[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10415-10422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1900
                          RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for recognizing me 
for this hour. I'm very pleased to be here.
  I'm here to talk about a subject that, I think, is very interesting, 
and I don't think the American people have really gotten their hands on 
this subject yet, but it's also extremely concerning. It really 
concerns me a great deal.
  I happen to serve on the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security. We have spent an awful lot of time and 
an awful lot of effort trying to make sure that we keep our country 
safe from clearly identified terrorists who, if you have any question 
of do they mean us harm, then just look back at the Pentagon and the 
World Trade Center, and then ask yourself: Do they mean us harm?
  We have been diligently trying to defend our borders, diligently 
trying to stop terrorism and trying to catch it before it gets here and 
trying to deal

[[Page 10416]]

with these people who have identified themselves and who have told 
everyone publicly they're here to hurt us. Now we have a new 
administration, and we have a new memo that has come out from Ms. 
Napolitano over at the Department of Homeland Security. It would just 
shock you to know that she is warning not of al Qaeda, not of the 
Taliban, not of Osama bin Laden. She is warning people about right-wing 
radical domestic terrorism.
  Now, this would be almost humorous, but those of us who have a little 
age on us, like I do, can think back to the Clinton administration and 
can remember how many times when anybody ever criticized the Clinton 
administration you would hear the First Lady then and now Secretary of 
State say, ``Well, it's all a plot by those right-wing extremists, 
those right-wing extremist organizations.'' President Bill Clinton 
would say, ``Well, they don't agree with my party and with what we're 
saying here, but it's really the people you're hearing from who are 
right-wing extremists.'' They label talk show hosts as right-wing 
extremists. All this fear was generated about right-wing extremists. 
Now we're not even 6 months into the Obama administration, and the 
people who are supposed to be protecting our homeland are warning us 
against right-wing extremists.
  This is the intelligence briefing right here. Now, I'm not trying to 
be mean about all of this. I'm just trying to tell you what they tell 
me is a right-wing extremist. I just took the things that they tell 
people who fall into that category, and then I put those 
classifications in with a poll that we did to identify the nature of my 
congressional district. Believe it or not, based upon accurate polling 
data that has been done in my district, 81 percent of the registered 
voters in my congressional district would qualify as right-wing 
extremists under Ms. Napolitano's memo--81 percent. They're probably 
going to come up with a category to cover the other 19 percent. I'm not 
being facetious about this. I happen to have Fort Hood, Texas in my 
district. Fort Hood, Texas is the largest military base on the face of 
the Earth. It has two field divisions of the corps headquarters.
  One of the things they tell us in this report is very sad in light of 
what our Army has been going through, which is to watch out for 
returning, disgruntled military veterans coming back from Iraq and 
Afghanistan in that they have the potential to be right-wing 
terrorists. These young men and women, some of whom have done four and 
five deployments overseas, some of those deployments for as much as 15 
months, have served our Nation as heroes, as the next great generation, 
and our government is labeling them: At the time they finish their 
service, we should consider them potential right-wing extremists and 
terrorists. They are defining them as people the government had better 
keep an eye on. Veterans who have served in other wars are in here. 
They classify them as right-wing extremists.
  Are you opposed to abortion? It says right here at the bottom of this 
page: ``It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a 
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.''
  It's just shocking. It basically says, if you disagree with the Obama 
administration, you could be a right-wing terrorist. Now, I hate to say 
that. It talks about people who believe in the right to keep and bear 
arms: right-wing terrorists. It talks about people who disagree with 
the stimulus package: right-wing terrorists. It talks about people who 
disagree with the economic path of recovery that this Nation is taking: 
potential right-wing terrorists. This is what this report says. I'm 
sure it's available. It's unclassified. It's for official use. We got 
it off the Internet. There's more, a lot more.
  I have friends here who have joined me on this shocking thing that's 
going on in this country. I'm going to start with my good friend, 
Virginia Foxx, who was with us here in the last hour, and I'm very 
pleased to have her again.
  I'll yield to her what time she may need to consume.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
willingness to take this hour and to bring attention to this report.
  I had a chance to skim over this report today for the first time. I, 
frankly, was appalled when I read it. I didn't think I would live to 
see the time when Representatives of this government would be 
characterizing the good people of this country, who love this country 
and who have served this country so well, as extremists and terrorists. 
We can't even get the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
to use the word ``terrorism'' anymore for real terrorists. What she 
wants to do, though, is to characterize very, very patriotic Americans 
as terrorists, and I am simply appalled by it.
  As somebody pointed out today to me, when the President was 
campaigning, he promised to transform this country, but you know, I 
don't think people really understood what that meant. He never said he 
was going to improve the country. He said he was going to transform it. 
I think that these folks are on their way to doing that, and I don't 
think people are going to like, primarily, the way they transform it.
  You've done a great job, Congressman Carter, of highlighting this 
really, really scary definition of ``right-wing extremism.'' I want to 
highlight a couple of parts of that definition. I want to talk about 
rejecting Federal authority in favor of State or local authority or 
rejecting government authority entirely.
  I guess that what these people in the Department of Homeland Security 
mean is that the 10th amendment of the Constitution, which I consider 
an integral part of our system of federalism, is part of the danger 
that they see in this country, and I'm going to read the 10th amendment 
just so we're all clear on it.
  ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.''
  I tell people when I speak to them, particularly to school groups, 
that the three most important words outside the Bible, in my opinion, 
are the words ``we the people.'' That begins the preamble to the 
Constitution.
  These folks see the American people as right-wing extremists in their 
concern for terrorists. So, as for those of us who are members of the 
Constitution Caucus, who for the last 4 years have come here on a 
fairly regular basis and who have talked about the 10th amendment in 
order to bring attention to the overreaching of the Federal Government, 
we're those right-wing extremists. So many patriots who have served in 
this House and in the Senate before us who felt very strongly about the 
10th amendment and who did everything that they could to hold down the 
reach of the Federal Government are considered right-wing extremists.
  I just cannot understand how we have put in power in this country the 
kind of people who have so little regard for our Constitution.
  You and I and all of us in this body, who come here every day to 
vote, are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Many of my ``no'' votes are 
based on the 10th amendment, rejecting Federal authority in favor of 
State or local authority. When I say that on this floor, then these 
people consider me a right-wing extremist. I don't consider myself a 
right-wing extremist. I consider myself a person who believes in this 
10th amendment, which, by the way, we understand from history that the 
Constitution probably could not have been ratified had that amendment 
not been in this because the Founders understood so well what a 
dangerous country this would become if we gave too much power to the 
Federal Government.
  I also fail to see how someone who holds fast to the Constitution and 
to the Bill of Rights should be lumped into a category with homegrown 
terrorists and violent racist groups. This is an affront and an insult 
to the millions of law-abiding and taxpaying citizens who long for a 
return to limited Federal Government and to a restoration of limited 
Federal power.
  The question that must be answered in light of this document is: 
Since

[[Page 10417]]

when does being a small government conservative make one a right-wing 
extremist?
  The claims in this report that limited government activists pose a 
threat are completely unsubstantiated and paint law-abiding citizens 
with the broad brushstrokes of extremism.
  I have to say that, I think, most of us who consider ourselves 
conservatives see this as a real slap in the face because we consider 
ourselves patriots for this country. I think also offensive--and I want 
to highlight another part of the definition of ``right-wing 
extremists''--are those groups and individuals who are dedicated to a 
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
  You know, I'm not opposed to immigration. All of us come from people 
who immigrated to this country, but I am very much opposed to abortion, 
and that does not make me a right-wing extremist. That makes me, I 
believe, a person who celebrates life, and I believe that it is 
completely wrong to say that those of us who cherish life and who 
oppose abortion on demand pose a security risk to the United States. 
Such an assertion not only insults the moral beliefs of countless 
Americans but threatens their very right to freedom of expression. I've 
been on this floor many times in the past few months saying that I 
believe we're going down a slippery slope in this country in terms of 
how our right to freedom of expression may be impinged upon.
  I think, again, this report--which, by the way, I'm going to post a 
link to it on my Web site because I want every American to have the 
right to read this and to make some judgment for themselves.
  Opposition to abortion is a profoundly moral issue to those of us who 
oppose abortion. The willful taking of innocent human life is not a 
matter of right-wing extremism. It's a matter of conscience and of deep 
personal conviction. When we belittle our conscience and our deep 
personal convictions, we've come to, I think, a very, very bad place in 
our country. There is also not a shred of evidence anywhere to back up 
the claim made here that pro-life Americans who hold deeply rooted 
beliefs in the immorality of abortion are a threat to our Homeland 
Security. There is not a shred of evidence.
  When people read this, they're going to see all kinds of assertions 
made in here that I do not believe they can back up. I think that, 
again, those assertions undermine our ability to have freedom of speech 
and are a real threat in the opposite way to our country.
  Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas for taking on this 
Special Order tonight and for highlighting this report. I do hope that 
millions and millions of Americans are going to read this report. I 
believe they will judge for themselves that this is a bad definition 
for ``right-wing extremism.''
  I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlelady for her excellent comments on what 
we're dealing with here.
  You know, I think these--every kid that ever graduated from high 
school and took, whether they call it civics now or whether they call 
it government, and just had a brief study of the Constitution, knows 
that every single provision of the United States Constitution is equal 
and that these amendments have a purpose. They define what is our 
governing body. Remember, every person elected in this Congress and 
every person who serves in the Federal Government and every person who 
serves in the State government takes an oath to preserve, protect and 
defend the Constitution, all parts of the Constitution.
  The 10th amendment, the part that says all those things that are not 
specifically given to the Federal Government or aren't specifically 
excluded from the State government, those powers belong to the States.
  Now, to say that because a person believes that they ought to support 
what is written in the Constitution in the 10th amendment, that makes 
them a right-wing radical, then does somebody who thinks they ought to 
be able to--that we should support the right of free speech in the 
First Amendment, does that make you a right-wing radical? Does 
supporting any amendment or any provision of the Constitution make you 
a right-wing radical?
  I had one of my friends today say to me, They are radicalizing the 
war. If you are a right-wing radical because you're opposed to abortion 
and you're passionate on that issue, then does that make you a left-
wing radical if you favor abortion and are passionate on that issue? If 
you are a right-wing radical if you believe that our Constitution 
clearly says that our citizenry has the right to keep and bear arms, do 
you become a left-wing radical when you believe that the government 
should regulate and take away the right to keep and bear arms?
  I mean, at what point does disagreement on issues make you a radical?
  I see the gentlelady from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, has risen to 
speak on this issue, and I will yield her such time as she may wish to 
consume.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank you, Judge Carter, for holding this important 
forum this evening.
  I think, just as Mrs. Foxx said of North Carolina, we absolutely can 
hardly believe that we're in this day and time when our own United 
States Government and our own Secretary of Homeland Security is 
illustrating a very different definition of words.
  I think a lot of us were shocked when about a month ago the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, came out and said that she 
would no longer call terrorists, what we know as terrorists, what the 
average American knows as terrorists--Osama bin Laden, people who 
actually committed and planned terrorist attacks on American soil and 
have, in fact, committed those attacks on American soil--she said for 
purposes, and I quote--she was in an interview with a German paper, and 
she was asked about the word ``terrorism'' and she said that she 
never--the questioner said, ``You never mentioned the word `terrorism.' 
Does Islamic terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your 
country?'' And the Secretary said, ``Of course it does. I presume there 
is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech although, I did not use 
the word `terrorism.' I referred to man-caused disasters.'' And I think 
it's important for the record to note she said that with a straight 
face. She decided not to use the word ``terrorism'' but ``man-caused 
disaster.'' ``That is, perhaps,'' the Secretary said, ``only a nuance, 
but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear 
toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.''
  Now, that's pretty interesting because the Secretary of Homeland 
Security was very careful to nuance her words. She didn't want to upset 
other countries, she didn't want to upset the terrorists by calling 
them ``terrorists.'' So our Secretary of Homeland Security was very, 
very careful that she would no longer use the word ``terrorism'' and 
that she would very carefully nuance her words.
  Well, while she was making that statement, we could only presume a 
report was being issued, and the report that was being issued by 
Secretary Janet Napolitano's Department and it's called--we have it 
here. It's available to Americans now, and we will all be linking to it 
on our Web sites, I am sure--Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and 
Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.
  Now, this is interesting. Here we have the specter of our own 
Homeland Security Secretary who is very reluctant to call actual 
terrorists ``terrorists,'' so we're all told now we have to wipe that 
dictionary definition clean. We have to call them manmade disasters, 
and we have to call acts of war ``overseas contingencies.'' So we're 
now being told to alter and change our definition of words. While on 
the same hand she, under her authority, is issuing a right-wing 
extremism guide. This is an assessment. This was just released. I was 
really curious about this. It was released the day before all of the 
TEA parties occurred here in the United States talking about right-wing 
extremism.

[[Page 10418]]

  What is very interesting is there was no reluctance to have any 
nuancing of any words in this report. I didn't see any, and I am sure 
that the judge from Texas, Judge Carter, I don't see you saw any 
extremist, any willingness to have nuance of these words. As a matter 
of fact, as I was going through this document--and I invite every 
American to please go through this document--I am reading the words, 
``domestic right-wing terrorists.'' She is presuming that those who are 
on the right wing who hold conservative views apparently are not only 
terrorists, they are domestic terrorists here in this country.
  And she goes on in item after item in this document, right-wing 
extremists, right-wing extremists, domestic terrorists, right-wing 
extremists. This sounds pretty serious. It must be that Osama bin 
Laden's guys got through the border. They are here. That must be the 
domestic terrorists she is talking about. Or maybe she is talking about 
those violent Mexican gangs. Maybe they got over the border. Maybe 
those are the domestic right-wing terrorists. Or perhaps the Secretary 
of Homeland Security is talking about those detainees down in Gitmo 
that are going to be released from Gitmo and put here on American soil. 
Maybe that's who the Secretary of Homeland Security is talking about.
  But I don't think so. And the reason I think Mrs. Foxx doesn't think 
so and why Mr. Carter doesn't think so, why Mr. Brady doesn't think so, 
why Mr. Burgess doesn't think so is because of the words that the 
Homeland Security Secretary states in this article.
  Now, it's unclassified, but it is for official use only. I don't 
think the Department of Homeland Security had any idea that the 
American people were going to have access to this document because it 
says quite simply this, that who they are concerned about are returning 
military veterans.
  Now can you believe this? Every one of us, I think, are horrified 
when we hear this. Probably some of the most patriotic people that we 
know of are returning military veterans. They laid their lives down for 
you and for me and for this great country. No one has more love for 
this country than a returning military veteran. And here we have our 
own Department of Homeland Security calling these people potential 
domestic extremists, terrorists? This is unbelievable. I don't think 
any of us can believe it.
  And I think we're at the point now where we need to have a hearing, 
we need to have our Director of Homeland Security in front of the 
Members of Congress, call her to account, ask her why on multiple 
occasions in this document she calls people who believe in the sanctity 
of life, who believe in owning firearms, who believe in serving their 
country in the military and coming back who are very concerned about 
the policies that this Nation is embarking on, spending too much money, 
taxing too much, it's all listed right here. These are the domestic 
right-wing extremists. That is so frightening that we need to have the 
Secretary of Homeland Security before the Members of Congress and ask 
her, does she really believe this? Is this really her opinion?
  But if it is, I think it would be imperative and incumbent upon us to 
ask for her resignation. It is not too soon to do that. Because to 
consider whole blocks of the American electorate somehow a threat to 
American security--because I didn't notice any nuance in this document. 
There was no being careful. There was no saying, you know, we need to 
recognize and understand that there might be a difference of opinion, 
that there might be diversity of public opinion on these issues. There 
is no nuancing about that in this document. It is like a hammer coming 
down on interest group after interest group that apparently the Obama 
administration perceives as a threat.
  Mr. CARTER. If I could reclaim my time to point out to the gentlelady 
what we've got in this definition that I have got on this board right 
here. And it says, ``right-wing extremism,'' I like this right here 
where it says ``those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting 
Federal authority in favor of State and local authority.
  Then, if I understood what the TEA parties were all about, the TEA 
parties were all about all of these millions of people that came out to 
express their right to free speech and to demonstrate and to step up 
and petition their government and say, ``You know what? We don't like 
what the Federal Government is doing. We don't like the way you're 
taxing. We don't like the way you're spending.'' Guess what? The Obama 
administration just classified them as right-wing extremists, 
terrorists.
  Now, if the gentlelady needs to conclude her remarks and then--or 
maybe I will let Mr. Brady take over and then we will come back to you.
  Kevin Brady, my good friend from Texas. I will yield you as much time 
as you need.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Congressman Carter, thank you for your leadership 
on this issue.
  Look at the board that you're standing next to. They are basically 
saying--our government is saying that right-wing extremists in the 
United States fall into two groups: those who hate others, hate-
oriented groups, and those who are anti-government. So those who hate 
people and those who just don't think we ought to have a big 
government--according to our Department of Homeland Security--there is 
no difference. None. What kind of country are we becoming?
  I, like you, was in front and participated in two of our TEA parties 
in Montgomery County. Hundreds of people attended downtown Conroe, 
thousands in the Woodlands at Creekside Park waiting hours to get to 
the park. Average people. Americans. The type that built this country.
  I took a good look at this crowd and didn't see an extremist in the 
bunch. And don't you know I was looking for it after reading all about 
Secretary Napolitano's memo who paints them as the new national 
security threat in our country.
  But let me tell you what I did see. I saw Americans who are fed up 
with the government spending their money hand-over-fist, Americans who 
live within their means and pay taxes to a government that, starting 
this Saturday, will run out of money for the entire year. We just paid 
our taxes on the 15th. The government is already out of money, living 
on a credit card. They are asking why. What is extremist about that?
  I saw Americans who want secure borders, Americans who welcome 
immigrants who are seeking a better life. They are just asking that 
they come in through the front door of legal immigration rather than 
the back door of illegal immigration, just like generations of 
Americans before them.
  I saw veterans, veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, veterans 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They didn't look extreme or maladjusted 
or dangerous. They looked concerned for a country they put their lives 
on the line for. As Mrs. Bachmann said, they put their lives on the 
line. And now this country is at a crossroads, and these veterans who 
are willing to fight for it overseas, they are also willing to fight 
for their country here at home by speaking out. And my brother, who I 
am so proud of, a master sergeant in the Army, served in Iraq, has been 
deployed overseas as well, he's not extremist. He's my hero.

                              {time}  1930

  And I would say that goes for every family that has someone who 
served in our wars; they are not the threat to America, man, they are 
the solution for America.
  I think Americans are waking up all across this country--we saw this 
this past week--they want to know if Congress, they want to know if 
Washington hears them. And it seems to me that not only do they not 
believe they are extreme, they believe the Constitution gives them the 
right to disagree, respectfully and forcefully, with their government, 
that the Constitution actually allows them to question these decisions, 
to question reports like you, Congressman Carter, have brought to 
light, rightfully so. They want and are speaking out for lower taxes. 
They are speaking out for families. They are speaking out for the 
unborn. They want all the rights afforded them in

[[Page 10419]]

the Constitution under the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep 
and bear arms, and they simply ask that it be protected.
  In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are a lot of people in America 
who think that solutions to our country come from individuals, 
families, neighborhoods, local communities, even States. And they don't 
get anointed from Washington and then passed on to--Washington doesn't 
know best. And just because people believe in those rights, they 
shouldn't be labeled as extremists.
  The Secretary's comments were offensive. She apologized to veterans, 
sort of.
  Mr. CARTER. Not really.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Not much, not much at all. And she absolutely 
ignored everyone else. And it seems to me that she should recant this 
report forcibly. She should apologize to everyone who was offended. As 
you said, 80 percent of Americans are now a national security threat. 
She should apologize to them. She should commit to the American people 
that she will not confuse the patriots within our country who want to 
build it up with extremists outside who want to tear it down. There is 
a huge difference. And if our government doesn't know, I really am 
frightened. Some pundit said, you know, maybe the snake is out of the 
box. Maybe this really is the attitude of our government about those 
who simply disagree with it. If it is, then the TEA parties will only 
continue to grow to be more valuable, to be critical to where we go.
  I appreciate Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess--you, 
especially, Congressman Carter--for bringing this issue to us tonight 
so the American public can see that we are as outraged and angry at 
this report as they are, and we intend to hold those accountable who 
drafted and support it.
  With that, I would yield back.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and my good friend, 
very much for his comments. As you were saying that, you know, I had to 
think, if you are first classifying people who disagree with you as 
terrorists, or dangerous, then the next step is dealing with those 
people. The next step may be, we'll read headlines like this, 
``Venezuelan Government arrests Chavez opponent.'' ``Equatorial Guinea: 
Arrest and torture of political opponents.'' ``Zimbabwe arrests 
opposition leaders.'' ``Britain tells Pakistan Government don't arrest 
political opponents.'' ``Obama administration issues warning over 
right-wing extremists.'' What is the next headline going to say? I am 
not trying to be a scare factor, but when you start classifying 
ordinary Americans who disagree with you as an extremist, we have to be 
concerned.
  I am not going to change my position on State's rights and the right 
of our States under our Constitution. I am not going to change my 
position on abortion. I am not going to change my position on the right 
to keep and bear arms. And if I have to go to prison for it, I am going 
to do it because that is what our Founding Fathers would have done. And 
that is where we have got to be.
  I yield back to Mrs. Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I also thank Mr. 
Brady for his remarkable words as well.
  I think, in answer to where do we go from here? We need look no 
further than the statements that were made by then candidate Obama 
during the election when he said this--this is a statement of President 
Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little 
attention in the media, but he suggested the creation of a Federal 
police force comparable to the size of the military. And he made that 
statement, I believe, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. And so the 
question that we need to ask is, why would you need such an 
organization? There is no constituency calling for a Federal police 
force, there is no one out there doing it. But yet, Barack Obama made 
the suggestion himself that we needed to create and fund a domestic 
army that would be a Federal police force. Why would we need a Federal 
police force the size of the U.S. military? For what purpose? Would it 
be for this purpose?
  It is intriguing to me, we have a report now that says--as Mr. Brady 
said and as Judge Carter said--80 percent of the American people would 
be classified as ``right-wing extremists'' under this report. Couple 
that with a statement made by President Obama during the campaign that 
we need to have a Federal police force the size of the military. Add it 
up. No wonder people right now who are gun owners, who cherish their 
second amendment rights, are purchasing weapons and are purchasing 
ammunition. They see the handwriting on the wall. They know the Obama 
administration is looking at weapon bans and is looking at pulling back 
on gun ownership and registration of firearms, and they are rightly 
concerned about that. So what? They are purchasing firearms lawfully. 
They are purchasing ammunition lawfully. And yet this document would 
categorize these law-abiding citizens, which our Founders--as Judge 
Carter correctly stated, are exercising their second amendment right to 
own and bear arms. They are doing that, and now our government is 
calling them right-wing extremists?
  We need to be on this floor tonight. We need to be outraged. And 
furthermore, we need answers, as Mr. Brady said, from the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. What did she really mean? Does she 
agree with this report? Does she recant this report? If not, she should 
resign.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I am going to yield just briefly to 
Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Congressman Carter, again, I appreciate your 
leadership on this issue, but it begs the question of the discussion 
tonight; in America, we don't tolerate racial profiling, so why are we 
tolerating values profiling? Why are we allowing this government to 
profile people based on those who believe in smaller, limited 
government, who believe in pro-family issues, who believe in their 
constitutional right, the second amendment, or who just believe they 
ought to be able to disagree with their government? Why is our 
government profiling those with values at a time when we ought to be 
encouraging all Americans to raise their values, to speak out, to be 
engaged? It seems to me we have got the gun pointed at ourselves when 
we really ought to be, again, protecting this country against the real 
terrorists who threaten our way of life, not those inside who are 
trying to preserve it.
  I just want to thank you and our other speakers tonight for their 
very insightful remarks on this issue.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, the other thing that is 
very offensive to me--and I think it should be very offensive to every 
American--is that this report, when you read it--and we haven't even 
touched it, but I am going to tell you I am going to touch it right 
now--almost every paragraph begins, ``Due to the election of an African 
American President.'' They are lumping everyone who disagrees 
politically with them, they are lumping them all into a racist 
category. And that is offensive to me. That should be offensive to 
every single free American that breathes a breath on this soil because 
disagreeing with your government does not make you a racist against 
electing an African American. With all that we have done and this great 
victory of an African American President that everybody recognizes as a 
turning point in the history of America, and then to say, but anyone 
that disagrees with anything he says or anything he does or anything 
anybody under his auspices does is a racist and a domestic terrorist?
  I agree with the gentlelady from Minnesota; it is time to talk 
seriously about who is in charge of the new Obama department that we 
have got that is supposed to be protecting our Nation, Homeland 
Security.
  I have my very good friend and colleague, one of my classmates, and a 
very intelligent gentleman, Mr. Burgess from Texas, who has been my 
buddy since we got here, and I am glad to yield the time he needs.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 10420]]

  You know, home on the 2-week recess that we just had, you are so 
busy--recess is a misnomer, you are so busy going from one place to 
another that oftentimes you don't even have an opportunity to keep up 
with the current events of the day. And I did what I was doing so often 
as I drive through my rather long and narrow district, I was listening 
to talk radio, a subversive station there in the Dallas/Fort Worth 
market, and they started talking about this report that had just come 
out from the Secretary. Well, I was so upset about what I was hearing 
on the radio that I got on my phone and I called the staff up here in 
the Washington office and I said, we need to get a letter to the 
Department of Homeland Security, to the Secretary right away. So I am 
going to read to you a few excerpts from the letter that I wrote last 
week to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. And 
Judge, it actually goes back to something that you were saying.
  Within the letter, the report states that ``the economic downturn and 
the election of the first African American President present unique 
drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment.'' The report 
goes on to connect associations with right-leaning ideology with the 
Oklahoma City bombing, the murder of law enforcement officials, bank 
robbery, attacks on infrastructure, racism, and bigotry in general. 
This report claims that, ``high unemployment leads to alienation, 
increasing an individual's susceptibility to extremist ideas.''
  This report appears to claim that high unemployment amongst 
Caucasians, Christians, second amendment supporters and Armed Forces 
veterans has a causal relationship with radicalism and violence against 
the State. I call into question this underlying assumption and baseless 
claim. The implication that veterans returning home from serving our 
country are at risk of becoming domestic terrorists or assassins is 
sensational at best, but dishonorable and disrespectful of their 
service.
  Profiling based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or life 
experiences is always wrong. I believe the Department of Homeland 
Security owes an apology to the Americans that are offended by this 
report, especially to the men and women of our Armed Forces. 
Furthermore, the Department should rescind this report so that those 
local, State and Federal law enforcement officials who received it are 
not compelled to profile individuals as terrorists simply because they 
associate themselves with conservative organizations. I ask that you 
enact these recommendations on behalf of the constituents of the 26th 
District of Texas.
  And just briefly, I want to read some lines from a stack of mail that 
I got from my constituents back home. Some of them are pretty 
outspoken. A resident from Flower Mound, Texas put it pretty simply; 
``Fire Napolitano immediately. The United States is not a police 
state.'' Another resident wrote, ``The only acceptable response is to 
fire Secretary Napolitano immediately. No apology should be accepted. 
Even her resignation should not be allowed. All Americans should demand 
that the Secretary be fired without delay.''
  Another resident from Mound, ``Dear Congressman Burgess: Americans 
are repulsed by the leaked DHS Anti-Terrorism Security Assessment 
Summary that clearly targets mainstream Americans as dangerous 
extremists.''
  A resident from Keller, Texas, ``The report issued yesterday by the 
Department of Homeland Security was reprehensible and insulting to tens 
and millions of Americans. The statement issued today by Secretary 
Napolitano standing behind the report is absolutely inexcusable. 
Secretary Napolitano should resign.''
  A resident from Hurst, quoting from the body of the letter, ``I ask 
you to speak out against this kind of rhetoric, Congressman, and to 
call for the immediate resignation of the Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.''
  Another resident writing from Hurst said, ``In fact, I am considering 
calling the Department of Homeland Security and giving them my name and 
address so they can keep an eye on me and my radical ideas, like a 
smaller Federal Government, more control back to the States. Maybe we 
should start a list for them.''
  A resident from Corinth, Texas stated, quite simply, ``Fire Janet 
Napolitano immediately. I viewed her so-called apology on Fox and 
Friends in the morning on Thursday; that was no apology as she stands 
by the report.''
  Another one writing in said, ``I have spent over 20 years of my life 
serving my country as an officer in the United States Navy fighting to 
protect the Constitution and America from the very likes of this. I 
joined during the Cold War, and I know firsthand how Communists act and 
what they do to political dissenters. Now to have this said of me and 
my family, my children, my friends, my neighbors, my church, and 
everyone else I know by my own government makes me''--I'll use a 
colloquial term here, I'll just say ``sick to my stomach.''

                              {time}  1945

  I demand Janet Napolitano's immediate firing. She has demonstrated 
she is unfit for service in any capacity in the U.S. governments. 
Another resident of Flower Mound. ``This is disgusting. Of all the 
departments and agencies in our government which should be apolitical, 
Homeland Security is one of the most, if not the most critical, to 
remain apolitical. They are tasked with defending all Americans. I 
implore you to call for a congressional investigation immediately. I 
urge you to call immediately for the resignation of Secretary 
Napolitano. If she is so concerned with advancing a political agenda, 
let her go work for ACORN, whoever they are.''
  A resident from Pilot Point, ``Warmest regards from Pilot Point. We 
are former U.S. Army officers. One of us is a West Point graduate. We 
are both veterans of Desert Storm. Both of our fathers and my 
grandfather are veterans. My father was a career Army officer and my 
uncle a Navy fighter pilot. My little brother, a U.S. Army officer, has 
served tours in Afghanistan and just returned from a tour in Iraq last 
month.
  ``Forgive my tedious intro, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I 
thought you should know that we are biased. We bleed red, white and 
blue. I cannot find the words to share with you, how repugnant we find 
the justification of discriminatory governmental directives and a 
complete lack of rational government demonstrated by the DHS Secretary.
  ``Someone can be given knowledge, but unless they truly accept and 
internalize the error of their actions they cannot be taught good 
judgment. She must be held accountable with a full investigation. Short 
of that, please demand her resignation.
  ``There is no apology that will change the discriminatory character 
that she demonstrates and apparently supports. Please make an outspoken 
stand on principle. I feel we cannot change her character.''
  Well, to the two Army officers from Pilot Point, consider it done.
  Resident from Lantana, ``Why have Republicans not been screaming for 
Janet Napolitano's firing? My employees would be fired in this 
situation.''
  It goes on to say ``I love you, and I went to the Denton TEA party.''
  A resident from North Richland Hills, ``Returning veterans are being 
subjected to unjust scrutiny by the DHS Secretary.''
  A resident from Denton, ``Her pronouncements are an insult to every 
American and probably 95 percent of hardworking citizens. To hear such 
word from a high-ranking Federal employee, language that denigrates 
those who defend our country and every patriotic American makes me one 
that Napolitano, I suppose, would consider a threat even though I have 
always thought that nothing in my personal life and belief system would 
so delegate me.''
  Well, I have a few more, but in the interest of time, I am going to 
stop there. Those are some of the most poignant that were submitted to 
the office.
  Certainly this is something that has gotten people's attention and 
appropriately so. I think, Judge, you are

[[Page 10421]]

doing the correct thing by having this special hour tonight, giving 
many of us a chance to come down to the floor and talk about this.
  I can't say it any better than my constituents have said it, an 
investigation, to be sure, a replacement of the Secretary, I think, is 
certainly in order, and I do have to question the sincerity of an 
administration that would not undertake these measures after the types 
of very, very painful words that have been included in that report, and 
how it has affected those that we have depended upon to fight for us 
and maintain our freedom.

                                                   April 16, 2009.
     Hon. Janet Napolitano,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Napolitano: I am writing to express my 
     concerns regarding a recent Department of Homeland Security 
     (DHS) report entitled, ``Rightwing Extremism: Current 
     Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in 
     Radicalization and Recruitment.'' This report claims to 
     provide law enforcement officials with the tools to help them 
     deter, prevent, preempt, correspond to terrorist attacks 
     against the United States. I understand the purpose of shared 
     intelligence, however, I am concerned that by broadly 
     characterizing those who support a conservative ideology with 
     terrorism the DHS may have mischaracterized and offended 
     several million Americans and placed them at risk of 
     profiling bylaw enforcement officials.
       This report states, ``The Economic downturn and the 
     election of the first African American president present 
     unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and 
     recruitment.'' The report goes on to connect associations 
     with right-leaning ideology with the Oklahoma City bombing, 
     the murder of law enforcement officials, bank robbery, 
     attacks on infrastructure, and racism and bigotry in general.
       This report claims that ``high unemployment leads to 
     alienation, increasing an individual's susceptibility to 
     extremist ideas.'' This report appears to claim that high 
     unemployment among Caucasians, Christians, Second Amendment 
     supporters, and Armed Forces Veterans has a causal 
     relationship with radicalism and violence against the state. 
     I call into question this underlying assumption and baseless 
     claim. The implication that veterans returning home from 
     serving our country are at risk of becoming domestic 
     terrorists or assassins is sensational at best and is 
     dishonorable and disrespectful to their service.
       Profiling based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or 
     life experiences is always wrong. I believe the Department of 
     Homeland Security owes an apology to the Americans that are 
     offended by this report, especially the men and women of our 
     Armed Forces. Furthermore, the Department should rescind this 
     report so those local, state, and federal law enforcement 
     officials who received it are not compelled to profile 
     individuals as terrorists simply because they associate 
     themselves with conservative organizations.
       I urge you to enact these recommendations on behalf of the 
     constituents of the 26th District of Texas.
           Sincerely,
                                          Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

  Mr. CARTER. I thank my good friend for his comments. Let me read 
something just for a moment from this report, let me read something. As 
we recall, we have had a lot of discussion on this floor by our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, about some of the things 
that they are concerned about in manufacturing.
  Let me read you another definition of right-wing extremists. ``Right-
wing extremist views bemoan the decline of the U.S. stature and have 
recently focused on themes such as U.S. manufacturing capability going 
to China and India. Russian control of interview resources and the use 
of these to pressure other countries, and China's investment in the 
United States real estate and corporations, are part of the subversive 
strategy.''
  Wait a minute, we have been arguing on the floor of this House with 
Democrats bemoaning China taking jobs away from the manufacturing 
industry. Good Lord, they are domestic terrorists. Good Lord, you know, 
I am pretty dad gum mad about this, and I agree with my colleagues.
  Mr. President, fire that woman. Ms. Napolitano, this is inexcusable 
to go on television and say, your apology would be, ``I am sorry you 
were offended by this report.
  That's no apology. That's saying I am sorry, you have got a chance to 
read it, and know what our plans were for you in the future.
  Mr. President, respectfully, this woman deserves firing. I think it's 
time we act.
  I yield to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Again, I agree with Judge Carter of I think he is 
exactly right. I think the question we need to ask now is what's next, 
political show trials? That's the concern.
  When you have disagreement of political opinion, and then you set up 
the grounds for punishment for disagreement with political opinion, 
then the government creates what's called political show trials. In 
other words, kangaroo courts where people are put on trial for their 
political beliefs.
  So what's next? Is it political show trials? Well, shazam, wouldn't 
you know it, just this week President Obama, together with MoveOn.org, 
MoveOn.org running television adds by the way, this week calling for 
political show trials of those in the Bush administration that worked 
so hard to keep the American people free from terrorist acts, real 
terrorist acts, like trying to blow Americans up on American soil.
  The problem is the Homeland Security Secretary has now redefined real 
terrorists as foreign victims with Miranda rights and access to 
American courts with lawyers paid for by the American taxpayer, while 
at the same time the Homeland Security S has redefined pro-life gun-
owning veterans who like smaller government and who believe America 
should secure our borders against invasion from illegal aliens as 
domestic right-wing extremists, as you have in the report upon the 
stand.
  Homeland Security, I think we should also note, has the 
Transportation Security Administration. Any of our constituents that go 
to the airport, they see people that have TSA on their shirts.
  You can't get on a plane in the United States, a commercial aircraft, 
without going through security. What's going to happen now? Will the 
Federal Government start IDing returning veterans, start IDing gun 
owners, start IDing pro-lifers and then pull us out of line for special 
searches at the airports before we are allowed to get on a plane 
because we could be considered a domestic right-wing terrorist while we 
would see Osama bin Laden and his friends skate by because they are 
not, because maybe they would be involved in a manmade disaster. But 
those who are pro-life gun owners, returning veterans on the other 
side, they are the real threat?
  This is an upside down Alice in Wonderland world. I can see why the 
American people are so upset right now. They are so upset. They look at 
what's happening. They shake their head. They say, is this America? Is 
this what we are used to? We are normal God-fearing people who love 
this country, and now we are the threat while Osama bin Laden and the 
people who seek to really bring us harm are let off scot free. And we 
are going to call them manmade disaster, we have got to be nuanced and 
so careful so we don't hurt their feelings?
  Has this Homeland Security Secretary gone absolutely stark raving 
mad? She needs to come before Congress. She needs to answer a few 
questions.
  I don't think Mr. Burgess is the only one with constituents that want 
to know. I think all of us have constituents that want to get some 
answers to these questions.
  Mr. CARTER. You know, I am just reading some more of our report, it 
just continues to be more and more offensive.
  The category where this provision comes from, talking about right-
wing extremists being our returning veterans, some examples given, 
after Operation Desert Shield/Storm 1990-1991, some returning military 
veterans, including Timothy McVeigh, joined and associated with right-
wing extremist groups.
  Yes, maybe Timothy McVeigh did, but the veterans that Mike Burgess 
just read about, they didn't. Okay? They served their Nation, and they 
have left the military service and have been good citizens of his 
congressional district, and yet they lumped them with Timothy McVeigh.

[[Page 10422]]

  Another one says, a prominent civil rights organization report, 
without telling us who they are, ``that large numbers of potentially 
violent neo-Nazi skinheads and other white supremacists are now 
learning the art of warfare in the United States Armed Forces.''
  That is so insulting, it's beyond belief, it's beyond belief. It is 
condemning every bit of our Armed Forces.
  So basically they are there. We are not sure who they are. Watch them 
all. Watch they all. They have got a uniform on. If it says Iraq or 
Afghanistan or has that American flag, keep an eye on those guys. They 
might shave their head when they get home and be a skin head. What kind 
of paranoia is this? It's just beyond belief that there is this kind of 
thought processes beginning this term of an American President, someone 
he put in this position.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Less than 100 days, within 90 days.
  Mr. CARTER. That's exactly right. This is his responsibility. He 
chose to be our leader, he needs to lead on this issue.
  It is absolutely inexcusable to let a head of a major department, 
whose purpose is to protect the innocent of this country, to accuse 
possibly 80 percent of Americans of being right-wing extremists.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Judge Carter, you are exactly right, because what you 
are doing is you are calling into question the judgment of President 
Obama by selecting this Secretary of Homeland Security to come out with 
a report. Insulting 80 percent of the American people within 90 days of 
assuming office? You are exactly right.
  On page 4 of this report, ``It says prominent antigovernment 
conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic 
collapse.'' Aren't we all worried about that? Economic collapse to 
intensify fear and paranoia.
  But then it goes on to say this. This is for people of faith. This is 
where people of faith need to perk up their ears because the report 
actually says this.
  It says, End Times prophesies could motivate extremist individuals 
and groups that stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings 
have also been linked with a radicalization of domestic extremist 
individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian identity 
organizations.''
  I find this offensive.
  Mr. CARTER. I do too.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. The percentage of people who believe in this Book of 
Revelations, End Times prophecy, the Book of Daniel, the Book of 
Ezekiel, the Book of Isaiah, the people who believe in the teachings of 
Christ that talk about end-time prophecy? These are people that our 
government should be watching out for?
  This administration needs to be ashamed of this. This is a piece of 
religious bigotry. That's what this is. This is religious bigotry.
  As a matter of fact, we were told we were going to deal with hate 
crime laws this week. I think this document is an example of hate 
crimes on the part of the Federal Government labeling its own citizens, 
practically calling American citizens criminals to be tracked down by 
an American government.
  And we have to keep in mind the statement that President Obama said 
on the campaign trail that he believed that a Federal police force 
should be created, just the same size of the U.S. military, 
unbelievable, and the media didn't pick up on it. The American people 
need to know.
  Mr. CARTER. What was the exact term that you said that he was calling 
those that are outside the country, rather than terrorists? Now Ms. 
Napolitano calls them something nebulous.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes. What she said in her interview exactly, ``I did 
not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to man-caused disasters. 
That's perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move 
away from the politics of fear,'' from the politics of fear.
  Mr. CARTER. So a person who believes in an interpretation of the Book 
of Revelations in the Bible is, by her definition, labeled as a 
terrorist.
  But a man who, live on television, on videotape, cuts another man's 
head off on television in the name of another religion is a what?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That's right, a man-caused disaster.
  Mr. CARTER. Man-caused disaster.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That's skewed thinking. We had a man who beheaded his 
wife in upstate New York. Not a word was said about that. The media 
didn't cover it, I didn't see anything here about religious groups 
where maybe something like that would happen, it's unbelievable the 
accusations that are made in this document.
  Mr. CARTER. Before we finish here, because we are about to run out of 
time, I want to say something else. When we are talking about 
immigration, we are not talking about people who come to this country 
legally.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That's exactly right.
  Mr. CARTER. We are not talking about people who came here illegally 
and meet their obligation to the country, get in line and become good 
American citizens.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. That's exactly right.
  Mr. CARTER. We are talking about people who break this law in this 
country. We all, every one of us support immigration, good legal 
immigration in this country, because that's who we are. Every one of 
us, unless we are an American, a Native American is an illegal 
immigrant.

                          ____________________