[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9962-9967]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1700
                    THE WEEK AT A GLANCE IN CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a week. We've heard 
friends across the aisle get up and talk about how we've ``expanded 
civil rights in the military.'' And I appreciate the fact that friends 
believe they did a wonderfully noble thing for the military, just as 
they would probably think they did a wonderfully noble thing to expand 
civil rights in courts martial that occur in the military. But the fact 
is, under our United States Constitution, that so many people want to 
keep referring to when it's convenient, it anticipates that there will 
be different rights afforded in different areas, one of which is in our 
United States military.
  The purpose of the military is not to be some socially engineered 
experiment. It is to do one thing, and that is to protect our homeland, 
protect our way of life. For that reason, the Constitution anticipated 
that Congress, under its authority to create courts, could set up 
military commissions, could set up and pass the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, which gave the military an entirely different type of 
structure when it comes to processing their rights and adjudicating 
different aspects of military life. Because to do otherwise, to give 
everyone in the military, as I was for 4 years, the same rights that 
are afforded in a civilian court means that you can destroy the 
function of the military because so often the military doesn't have 
time to do all of the same things a civilian court does. That's why the 
UCMJ was created, that's why it's constitutional, and that's why we 
needed some forum like that for our military.
  It is always an honor to get to speak in this hallowed Hall, but 
hopefully we can cast some light on what it means to be in the military 
because, for example, if you are suspected and there is probable cause 
to believe that a military member has committed a crime, then it can be 
pursued as an article 15, nonjudicial punishment. And as we saw with 
the outrageous pursuit of an article 15 against three valiant 
servicemembers, they had the right to choose not to accept the 
nonjudicial punishment that could have forced them into restriction, 
extra duty, taken away pay, dropped them in rank. Instead of having 
that forced on them, they were afforded their right, under the UCMJ, to 
say I'm not going to accept this; I want to go to trial in a court 
martial. That's what occurred, and all three were acquitted--
fortunately and appropriately. But that's one of the ways.
  Another way is the commander, at different levels of command, can 
order a court martial be convened. A court will be convened, and a 
military judge is appointed. And if it is the commanding general of a 
facility, he can order a general court martial, the highest level court 
martial under the UCMJ. And at that general court martial, you can have 
a dishonorable discharge--and it depends on the crime as to how serious 
the punishment could be--but it could be as serious as a dishonorable 
discharge and even life in prison. So it's a very serious matter.
  But whereas during the days when I was a prosecutor, an attorney, a 
judge, a chief justice, when there was a jury selection in a civil 
court, you randomly sent out notices and randomly brought people in, 
and then you went through a jury qualification with all of those and 
called out those who did not meet the requirements of the law to be a 
juror in a particular case. And then once the jury panel was qualified, 
they were brought before the parties of a particular case and they went 
through what we in Texas call voir dire, but most of the country calls 
voir dire--it's just the way we talk in Texas. But during voir dire, 
the attorneys have the opportunity to ask questions of the jury panel 
so that they can determine whether or not there are people who can be 
struck for cause, and to also allow them to exercise what are called 
peremptory strikes so they can go through--and in Texas, you can have 
as many as 10 strikes in the right cases--to strike them for any reason 
as long as it was not prohibited by the Constitution, strike people for 
no reason.
  In the military, if a commanding general convenes a court martial, it 
means he has signed off ordering that that servicemember be prosecuted. 
So he's the convening authority for the court martial. He has ordered 
that this person be prosecuted, so he is satisfied in his mind, he 
thinks this guy ought to be prosecuted, brought to justice. And then 
that same authority gets to pick the people who will be on the jury. 
And the attorney for the defendant in the military will have no rights 
to peremptory challenges as you would in the civilian court. They would 
have no right to try to determine who he would like to strike for 
peremptory reasons.
  It's a very difficult process for a defendant or defense attorney. 
There are cases in which someone can get life in prison in the military 
and may only have five members handpicked by the commanding general to 
be on the jury. Now, why would that be allowed? That probably just 
really infuriates some who are so concerned about civil rights and they 
will say, well, that's not fair. But what they don't understand is, in

[[Page 9963]]

the military, you can't go through all the processes that we have so 
luxuriously been bestowed with in the civilian sector and still be able 
to fight wars and protect us against all these enemies, foreign and 
domestic. There has to be a difference in the rights that are afforded 
those in the military and those in the civilian sector, or the military 
cannot function. If they are out on the battlefield, they don't have 
time to go through a full civil trial and afford all the civil rights 
because, if they did, they would lose every battle. You can't do that 
to them and expect them to defend us.
  So there are different rights for those in the military than those in 
American society, and it has to be so to have the strongest military 
that mankind and the world and history has ever known and ever seen, 
and that is exactly what we have today.
  But our military was made promises earlier this year from the White 
House through the leadership here in Congress. They were promised that 
we're looking at changing the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which 
will allow those who practice homosexuality to do so openly and 
overtly. For most of the history of our Nation, the military has made 
sodomy a crime for which you could go to prison. So we've made a 
dramatic turn in more recent years so that people could feel 
comfortable that they are afforded all the civil rights.
  We're moving to giving our military all the civil rights that we all 
have in the civilian sector, not realizing a military can't function 
like that, not realizing that the military has to have different 
rights, to some extent, in order to function properly. Because those in 
the military and most who have served in the military--obviously not 
all--out of the millions and millions and millions--our colleagues 
across the aisle keep talking about 13,000--but of the millions and 
millions and millions who have served in our military, most understand 
that when you are in harm's way and you have people firing at you and 
you're hunkered down in a bunker or you're in a foxhole, you're in an 
untenable position and lives are at risk, that one of the strongest 
tendencies in the human body, the sexual urge, needs to be one that is 
not an issue. So whether it is those who cannot control their urges of 
heterosexuality or homosexuality, it absolutely should not be an issue 
when it comes to combat.
  And because those in the military have been scared to death of what 
kind of transformative change the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would 
have, what it would mean, what it would do to their functioning, their 
ability to function as a military and protecting us, they ask, At least 
let us submit our opinions, let us give you our input. We're the ones 
out here willing to lay down our lives for you in Congress, for you in 
America, for you in the ACLU. We're the ones out here willing to lay 
down our lives for you, let us have some input, let us tell you how it 
is in the military because we're not sure you understand it has to be 
different in the military for the military to function.
  And our White House and our majority leaders in Congress said, We 
hear you and we'll listen to you. We're going to do a study, and it's 
due December 1 of this year. And we will get your input because you're 
out there willing to lay down your lives for us, so we'll get your 
input and we'll have a study on exactly what kind of transformation 
this will make in the military. Will there have to be separate quarters 
for heterosexual males and homosexual males and heterosexual females 
and homosexual females? I mean, what is this going to look like in the 
military? What are we going to need to do in the way of facilities to 
accommodate the different types of sexual attraction?
  It's going to be an interesting question, and I think it's very 
important to get that study. We need to know what it's going to do. How 
much is it going to cost our military in the way of time and 
transformation at the very time they're losing their lives in 
Afghanistan? We still lose some in Iraq. And what many people don't 
know and what broke my heart in peacetime was to attend funerals of 
military friends during peacetime, because people die even in peacetime 
in the military. What is it going to do to the military trying to adapt 
to another potential war?
  What if Iran gets their nuclear weapons because all we're doing is 
playing footsie talking about sanctions at a time that Iran's 
centrifuges continue to spin, they're spinning, they're continuing to 
enrich uranium, they're getting closer every day to not having the 
small amount they've got, but moving toward full enrichment and the 
full bomb that could take out Israel. And if you read the quotes from 
Ahmadinejad, he makes it very clear--even though reporters in America 
have been scared to ask him anything other than ridiculous questions 
and not get to his claims that he is going to destroy the ``Great 
Satan'' America--he has made clear that our way of life needs to be 
wiped off the planet, as does that in Israel. He has made it very 
clear. And in furtherance of that goal, he has made clear they're 
continuing to move toward nuclear weapons, and we are not going to stop 
them.
  And we talk about sanctions. Now, China, to their credit, has been 
honest. They say, we don't want to go along with sanctions. I've been 
very concerned that China will come along and say, you know what? We'll 
agree to sanctions, just like Germany, France and Russia did against 
Iraq during the Oil-for-Food sanctions. And then we found out later 
after we went into Iraq that Germany, France and Russia had been 
cheating and had made billions and billions of dollars. They loved 
having the sanctions because it meant they had no competition because 
everyone else was observing the sanctions.

                              {time}  1715

  So, it is to China's credit that they have at least been honest 
enough to say they don't think the idea of sanctions is a good idea 
because, if they did and if China said, Okay. Okay. We'll do sanctions, 
and then they started cheating, not only have we not done anything with 
sanctions, but we've enriched people who wouldn't mind seeing us leave 
this Earth as the greatest Nation in history. So we need our military 
to be able to function as well as it is now.
  We have heard testimonials from those who have said, I had a friend 
who couldn't stand to keep his homosexual feelings private. He had to 
go overt. He had to go public. He wanted everybody in the military to 
know. Yet, even though the vast majority of the military says that 
creates a real problem for us, our majority voted yesterday: Not only 
are we going to force you to have a different system than you've ever 
had before, but we don't care what you think.
  Now, we've heard today that--let's see. I believe the term 
``political grandstanding'' was used. The fact is I've been heartbroken 
for my friends in the military. People I know so well are heartbroken 
over what we've done. We've betrayed our promise to the military. When 
I say ``we,'' I mean this body. We are part of it. We have betrayed our 
promise to the military that we would hear them out.
  Why would we rush in and pass the elimination of Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell right now? We told them we'd wait for the study, and people 
yesterday were saying, Well, we're going to wait for the study. We're 
just going to pass it now that we're going to eliminate it, regardless 
of what they say, and then we'll get the study at the end of the year 
and use that.
  Well, the headlines already hit the paper--last night and this 
morning. The military reads the news. Although, they can't complain 
about things that their Commander in Chief orders because that would be 
punishable by court-martial. They read the news. They know when they 
are about to be adversely affected, and they know when they've been 
made promises that haven't been kept by the very people sending them 
out to potentially lay down their lives, and they know the headlines in 
the papers all read that the House voted yesterday to repeal Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell.
  Is it so much to ask in the military that you keep your sexual 
desires private so that we all concentrate on our military missions? 
Wouldn't that be a good idea?

[[Page 9964]]

  You know, I've known people to be kicked out of the military for 
having affairs because it has adversely affected the morale and the 
well-being of the military. You can't put up with that. When it hurts 
its well-being and the morale of the military, it needs to be dealt 
with or you'll lose your military. We've had a policy since 1993 that 
President Clinton put in place, which said, Look. Just keep your sexual 
attractions private, and we welcome you to serve in the military; but 
our number one function in the military is to provide for the common 
defense, and anything that distracts from that is not appropriate.
  We heard the civil libertarians, who were so proud last night, 
clapping and cheering over the fact that we've betrayed our promise to 
the military, clapping and rejoicing that the huge, vast majority of 
the military was begging them not to do this, but they wouldn't wait 
for the official report.
  I still am heartbroken.
  For the charge of political grandstanding on our side of the aisle, I 
come back to the question again:
  Why was it so important to betray our promise to the military that we 
would wait and get their input on what was going to have such a 
profound effect on the way they protect us and on the way they live 
every day? Because it isn't like living in the civilian sector. I can 
assure you that.
  Could it have been that the political left was getting upset that the 
majority had not done enough for them and their view and that, if they 
didn't rush and do something big to show them they really cared about 
the far left, they would not be there for them in the fall for 
November's election? Could it be that the majority wanted to stay in 
the majority and that they didn't want to lose such an important part 
of their base, albeit the far left end? Could that have been the reason 
that we had to rush in here and pass this law yesterday and betray our 
promise to this Nation's military?
  I am at a loss, particularly as we recess to go home for Memorial Day 
to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this 
Nation.
  As John 15:13 said, ``Greater love has no one than this, that he lay 
down his life for his friends.'' We are to pay tribute to them at the 
same time we've betrayed the promise we made to them, dramatically 
altering their future.
  One other point. Then I have a friend from Minnesota here, and I want 
to yield to her.
  On the very day after we betrayed our promise to the military and 
basically said, We don't care what you think. We're going to change 
your way of life, and we're going to change the way everything works in 
the military, particularly while we're in two battlefields, we took up 
today an amendment to H.R. 5116.
  In that amendment, all it was asking was that our disabled veterans 
be given the same special consideration that minorities are given under 
this bill, those who are trying to get an education in a college or in 
a university. Most of us over here on this side did not think that was 
such an untenable position.
  Our disabled vets, those who have lost part of their lives and their 
ability to function physically, we can't even give them the same 
consideration that a minority gets who attends a college or a 
university?
  I figured it would be virtually unanimous. Yet the amendment failed. 
The majority brought down the amendment and said, You know what? 
Disabled veterans, on the day after we betrayed our promise to the 
military, we're not even going to give you the same status as a 
minority in America to help you further your education. We don't want 
you to have that special consideration.
  So, if you listen to the beautiful prose that is spoken here on the 
floor, you would believe that every single Member of this House wants 
to do absolutely everything they can for our veterans, but if you look 
at what was done, we've betrayed our military, the promise we made to 
them. Then, the next day, we said, We don't consider you, disabled 
veterans, to be as important as minorities in America.
  Why wouldn't they be? I am at a loss.
  I yield to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank him for 
his statements in reviewing some of ``the week that was.''
  That's really the theme of this hour that we have. We are talking 
about some of the events that have happened, a kind of ``week in 
review,'' if you will, of the events of this week. I'm sure the 
gentleman will want to comment on some of these things as we go on, but 
we need to go through items that are very crucial and critical, not 
only to the future of the Nation but to what has happened, in 
particular, this week. We saw this week that our country took a very 
historic line and broke it, and it was this:
  We broke the $13 trillion mark in debt for this country. This is real 
money, and all we have to do is know the comparison. Think of dollars 
in terms of time. A million seconds equals 11\1/2\ days. A billion 
seconds equals 32 years. A trillion seconds equals 32,000 years.
  Then think of that in terms of money and what debt will mean for the 
new generation that is coming up. All of us are a part of the debt-
paying generation. All of us have to pay for this out-of-control 
spending, but it is in particular those who are born today, who are 
between the ages of 5 and 30, who are now the debt-paying generation. 
Just with the stimulus bill alone, $787 billion, which we didn't have, 
we had to go and borrow it from foreign countries in order to spend 
that money. With debt service, that bill will cost us over $1 trillion. 
This is the cost of that bill to the debt-paying generation.
  Those who are between the ages of 5 and 30 will spend, presumably, 45 
years in the workforce. For every month the debt-paying generation is 
in the workforce, one will effectively have to go out and buy a full-
sized iPod and give it over to the Federal Government. The next month, 
one will have to go out and buy another full-sized iPod and give it 
over to the Federal Government. That is the real cost for the debt-
paying generation's lives, those who are between the ages of 5 and 30. 
For 45 years, they will have to effectively buy the price of a full-
sized iPod for their portion of paying off just that one debt 
obligation that has been accrued by this body.
  This week, we broke the $13 trillion mark. No one's hands are clean 
on this deal. Republicans spent too much money. This red line on the 
chart shows the excess debt that was accrued under Republican 
leadership. This blue line shows the excess debt that was accrued under 
Democrat leadership. It's by a 2:1 ratio, so it's both parties that 
have been part of the problem. Yet, under the recent leadership of the 
Democrat Party, we have seen literally debt fall off a cliff of fiscal 
sanity.
  I have another figure that came out this week as well that I'd like 
to share, and it's on who is getting paid and on what has happened to 
pay scales in the United States. No one thought it could get this out 
of whack, but this is how stunning the statistic is.
  If we look at those who are government workers, Federal employees, 
and if you take comparable professions in the private sector versus 
those of government employees, government employees, on average, make 
more than private employees in 83 percent of all professions. So, 
whether it's white collar or blue collar or management or professional 
or highly skilled or low skilled, it doesn't matter. In 83 percent of 
all professions, it's the government worker who is making more than the 
person in the private sector.
  Well, is that so bad?
  Well, consider it's the private sector that creates the revenue to 
pay for the government workers. Not only do the government workers make 
more; they make substantially more than their counterparts in the 
private sector--on average, 20 percent more in wages--but that isn't 
the whole package. When you combine the wages with the benefits 
package, which would be health care and retirement benefits, the 
government employees are making double what their counterparts are 
making in the private sector.
  So, if you take someone, let's say, who is a janitor who is working 
for the government, the person is making, on

[[Page 9965]]

average, double what a janitor is making in the private sector. If a 
person is a cook or if a person is a copy editor, on average, they are 
making double what people are making in the private sector. If you're 
working in the private sector at the exact same job, you're making 
about $60,000 a year versus $120,000 a year if you're a government 
employee.
  So, today, this body was offered the opportunity to freeze the 
increase in wages for government employees. This body decided to take a 
pass. They didn't even want to freeze the increase, the next increase, 
in wages for the only sector in this economy that is making double what 
people in the private sector are making.
  We also offered an opportunity for people in this body to freeze the 
wages of Members of Congress in 2011 and thereafter. Again, this body 
took a pass. Recently, on a Web site called YouCut, 500,000 American 
people voted and said this is the number one issue they would like 
Congress to address--freezing the salary of government employees.
  Did this body listen? Well, not the majority party.
  Those who are in the Republican Party voted almost uniformly to 
freeze the wages. In fact, I think it was uniform. One hundred percent 
of Republicans voted to freeze the wages of government employees and to 
freeze the salaries of Members of Congress. That didn't happen on the 
Democrat side of the aisle. Perhaps that could be because, as we have 
seen, it is the Democrats, unfortunately, who have been wild with 
taxpayer money, spending it at a rate of over double the excess rate 
that Republicans have spent. That's just one of the issues that has 
happened this week.

                              {time}  1730

  We also were watching the tragedy of the administration's late-to-
the-dance response to the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 
the Gulf of Mexico with BP. Where was the competence from the Federal 
Government and from the Obama administration when we needed them most, 
when all of this oil has been gushing into the Gulf and destroying the 
shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, destroying the way of life and fishing 
opportunities and rich tourism opportunities for those who live on the 
Gulf Coast? Where was the competence from our government when we needed 
it most?
  We haven't seen competence in the government's hands-off policy with 
this disaster. We needed to ask the question on day one, what did the 
Obama administration do about the Coast Guard? What did they ask the 
Coast Guard to do to intervene? On day one, they weren't there. What 
did the administration do on day one with the booms that could have 
been put out in the ocean in order to quarantine off, if you will, this 
oil as it surged to the surface? Nowhere to be found.
  The administration, they were hands off. They didn't do anything. 
Where were the boats that could have been commandeered by the 
government to be sent into this region to deal with that oil plume as 
it was coming up in the water and destroying marine life? Nowhere to be 
found. Why? The administration was hands off on this policy. They were 
missing in action.
  Where was the emergency plan to deal with an oil rig explosion? There 
wasn't one. We found out to our horror there was no plan A, much less 
any plan B to deal with an emergency of this magnitude. And still the 
oil flows.
  Also we saw this week the travesty of 1,000 soldiers now dead in 
Afghanistan. This is a horrible, chilling thought to see this happen, 
and we mourn their loss and we weep for their families and thank them 
for their service to our country.
  Then, finally, today more news came out from the White House. We saw 
this week that back in February Representative Joe Sestak of this body 
said he was offered a job by someone in the administration in order not 
to run against Senator Specter in the primary in Pennsylvania.
  Today, after three months, the White House said it was former 
President Bill Clinton who as an intermediary offered Mr. Sestak a job 
to stop running for political office in the primary in Pennsylvania 
against Senator Specter. Why? Because apparently President Obama backed 
Senator Specter for that political office. The only problem is that 
this activity is illegal to do under the United States Code, whether a 
job was offered either directly or indirectly by the administration.
  When President Obama was asked yesterday in his press conference, the 
President refused to answer the reporter when he asked the question, 
Major Garrett. Instead, the President said the White House would issue 
a formal response.
  Well, the American people need answers to this very serious question 
that was asked by Major Garrett: Who authorized former President 
Clinton to make this offer to Mr. Sestak? We don't know. The White 
House won't tell us. Who on the President's staff was involved in any 
of these discussions? We don't know. The White House won't tell us. 
What was offered to Mr. Sestak? We don't know. The White House won't 
tell us. Who was present when the offer was made? We don't know. The 
White House won't tell us. And what was the reply? We don't know. The 
White House won't tell us.
  Did President Obama discuss this job for leaving the political race 
when he met with President Clinton this week at the White House? We 
don't know. The White House won't tell us.
  This is a very serious charge, and for three months the media has 
failed to press President Obama for an answer, much less press him for 
details. Now that Mr. Sestak has won the primary over Mr. Specter, this 
issue looms large, and it demands an answer from the White House.
  Double standards are wrong when it comes to equal application of the 
law. The law should not apply just one way for Republicans and another 
way for Democrats. We need to get to the bottom of this very serious 
issue, no matter which political party is in the White House.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming my time, the White House has stonewalled, as 
the gentlelady has pointed out. But it has been also intriguing to me 
that you have a former admiral in the United States Navy who brought 
this up, and he has refused to give full details and make sure that the 
full truth about all of this was known himself.
  I am deeply intrigued by that, because I understand that our 
colleague was a graduate in 1974 of the Naval Academy of the United 
States, and the academies have an honor code. And when I was in school 
at Texas A&M, we had an honor code as well. Aggies do not lie, cheat, 
or steal, or tolerate those who do.
  The Naval Academy's honor code that is supposed to be kept by Naval 
Academy students and graduates says, ``They stand for that which is 
right, they tell the truth, and ensure that the full truth is known.'' 
That is part of the honor code for midshipmen for the Naval Academy.
  So I am looking forward to both the White House and our colleague 
stepping up and giving the full truth, so we can get this behind us and 
move on, for heaven's sake. It shouldn't have gone on this long without 
having a complete answer. There is no purpose to that.
  We also heard this week from our colleagues how proud they were that 
they successfully passed within the last couple or three hours what is 
called the ``doc fix,'' because doctors were going to be cut 20 percent 
in their reimbursement under Medicare.
  I have seen documentation that makes clear that for some doctors, 
some treatment, when you cut them any more than they are already, they 
lose substantial amounts of money. So why would they even undergo to 
help someone with a physical problem on Medicare, particularly Medicaid 
that pays even less, when they are receiving less compensation than it 
costs them just to conduct the activity with the patient?
  What has not been talked about here on the floor by those who are so 
proud that they passed the ``doc fix'' and did not cut the doctors 20 
percent more this year was that, originally, there was supposed to be a 
fix in the reimbursement to physicians that would

[[Page 9966]]

last at least 3\1/2\ years, and then at the end it would begin being 
cut 20 percent again.
  Well, what was inserted and actually came to the floor was a fix for 
not 3\1/2\ years, but 19 months, and at the end of the 19 months, 
instead of going back to a 20 percent cut again, it moved and advanced 
to a 33 percent cut.
  Even though we had colleagues across the aisle so proud that they 
helped our doctors continue to be able to see patients, it turns out 
that not just the AMA--I don't really trust their endorsements after 
seeing what they did on the health care fiasco that would cut care to 
seniors by $500 billion and would dramatically change their professions 
forever--but looking further, every physician organization that weighed 
in said this is a disaster. Don't pass this.
  Yet it was passed anyway, and the majority stands up after it passes 
it and basically says, ``You're welcome.'' You're welcome? They haven't 
really said thank you, because they were begging them not to pass it.
  That is kind of what we have seen with the military as well. When we 
get into this area of special rights, as we have heard people clamor 
around the country for special rights in the military and special 
constitutional rights for those who are trying to kill and destroy us, 
if you go back, and I know everybody hasn't been fortunate enough to 
have a legal education. I am very blessed with a legal education at 
Baylor University. Serving in the Army for 4 years, you learn probably 
more than you ever wanted to.
  But, anyway, terrorists, people who are part of a group who have said 
they are at war with this Nation, they are not entitled to the same 
rights under the Constitution that we are. Just like people in the 
military are not entitled to the same rights as people in the civilian 
sector, people at war with this country, going back to the Quirin case 
in 1942, they were called enemy combatants. If they abided by the 
Geneva Convention, if they wore a uniform, if they abided by the rules 
of law, then they were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war under 
the Geneva Convention.
  We treat the enemy combatants who are not entitled to anything under 
the Geneva Convention better than the Geneva Convention affords them. 
And throughout the history of mankind, for people who have studied war, 
and if you are an officer in the military you have been required to 
study military history, you know that if a nation was a civilized 
nation and they captured people who were at war with them, part of a 
group or a country who said they were at war, then you held them until 
their friends or country said, we are no longer at war.
  At that point, and it may be 10 or 20 years down the line, but at 
that point, when the friends finally admitted we are no longer at war, 
then you would release those enemy combatants and let them return home 
on the promise not to be at war anymore.
  And if they were suspected or there was probable cause to believe 
they had committed a war crime, then you didn't even release them to go 
back home, even if they served 20 years in a POW camp. You tried them 
before a military commission for war crimes. And, again, the 
Constitution of the United States anticipated that in those situations, 
when they were tried, it would be before a military commission, and the 
Constitution specifically gives the Congress the power to set up 
military commissions to do that.
  But because people don't realize our way of life is at risk, and the 
Constitution, drafted by our Founders, who realized you have to have a 
different set of rights for those at war against you, they have pushed 
and said no, no, no; let's give these extra rights and treat these 
enemy combatants as extra special. That is why in the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, they were referred to as enemy combatants, going back to the 
Quirin case of 1942.
  Well, once our friends across the aisle took the majority, they could 
not live with this horrible language of calling these people that want 
to kill us, destroy our way of life, destroy our families, our 
children, everything we hold dear, they didn't like them being called 
enemy combatants. It sounded offensive. So an amendment to the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 was passed calling it the Military Commissions 
Act of 2009 in which we struck the language ``enemy combatant.''
  It is no longer appropriate under the law of this Congress to call 
someone an enemy combatant who wants to kill us and destroy our way of 
life. Now we call them, and the term is quoted, ``unprivileged alien 
enemy belligerent,'' hoping that will be less offensive to those who 
want to kill us, destroy us, wipe out our families and take all we 
have.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman will yield, just recently the 
President made an announcement on the nuclear strategy document that he 
will also change the language and no longer allow the use of the term 
``extreme radicalism'' in the document as well. Now we are applying 
terms of political correctness to our military documents and to our 
documents for our national security.
  We can go ahead and change all the terms we want, but that doesn't 
make any difference to the people who mean to destroy our country and 
to kill our people. They still have the same intent. And it seems that 
the first rule of war is to know your enemy and appreciate what their 
purpose is.
  I think the thing that shocked me the most in this Chamber was when 
we took a vote, the last vote of the week before we left town, and it 
was unbelievable, because it expanded the civil rights of terrorists.
  If you recall, those who interrogate like, let's say the underwear 
bomber on Christmas Day, when he was taken off the plane and 
interrogators sat down with that underwear bomber to find out 
everything he knew, and, of course, we found out it was less than an 
hour he was subjected to interrogation.
  Well, the bill that was passed in this Chamber would put a 15-year 
jail sentence on our interrogators, our good guy interrogators, if they 
were found to treat an alleged terrorist either inhumanely, cruelly or 
in a demeaning fashion.

                              {time}  1745

  Now, the one thing we know is that our Attorney General is now giving 
taxpayer subsidized attorneys to these terrorists after they try to 
kill us, which they don't necessarily have the right to. They're given 
Miranda warnings. The privileges and immunities under the Constitution 
reserved to a U.S. citizen are given to terrorists, they're given a 
taxpayer subsidized lawyer, and so how often do we think it will be 
that these taxpayer subsidized lawyers, under this new bill, will raise 
the issue that the interrogator was maybe demeaning his client? Try 100 
percent of the time. And so, won't that have a chilling effect on our 
interrogators when they're trying to pull information out of these 
terrorists? Maybe information like, do you have a computer? How are you 
financed? Are there any other guys like you out there? Are there any 
more coming behind? Maybe information like that that would help us to 
keep our people safe.
  This is the unbelievable action of the current Democrat majority that 
is not keeping our people safe, and, in fact, as the gentleman from 
Texas said, is working to enhance the civil rights, not of freedom-
loving, God-fearing, patriotic Americans but of terrorists who seek 
only the destruction of the United States and to destroy the lives of 
the American people.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I'm concerned, my friend keeps using the term 
``terrorist,'' and I'm worried that she may not realize that that might 
offend somebody that wants to kill her.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank God, if I could just reclaim my time, that we 
are standing in the well of the United States House of Representatives, 
one bastion left for free speech, at least I hope so for the time 
being.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, as long as you don't say that somebody lied, then 
we're okay.
  But I know that there are people who are concerned that if we are 
just nice enough to those folks who want to kill

[[Page 9967]]

us and destroy our way of life, that they'll come around and see how 
wonderful and nice they are. Unfortunately, they don't realize, to 
those who want to destroy our way of life and kill us, it appears to be 
weakness; and a weakness to them means we are worthy to be destroyed 
because we have no business being on the planet. But I know there are 
still those that say let's help those, do everything we can for them. 
And I come back to this article. There's a former CIA operative, Wayne 
Simmons, terrorist analyst, who was amazed at the medical treatment 
that was provided to those who want to kill and destroy us.
  Having been to Guantanamo a couple of times myself, seeing the 
extraordinary court set-up that was ready to start trying terrorists 
back over a year ago when the President, the Commander-in-Chief, put 
the stop on it, they were about to go to trial and the first five to go 
to trial had already said they were going to plead guilty. But once 
they were told they were coming to New York and were going to get a 
civilian trial, well, obviously they made clear, well, we're going to 
be proud of what we did but we're not going to plead guilty. We're 
looking forward to that wonderful format in New York.
  Again, for those who are worried that, you know, if we would just 
treat these folks nicely, they'll love us instead of wanting to destroy 
our way of life, well, I would give them humbly the example of Abdullah 
Massoud. Abdullah Massoud, a/k/a Said Mohammed Ali Shah, was released 
from Guantanamo. But because, during his attempts to destroy American 
lives, he had lost his leg below his knee, well, we fitted him with a 
prosthesis that cost between 50 and $75,000. So those who were worried 
about if we just are nicer to these folks, well, we were nice to Mr. 
Massoud, gave him a prosthesis to help him, even though he lost his leg 
in trying to kill us. Well, we tried to help him and did and gave him 
that wonderful prosthesis, American ingenuity at its best, creating a 
prosthesis like that that would help him walk, help him be a 
participant in society.
  So knowing that he would surely have to love us after we had helped 
restore his leg that he lost trying to be violent against us, he was 
released. And he, according to Pakistani officials, directed a homicide 
attack that killed 31 people in Pakistan, and then 2 months later, when 
he was about to be captured by Pakistani forces, he blew himself up, 
including the $75,000 prosthesis. Apparently, it didn't mean a whole 
lot, how nice we were to him in Guantanamo.
  On my first trip to Guantanamo, it was interesting. At one point 
there were a couple of us that were in one of the detention areas. We 
had been warned, now, when we go through this door, do not talk because 
you won't be able to hear their interaction between each other if they 
know a voice that they're not familiar with is somewhere around here.
  And so we listened. There was laughing. I didn't understand what they 
were saying, kidding around, a lot of banter back and forth between the 
different units where they were being held. And as we stood at the end 
of the hallway, someone with us said something that was heard by those 
on that hallway, and immediately, the banter, the cheerfulness turned 
into, ``Help, I'm being tortured. Help.'' And we were treated to cries 
for help. They didn't realize that we had been hearing them kidding 
around, laughing and joking with each other until they heard that a new 
voice was on the floor. And we were told, that's because they know that 
there are different groups that come, Amnesty International, different 
ones that come to check on them, and so that's why as soon as they hear 
a voice that they don't hear every day, they want to make sure that 
they get lots of sympathy. It's what they're trained to do. It was just 
amazing to observe that firsthand. It was really interesting and 
amazing.
  But also, we know that no one who is a guard is allowed to assault or 
even speak in a negative way toward anyone being held at Guantanamo. 
The only assaults now for some years that have gone on at Guantanamo 
occur when the inmates there figure out new and exciting ways to throw 
urine or feces on our guards. There's been only one guard that reacted 
hostily by yelling an insult, a verbal insult at the one who threw 
feces on him. And he was punished for that, what was deemed to be, by 
our military, overreaction. Though he did not strike, he spoke angrily 
and insultingly and, therefore, he was punished.
  You might wonder, Mr. Speaker, what happens to those that keep 
throwing urine and feces? Well, in a normal prison, and I've been 
through many of those, if you will not quit assaulting the guards, then 
ultimately you're put in an isolation cell where you can't possibly do 
it anymore. But because of all the complaints about what a horrible 
place Guantanamo is, though the people there are treated better than 
most any maximum security prison I've ever seen or heard about, we 
don't put them in isolation because Amnesty International, some of 
these groups, would just go nuts. And so they say it's easier just to 
punish them by taking away a couple of their hours that they're allowed 
to watch movies each day. And if it's bad enough, they may take some of 
their time away of the hours that they're allowed to be outdoors. 
That's their punishment--losing some movie time. In view of some of the 
movies out now, they're not missing that much. But that's how they're 
punished for throwing urine or feces on our guards.
  I realize that some in this body, some around the country, want to 
help the terrorists and they believe if we'll just be nice to them, 
everything will work out fine. That's not the case. It is absolutely 
not the case.
  It is religious zealotry. And I thank God that it is only a very 
small percentage of Islamic believers who believe in this type of 
violent jihad. The vast majority of Islamic believers don't believe 
jihad means the violent physical event that these jihadist extremists 
that we've come to know and see kill people do. So, thank goodness for 
that.
  But for those jihadist extremists who believe, as Ahmadinejad said, 
that he can usher in the coming of the Mahdi, the Grand Mahdi that will 
rule over the caliphate, that he can usher that in by using nuclear 
weapons to blow us up, Israel up, this is serious. He believes it to 
his core, even though some of the American interviewers were either 
scared to ask, Why do you want to blow us up and destroy us? And do you 
really believe that you'll bring about the return of the Mahdi to rule 
the world if you use nuclear weapons? Nobody had the nerve to ask 
those.
  That's what he has said repeatedly. And as the lesson should have 
been learned from Hitler, when you have a nut that's claiming he's 
going to kill people and destroy countries and destroy societies and 
commit genocide, and he achieves the weaponry to do that, you'd better 
take him seriously. But we haven't done that.
  It's been a very interesting week. Earlier I was mentioning the bill, 
H.R. 5116, the COMPETES Act, it's called. This would have amended 
section 702, persons with disabilities, to include veterans with 
disabilities in achieving the same type of special consideration. 
That's all it says, special consideration that other groups designated 
as minorities under this do. How unfortunate, the same week we betray 
our promise to our military.
  Well, as we anticipate heading home this weekend, which I do each 
weekend, and we think about Memorial Day and those who have laid down 
their lives for us, having attended the funeral of Sergeant Kenneth B. 
May, Jr., 26 years old, of Kilgore, Texas, in the last 10 days, our 
hearts and our tributes go out to those who served this Nation. May 
they forgive us for what we've done to them this week.

                          ____________________