazeera prefers, and it's not English. He explained basically what 
Major Hasan did. And this is a line from al Jazeera, ``I can't both 
deploy and be a Muslim.'' And we have the transcript of what he said, 
the transcript of the story. But basically, he was letting people like 
General Casey, that would bother to worry about the--well, not General 
Casey, because he is 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, that said, This is a guy we had 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 in their own units. Nothing was done about this 
private.
  And despite this Justice Department trying to vilify gun dealers whom 
it forced into making sales to criminals who carry guns across the 
border, and despite the efforts that were made to maybe--and in fact, 
names were produced, pictures were produced of gun dealers out of the 
Fast and the Furious program--despite that, it was not General Casey, 
not one of his subordinates, not one of our own people in the military 
that reported this guy. No. Nothing was done, even though they knew he 
was ready to pull a Major Hasan, he could not be deployed, nothing was 
done. And it was not until he went 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.

[[Page H8954]]

  Then locally he was dealt with and interdiction occurred, and he was 
not given the chance to kill the soldiers he 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 al Jazeera 
and would surely note a soldier in uniform with the screaming eagle 
patch on his arm, and 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. And you wonder how many more times this is going to have 
to happen.
  Heck, this soldier--you can go on Facebook, and you can find that he 
notes his activities and interests. CAIR, the Council on American-
Islamic Relations. CAIR is named in the Holy Land Foundation trial as a 
coconspirator. There was evidence produced that showed that CAIR was 
also funding terrorism, funding Hamas, participating in that venture 
with the Holy Land Foundation, as found by the Fifth Circuit when they 
refused to eliminate CAIR's name from their pleadings. He identifies 
CAIR as one of his interests 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 serving in our military who 
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 his 
superiors should have done in this case. It's time to end political 
correctness when it costs the lives of those protecting us.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. CARTER. When you read the reports on Major Hasan, he was acting 
erratically. In the months before the attack, he promoted radical 
Islamic views while at Walter Reed Hospital. He exchanged email with 
Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric with terrorist ties. All of those 
references also pertained to the soldiers you were talking about right 
there. It is all part of a network.

                              {time}  1950

  Now, is every Muslim that is 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 helping our soldiers understand the nature, the 
language, the concepts, everything that they might be facing as they 
interact with Muslim civilians over in Iraq. And they do it in 
constructed villages.
  I met a guy who was a former cab driver from Chicago who said, Man, 
I've come up in the world; I'm now mayor of this town, because he was 
negotiating with a mayor and city councilman for our soldiers as they 
came into the National Training Center. These people are patriots. They 
are living out in the desert just to help our soldiers understand.
  I'm not anti those folks, but you can't have a world where you refuse 
to identify evil, and 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 3 months after the event, 4 months 
after the event, in a Senate Homeland Security Committee. She 
testified--accurately--and I praise her for it, that this was a 
terrorist act.
  And yet we continue to have from 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 are 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 Major Hasan did, reading back what the 
press reported, acted erratically before his attack, promoted radical 
Islamic views, and exchanged emails with Awlaki in Yemen. He did all of 
those things. And when caught, referenced Major Hasan as one of his 
heroes. He got caught before he blew up an airplane. Praise God. Thank 
goodness.
  So, you know, over 3 years since the incident, the Defense Department 
is still taking the position that this should be treated as normal 
workforce violence or something to that effect.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I think it is particularly interesting that this 
determination by the Army came, or our military leaders, came here in 
December. We just observed--it wasn't a celebration--we observed the 
anniversary of Pearl Harbor. As 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 people of the 
same belief as Major Hasan, that he secures a place in paradise if he 
is 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 considered 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 about Pearl Harbor.
  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 interesting report from Time magazine. They are asking the 
question, and they state: The U.S. military just released a report--
this is that first report--not once mentioning Major Hasan's name or 
even discussing whether the killings had anything to do with his Muslim 
faith. The fort ignores the elephant in the room.
  That's what I said. And it's true. It does ignore the elephant in the 
room. If before the first bullet is fired, a man shouts, Allahu Akhbar, 
that elephant is in the room. And all of the cover-up and all of the 
writing of the reports with reference to typical workforce violence, or 
treat it as workforce violence, it doesn't make sense. It was an attack 
on American soldiers in uniform.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GOHMERT. With regard to that very issue, we know that in the 9/11 
Commission there were hundreds of mentions of Islam, jihad, all of 
these type things that we know were involved. And again, we thank God 
that the vast majority of Muslims love this country like we do. They 
are not about to kill Christians, Jews; but there are those in the 
radical element that 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 the FBI, our intelligence 
folks are trained, there are zero mentions of Islam, zero mentions of 
jihad, zero mentions 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.

[[Page H8955]]

  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 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 
focuses 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.

                              {time}  2000

  The whole point of that San Francisco Chronicle article is to point 
out, I think, the irony of what we are teaching our soldiers to protect 
them from events like this and what we are excluding from the evidence. 
And I think that's blatantly not in the best interests of the soldier.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARTER. Yes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. There is an article dated February 9, 2010, in The 
Washington Times by Bill Gertz that says, the Army was warned about the 
jihadist threat in '08. It says:

       Almost 2 years before the deadly Fort Hood shooting by a 
     radicalized Muslim officer, the U.S. Army was explicitly 
     warned that jihadism--Islamic holy war--was a serious problem 
     and threat to personnel in the U.S., according to 
     participants at a major Army-sponsored conference.

  It references Patrick Poole, Army Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers, 
and Terri Wonder as individuals that participated. It says:

       The shooting at a recruiting center in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas, in June and the November shooting at Fort Hood, 
     Texas, that killed 13 people have exposed the problem of the 
     Army's deficiencies in understanding the nature of the 
     domestic Islamic terrorist threat, Mr. Poole said.
       The incidents have raised questions about whether the Army 
     made any effort to ``operationalize'' the threat warnings 
     from the 2008 conference and develop policies to counter the 
     threats. ``The answer quite clearly is no,'' Mr. Poole said.

  And then it goes on to discuss this whole problem, and Mr. Poole 
said:

       I noted because of our lack of understanding of Islamic 
     doctrines, Islamic jihad and my view that our 
     counterintelligence function is broken, outdated, being 
     usurped in some cases by public affairs and equal opportunity 
     officials, we were going to get soldiers killed in America on 
     our own bases for that professional ignorance.

  This is the kind of thing that should not be happening. This article 
was in 2010, before at least two other individuals had gone on Al 
Jazeera in uniform blasting our military and indicating they could not 
ever be deployed in a Muslim area.
  It's also worth noting that the term ``Islamophobe,'' that I'm sure 
is being generated right now about the two of us here talking about 
this issue, actually originated with the Organization of Islamic 
Conference, the OIC. They came up with the terms ``Islamophobia'' and 
``Islamophobe,'' and there is an ongoing effort to brand anybody who 
attempts to identify those by their beliefs who have gone about killing 
Americans, terrorizing Americans as an Islamophobe or as having 
Islamophobia.
  We know that there are places like Harvard where a professor from 
India who wrote an article about the attacks that are ongoing on his 
homeland in India by Muslim extremists and how that should be dealt 
with, he was fired because Islamic activists at Harvard do not believe 
we should have free speech anymore. And as I mentioned on this floor 
earlier this week, one of the 2005 10-year goals of the Muslim 
Brotherhood here in America is to subvert our Constitution to sharia 
law by 2015. That effort is ongoing.
  And when they continue to brand professors, soldiers, and 
intelligence officers as Islamophobes and that we need laws to prevent 
people from describing radical jihadists who want to kill our own 
American people, as long as that's being done and that's being allowed, 
then our First Amendment rights are being subverted to sharia law, and 
we're well on our way to their meeting their 2015 goal as more and more 
good folks have been won over into this idea, this thought, that, gee, 
if you say anything about radical jihadists and radical Islamists, 
you're the sick one and you need to be stopped.
  This is an ongoing effort around the world, and we cannot allow it to 
overtake America. We should be able to recognize those wonderful, 
patriotic Muslims in America for who they are, but we should also be 
able to recognize and talk about those who want to kill us and destroy 
our way of life for who they are. They're radical Islamic jihadists.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman.
  You just referenced in your poster and showed us a picture of Mr. 
Abdo, the man that was saying he couldn't go to war. That was back on 
July 28, 2011, after the workplace violence. Another soldier made the 
same claim, and Abdo was also referenced in this story.
  More and more of these folks are stepping up and saying they can't be 
deployed because they are Muslim and can't kill Muslims, and they 
reference Hasan, this man who is sitting in the Bell County jail 
awaiting trial probably this spring and is, I understand it, awaiting 
trial on a death penalty case, a potential death penalty case.

  Everybody knew what it was when they attacked the Pentagon. What 
happened to us that we decided when, in front of 50 witnesses, somebody 
shoots a bunch of people and we can't recognize what that was? This was 
a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor. That was a premeditated murder 
like you and I have dealt with in the past with more witnesses than you 
could put on a stand. I mean, this is not going to be a hard case to 
prove because, fortunately, he didn't kill everybody in the room. In 
fact, he left an awful lot of witnesses there to testify.
  He is just lucky he didn't get killed in an active shooter program 
that our two police officers used to respond effectively to his 
slaughter.
  Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my friend the judge indicates he was lucky, 
unfortunately, in his perverted way of thinking. That also is a way of 
thinking that confounded Thomas Jefferson when he was negotiating with 
the Islamic Barbary pirates.
  He actually believed he would have gone to paradise and had dozens of 
virgins at his disposal if he had been killed, so he doesn't 
necessarily think of himself as lucky. Nor would those in Iran, once a 
nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons are assuredly procured, be any 
different. They would believe, if they were to go up with the nuclear 
weapon that they carried into some place where lots of Americans were 
or Israelis were, then they would be assured of instantly being 
transported to paradise. Some of us have a different view of what they 
would find when they meet their Maker after this life, and I think 
they're going to be terribly surprised.
  But our job and our oath is to our Constitution. It's to provide for 
the common defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And when 
someone presents this kind of danger to our troops, it is just 
unfathomable that our military leaders would become so politically 
correct and so militarily neutered that they would not stand up for 
their own troops, for those whose care has been put under their service 
and attention.
  I thank my friend for yielding.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Gohmert, let me read to you a resolution, H. Res. 
495, which I dropped yesterday. It's a resolution recognizing the 
November 5, 2009, attack on Fort Hood, Texas, as an act of radical 
Islamic terrorism and jihad:

       Whereas the United States Army Major Nidal Hasan is 
     reported to have communicated on multiple occasions with 
     radical Islamic terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, on the topic of 
     justifying jihad on the United States and its Armed Forces;
       Whereas Major Hasan delivered addresses to the Department 
     of Defense personnel concerning the justification of jihad 
     against the United States Armed Forces;
       Whereas Major Hasan is reported to have planned and trained 
     for an attack on unarmed members of the United States Armed 
     Forces at Fort Hood, Texas, with the specific intent to kill 
     and injure those troops before the deployment to overseas 
     theaters of war;
       Whereas Major Hasan is reported to have declared his attack 
     to be an act of jihad in defense of Islam, shouting ``God is 
     great'' in

[[Page H8956]]

     Arabic while gunning down unarmed military personnel and 
     civilians;
       Whereas Major Hasan is currently charged with murder of 13 
     and attempted murder of 32 United States citizens during that 
     attack;
       And whereas the Department of Defense submitted 
     correspondence to the United States Senate Committee on 
     Homeland Security which referred to the violent Islamic 
     extremist attack on Fort Hood, Texas, in the context of a 
     broader threat of workplace violence: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the House of Representatives recognizes the 
     attack on Fort Hood, Texas, as an act of radical Islamic 
     terrorism and jihad against the United States Armed Forces.

  I have submitted this to the House, and I'm going to be seeking 
support for this resolution.
  I wonder sometimes what our Forefathers would think of how far we've 
gone out of kilter in recognizing who's our friend and who's our enemy, 
or how we are so concerned about what the speak police or the voice 
police would say to us about some language we use that we would be 
willing to put those men and women who wear the uniform of our armed 
services at risk rather than make a statement that might offend 
somebody.
  I think our grandparents would look at this country and say, what 
happened, what happened to the United States of America that I fought 
for in World War II or Korea or Vietnam? When did it become evil for 
Americans to speak the truth? Why would people who have four stars on 
their shoulder, who we highly respect as leaders of our armed services, 
tolerate being instructed in this concept of political correctness and 
be treating this as if it were an ordinary incident of workforce 
violence? How do we justify that? Where is the common sense in this 
effort? We're worried about hurting other people's feelings, and other 
people are killing us. I mean, this doesn't make any sense.
  And most of all, let's not forget--because I attended the funeral of 
one of the civilians. I have met with some of the wives and children of 
these dead combat soldiers and talked to the parents that looked me in 
the eye and said, how do I figure this out? My kid was there to be 
deployed for the fourth time. He stood in harm's way for our country 3 
years already, and he goes over to the deployment center for a routine 
matter dealing with paperwork and he gets attacked and killed in Texas, 
just right down the street from where he lives. And his children and 
his wife are without a brave American soldier who had proven his worth 
in combat in three deployments already.
  This is something that his parent sits there and says, how could 
anything like this ever happen? I mean, I know to be praying every day 
for my child when he's in combat. This is the profession he has chosen; 
I respect it. I fear for him; I worry about him. I want to make sure--
he or she, because our ladies are fighting just like our men. And now I 
get the word that my son is killed down the street from his kid's 
elementary school while he's going through a routine act of filling out 
paperwork in the Army?
  And then what do we tell that parent when later we find out that a 
report has come out from the government saying ``routine workforce 
violence''? Come on, come on. What's wrong with this? I think it's just 
tragic.
  I introduced a bill that just said, look, acknowledge it for what it 
is. Nothing will draw disrespect for the Purple Heart, or others who 
are wounded in combat in a combat theater, to just acknowledge that 
these innocent people got attacked on their way to their next 
deployment, or on their way back from their last deployment, on our 
soil, on our military base, in our State of Texas. Can we at least give 
them the respect to acknowledge that they're part of the war effort, 
that this guy shot them because we are at war with terrorists? Give 
them combat credit. Give them the honor and respect that comes from 
that. But we're still not able to get that done.

  We're going to keep trying. I have people call me from all over the 
country and say, how are we doing? You know, my kid at least ought to 
get a Purple Heart. My daughter ought to get a Purple Heart for the 
wound she received, and now she's debilitated and has to go out of the 
Army. My son, who's going through constant therapy for his head wound, 
he ought to be recognized by the Army for what happened to him, the 
reality of what happened to him.
  And so we won't make the easy acknowledgement that these folks were 
in combat. And the only reason they didn't fight this guy is because 
they were not armed. And the reason they were not armed is because 
you're not supposed to be armed on post. This guy attacks them. If they 
would have been armed, it would have been over when the first bullet 
fired. These are combat veterans.
  But no, we are very strict--oh, we're now going to change this 
designation the Army has or that designation the Army has. But we 
aren't going to call this guy a terrorist. Don't mention the word 
``Islamic.'' Don't recognize his relationship with an Islamic 
terrorist. Ignore all that evidence, ignore the testimony of 50-some-
odd witnesses and say we will treat it within the concept of workforce 
violence. What does that say to the wife or husband of that soldier, or 
the father or mother of that soldier, or the brother and sister of that 
soldier that was killed or wounded with a debilitating wound--many of 
which are still struggling with their wounds, just like they do in 
combat.
  Yet we conveniently define things in that situation, but refuse to 
define the act that caused the situation. This just is not right. 
That's why I'm very grateful my friend Mr. Gohmert and I came down here 
to talk about this. This is all about trying to just set the record 
straight. You know, let's call it like we see it, and let's don't think 
we have to protect anybody.
  And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim religion. If he 
was a Baptist and was shouting Baptist slogans as his reason for 
shooting somebody, we ought to call him a Baptist.
  This is a tragedy. It's a terrible tragedy because these were 
soldiers, all of whom had been willing to go in harm's way on behalf of 
our country, and most of whom had gone into harm's way on behalf of our 
country and suffered through that miserable weather and those dark 
lonely nights, and all the other things that soldiers suffer through 
when they're addressing terrorism around the world.

                              {time}  2020

  I say around the world because we've still got plenty of places we're 
addressing terrorism, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. To have us be 
willing to soft-pedal what happened to them is an American tragedy, and 
I'm going to continue to talk about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________