to the nation and gain the wisdom of their personal stories of the nation's history. this year, like the last, we observed veterans day while engaged in conflicts abroad that required the dedication of our uniformed troops. our thoughts remain with those in uniform engaged in conflicts aproud. we must be united in making sure every soldier, sailor, airman and marine is welcomed back with all the compassion we can. we must support them because our freedom and liberty depend on it. this veterans day and all year through show your gratitude to those who responded to the call of duty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of house resolution 1622, a bill honoring the historic contributions of veterans throughout all conflicts involving the united

states. all of our veterans have provided a great service to our country through their personal sacrifice. as a nation we owe them our gratitude for their service. section 6103 of title 5 united states code provides that veterans day, november 1 1, is a legal public -- 11, is a legal public holiday. it reaffirms the nation's obligations to support our veterans and their families. h.r. 1622 would resolve that the house of representatives recognize the honor, courage, sacrifice and -- of all veterans and their historic contributions to the united states. it encourages the people of the united states to demonstrate their support for veterans day each year by treating that day as a special day of reflection. it encourages schools and teachers to educate students on the historic contributions have vet advance have made to the country and its history, both while serving as members of the united states armed forces and after completing their service and request that the president issue a proclamation each year

in connection with the observance of veterans day. calling on the people of the united states to recognize the historic contribution of all veterans by deserving -- observer that date with appropriate ceremonies and activities. however, i am saddened that the house of representatives was unable to pass this worthy resolution before veterans day, november 11. again, i encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 1622 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: i have no further requests for time and am prepared to yield back if he is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back -- mr. filner: i haven't yielded back, i said i'm prepared to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to again say that in our district and in many districts around the country it's not just veterans day, it's veterans week. we spend an entire week celebrating the service and sacrifice made by our veterans.

during this past -- two weeks ago we had veterans day, during the entire week, because most of us as congressmen like to attend as many of these as we can, to show the support in one small community of tennessee, there were almost 6,000 people in the event for veterans. our key note speaker was general livingston, a medal of honor winner, a marine. i attended children the following sunday with a colonel who lost his arm in vietnam, who is a baptist pastor there. and on and on we see stories of these heroes who have served our nation. so i would encourage all of us to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to unanimously support house resolution 1622 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1622.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5953 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5953, a bill to correct the secretary of veterans affairs to display in each facility of the department of veterans affairs a women veterans bill of rights. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5953 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: and i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill before us is an important piece of legislation establishing a bill of rights on the one hand for women veterans and on the other hand for injured and amp tee veterans -- ampity veterans. this has been a subject of over a year of discussion. to try to refine the legislation to one that everyone can support. let me speak on the first half and that is women veterans. there are almost two million women veterans now, mr. speaker, and they are one of the fastest growing subgroups of veterans in our nation. it is estimated that the number of female veterans who use the v.a. health care system will double, assuming that the current enrollment rates remain constant. the v.a. health care system as

we know it was built to accommodate the war-related illnesses and injuries of male veterans. it's a male institution as was created. in fact, many of the v.a. providers, many of the v.a. customers are veterans, have little or no exposure to women veterans. as women are serving in combat conditions alongside their male counterparts, it's important that the department embrace and recognize the needs of all veterans, both men and women alike. through hearings and round table discussions that we have held during this year, women veterans have come forward to share their personal stories from their accounts, it is clear that while the v.a. has made some strides in caring for women veterans, significant gaps remain. the veterans testifying before the committee have shared stories of feeling unwelcome, alienated, disrespected in some of our v.a. medical centers, so that they are now reluctant to pursue the benefits and services that they have earned, with

service to their country. we have heard about women veterans walking into the lobby of madecal center and having cat calls come from all corners that have lobby. we have heard that a woman who had her arm amputated from a battle there fallujah when she appeared before a doctorate her v.a., the doctor thought she had cancer. he couldn't imagine her having lost an arm due to combat conditions. we have had single women who have had to bring their children because they could not get child care and doctors refusing to see them. we have got to change this institution to meet the needs, the real needs of the women veterans of our nation. the v.a. must recognize and be equipped to treat the unique medical concerns that women veterans have. they must respect privacy concerns and eliminate cultural incensitytive -- insensitivity.

in most of the v.a. medical centers, they're not even changing in privacy curtains so that women may have that deserved privacy. we made a lot of progress this congress in addressing the needs of women veterans with the enactment of s. 1963, the caregivers and veterans omnibus health services act of 2010. this bill, h.r. 5953, would bring the v.a. another step closer to providing equal care for women and their -- to their male counterparts. my bill would require the v.a. to display in all of its facilities the 24 fundamental principles governing the treatment of women veterans as well as require v.a. to widely distribute the bill of rights to women veterans. among the key principles of this bill of rights is the right to coordinated, comprehensive primary women's health care at every v.a. medical center. the right to receive care from clinicians who have special training and experience in women health issues. and gender equity in accessing all clinical services.

my hope is that this legislation will lead to bold changes that will effectively tackle the needs of our brave and honored women veterans. this bill as amended mandates also another bill of rights. let me just say one last thing, though, on the women's bill of rights. there was some concern raised in recent days about the relationship to this bill and the rights conferred on women veterans and therefore the bringing of abortion services into the v.a. medical facilities. this bill did not do that. it made no reference to all the laws on the books that prevent federal facilities from doing that but in a discussion with the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, who previously chaired this v.a. committee, who is a leader of the so-called pro-life forces in this congress, he said, we can fix that for you.

all you have to do is add a line that he gave us and we have put in this bill. so nobody need be concerned that this bill somehow overrides all previous laws and mandates abortion services in the v.a. clinics. it says and it is included in this bill by manager's amendment, that nothing in this act shall be construed to establish a right to any service excluded under 38 code of federal regulations 17.38 as an effect on the date of enactment of this act. that is, that's the regulations that ban abortions in federal facilities. so just to make sure that people feel that they can vote for this without violating some other principles, this sentence is in there and the gentleman from new jersey feels that that adequately eliminates that

problem that had been brought up in recent days. let me, if i may, mr. chairman, -- mr. speaker, go on to the injured and amputee bill of rights. there's not many of white house have not heard of the horrific battleground stories of the men and women who have been in operation enduring freedom. these tales reveal a gruse some war in which -- gruse am war -- gruesome war. none is more deafening than the amputations undergone by service men members as a direct result of a widespread use of the roadside bombs otherwise known as i.e.d.'s, improvised explosive devices. this class of injury which has spiked drastically since the onset of operation new dawn requires special contribution within the department of veterans affairs. these individuals must embark upon a long road to recovery that includes extensive rehabilitation and specialized treatment.

this bill instructs the v.a. to inform veterans and educate employees at each v.a. clinic that there is an injured and amputee veterans bill of rights. it requires the v.a. to monitor and resolve complaints of amputee veterans alleging mistreatment. i believe this bill will do much to protect the rights of our amputee veterans and bolster the consistency of care throughout the v.a. health care system. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. we have been working on these bills for a long, long time. and i'm pleased that we have been allowed to bring these bills even in this lame duck session, to allow the v.a. to move into the 21st century in terms of treatment of our women veterans and in treatment of our veterans who have undergone ampletations. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i

may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee voiced. roadway row i thank the speaker -- mr. roe: i thank the speaker. this is amended to display in each v.a. facility a women's veterans bill of rights, included as part of the manager's amendment is language, a bill to direct v.a. to create educate and inform staff and veterans about injured and amp tee veterans bill of rights. until the bill is laudable, the sacrifices of women injured and amputee veterans should be recognized and respected and unquestionably they have unique needs that require specialized care and services. but h.r. 5953 is a flawed bill that has been brought to the floor under flawed process. in congress, certain procedures are put in place to ensure that policy is done correctly. under regular order, once a bill has been introduced, it's referred to a committee of jurisdiction. once in committee, it may be referred to a particular subcommittee or held in full committee where hearings and markups and that for the public

would be votes are held and members and interested stakeholders are given the opportunity to examine legislation for sound policy and unintended consequences. if members desire they may offer amendments to improve a bill before it's voted out of committee and brought to the house floor for further debate before being voted on by the full house. this is a time-tested democratic process and i've seen numerous bills made better when we follow regular order. instead this bill is being brought to the floor in a closed process, it bypasses regular order in spite of numerous and serious objections, including those of our ranking member, congressman buyer. who were supposed to have debated and voted on it yesterday but it was pulled from the consideration at the very last minute after grave concerns were raised by the pro-life caucus, national right to life committee, the concerned women of america and the united states conference of catholic bishops, among others, over language that could have created a legal basis to require government-funded

abortions at v.a. medical centers. i am pleased that a new section was added to the bill, we'll consider today, and it is intended to address these particular concerns and i have the copy of the part of the -- right. however, h.r. 5953 is amended still continues to raise significant policy questions considering whether rights are consistent with current veterans health care eligibility under title 38 of the united states code, among these rights in question are the right to equal consideration this hiring and employment. this right seems to create an unfounded expectation regarding employment in both public and private sectors. but leaves remaining of equal crucial unknown. equal to whom or what? do existing employment laws and regulations meet this new undefined standard or will additional regulations be required?9mbe required. the right to have female veterans assist them in their

claims process. it is unclear whether it refers to veterans' service organizations and others who may assist in filing a claim or all of the above groups, but v.a. has no control over the geppeder of third parties that represent claimants before the v.a. the right for female compensation to be made available to women veterans is problematic. there are several locations where a female examiner may not be present and may place the claimant at a disadvantage. correcting issues like these is why we have a hearing process. the committee on veterans affairs has never held a hearing on h.r. 5953. consequently members have not been able to amend the legislation to recktive eye -- rectify. the v.a. has not been provided the opportunity to present their

official views and none of the veteran service organizations have been provided the opportunity to comment on the bill which could directly impact so many of their daily lives. additionally, we are going to vote on the bill without knowing what it will cost because the congressional budget office was not given the opportunity to prepare a cost estimate. yesterday, a last-minute fix was needed to ensure this bill would not provide a basis for federally-funded abortions. what else is in the bill? we don't know, because we weren't able to properly vet it before it was brought to the floor. how would this bill of rights be enforced? what would happen if the personnel didn't comply? what would happen if the v.a. has a comprehensive list of patients' rights in each facility. existing bill of rights applies to each and every veteran and includes the right to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. the v.a. benefits to which they

may be entitled and other rights including women veterans and a.m. pew tees, we are committed to meaningful oversight for the benefits and services we provide for our veterans. i would have appreciated the opportunity to have a voice in the process of bringing h.r. 5953 to the floor today. that is why the voters of tennessee sent me to congress and i infend to ask for hearings on these questions. and i just want to say the chairman has -- we have worked on many things together, many good issues. i'm a veteran and i'm an ob-gyn physician who has treated veteran patients over 30 years in my community which has a veterans' hospital. i'm aware of these issues. but i certainly agree with a bill of rights. the problem is we had no way and

no process in which to look through this. so i understand what the chairman -- it's laudable what he wants to do and i agree with many of the issues and i have no problem with that. i'm discussing the process of how we got here to the floor. and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to assure the gentleman as he knows, we have had several round tables. we call them round tables rather than hearings, because we sit around the table and have discussion rather than just have people questioning. and we have had people from all over the country testify on this bill. we have sent the bill to every single set set van service organization, to -- veteran service organization, to everyone who has complained about treatment and had enormous

input from around the country probably more than any other bill we have done and this bill has undergone a whole lot of changes and has responded to a lot of the input that we had. including from members of the opposite party, who have been at some of the round table discussions. it is time to move into the 21st century on this. the v.a. has been a male institution. we cannot keep waiting for change. it has to come. the women are performing an incredible role in the conflicts that we have ongoing. we should not say thank you by an unwelcomed response to their coming to a v.a. facility. it's time that we had a bill of rights for women veterans. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from

tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the speaker. again, this bill, 5953 did not come in front of the full veterans affairs committee, which other bills i have seen -- again i'm new as your i'm here as you are. these bills come up and we have a markup and that's to vote on the bill and then the chairman will ask, are there any amendments at the table? we'll discuss those amendments and vote them up or down. we didn't have a chance to vet that with this process and i think it's a laudable thing to do. i certainly see many things in here and i have got the bill of rights right here that the v.a. has posted on the wall. and i would have liked the opportunity to go over the bill of rights. this particular bill was introduced july 29, 2010, but it never did make -- i was at all the veterans' markups and i certainly didn't miss this one and didn't come through the regular order and that's my complaint, not the content so

much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5953 as amended and i have no further requests for time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. so the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5953 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: i move to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1644. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report title of the resolution. the clerk: resolution expressing

support for designation of a national veterans history projects week. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. rowe each will -- roe, each will control 20 minutes. mr. filner: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous remarks on house resolution 1644. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: this bill, the national veterans history project week comes to us from our colleague, mr. kind, to honor the nation's veterans and introduce the resolution. i yield to the the gentleman from wisconsin for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. quind kind i thank my -- mr. kind: i thank my good friend

for yielding me time. and as the author of the veterans history project i rise in strong support of this resolution before us this evening. the veterans' history project isn't new and has been in existence for 10 years and celebrated its 10-year anniversary this year. it is the last task to ask us to preserve what it was like to serve our nation during times of connict and during times of peace. since the creation of the veterans' history project we have had 80,000 stories being collected and probably in the best places in the world at our own library of congress here in washington, d.c. the veterans history project occurred at father's day weekend back home in my home city of lacrosse, wisconsin. i was sitening around the table

with my father and his brother, my uncle, don kind, a bomber and they started sharing with me their experiences of serving our nation and i told them the way since my two little boys wered tolers and wouldn't understand what they were saying, as i ran into the house and grabbed the video camera and asked them to continue talking about their experience serving our nation. and i got to thinking given the advent of modern technology how accessible it is, we should be doing this nationwide. that was the history. today it is the largest oral history collection in the united states and i believe it's the world's largest oral history collection. i commend the leadership of the library of congress under colonel bob patrick who heads up the project and his 25-person staff and our loan librarian of congress for his leadership on

this as well. what i have discovered throughout the years in conducting many of the interviews myself and reading many of the transcripts of these veterans' history project is a common theme that runs through most of the stories. first, most of the veterans don't feel they did anything special and doing their duty, answering the call to service. and secondly, one of the great motivateors, especially in times of conflict, was not letting their colleagues down and yet these are ordinary americans from all walks of life, from every corner of america who went on to do extraordinary things and each of them had a role to play. in times of conflict and times of peace. sometimes it's difficult for them to come forward and share their stories because they don't feel they have much to contribute but each of them do in their own way. i thank the tremendous support and contribution of so many organizations and entities around the country who have been

getting the word out of this veterans' history project exists, v.f.w., aarp has been a major sponsor, countless social community organizations and all of our towns and communities and that's been one of the debate challenges because the clock is ticking and time is of the essence. we are losing close to 1,700 veterans a day who are passing away and if we don't talk to them and record their stories, they take with them an important part of american history, their service to our nation and that's why the library of congress has been working to try to get the word out about the existence of this project and they have done a commendable job in doing it. this resolution is necessary to have the congress consider designating a week for the veterans' history project, which will help us get information out to even more people. and it's as simple as a person just approaching their own

family member, friend, neighbor, loved one in their life and asking them to share their story and setting up the video camera across the kitchen table and letting them go, it could be 10 minutes, two hours, depending on how much the veteran wants to share and that's what makes these stories so remarkable. who have taken the lead and they have gone out and contacted these veterans. they are at risk of dropping out and yet, this is a project that has created the history to come to life in their own lives. they have to do research and background on the veterans and the time period in which they are going to conduct the interview and gives them a chance to connect with the veterans. great bridge between the older and younger generation. i asked one of the students who participated in the program and what he thought of it. he said, i d't like to do a lot of reading and history bores

me to death but i felt i was preserving american history. it's about preserving stories so stranger walks up to me and said, i wish i talked to my father, mother, grandfather, i would be the richest person in the world. there is a lot of regret but doesn't have to be that way with the help and cooperation of so many people. i'm pleased with the strong bipartisan that this and previous congresses have shown but there is much more work that needs to be done especially now with so many of our veterans returning home from conflicts whether it's iraq, afghanistan or wherever our troops are serving throughout the globe. i would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, to support the veterans' history overall and help get the word out and those looking for more information about what this is and how they can participate,

they can go to the library congress' web site loc.gov or contact any one of our congressional or senate offices or get in touch with a veterans' organization who would have this information. 10 years and one final note, i commend the national court reporters's association and my wife who is a court reporter approached them to see if they could volunteer their time in transcribing a lot of these video interviews and many have stepped up throughout the nation and donated countless hours tore transcribe these countless hours. the library is producing books and documentaries and they have a place to go to receive historical research on books and articles they are writing and it

has turned into a treasure of information and an important part of american history, what it was like for our veterans to serve our nation during times of peace and also at times of war. i encourage my colleagues to support the resolution. i thank chairman filner for his support of the resolution and the gentleman from tennessee and encourage its passage. i yield back. mr. filner: i thank you for your leadership, mr. kind. you've done an incredible job. i happen to be an historian myself. i've done a lot of work in oral history. you described it so eloquently. i wish my father who was in world war ii, we could have taped before he died. just a couple weeks ago whiffs back home, i met with a group of black soldiers who in 1946 two years before the executive order that immigrated our armed forces, the black soldiers had been approached by general

eisenhower to say, hey, the battle of the bulge, it's taken so many infrantrymen, who will volunteer to join the white infantry? and about 5,000 volunteered to. hear their story, and i referred to them, i said, get right over to our project, because we need to hear that. because most of us don't know about that little history itself. and that itself is very inspiring to see what they were able to do. thank you for your leadership. i think as you said, it has not only to maintain our own history but bridge the gap between generations. so i thank the gentleman. once again, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the speaker. rise in support of house resolution 1644, expressing the support of the house of representatives for the designation of a national veterans history week. on october 27, 2000, public law

106380 was signed by president william jefferson clinton to established veterans history project. the legislation before us supports the designation of a national veterans history project week, recognizes national veterans awareness week and called on the people of the united states to interview at least one veteran and their families or communities according to guidelines provided by the veterans history project. and encouraging local, state and national organizations along with federal, state, city and county governmental institutions to participate in support of the effort, to document, preserve and honor the service of united states war time veterans. the veterans history project is maintained by the american center and the library of congress, collects, preserves and makes accessible the personal accounts of american war veterans so that future generations may hear directly from veterans and better understand realities of war. the collection features firsthand accounts of veterans

who served in world war i, world war ii, the korean war, vietnam war, persian gulf war in 1990 to 1995 or afghanistan and iraq conflicts 2001 to present. it also contains the accounts of u.s. citizen civilians who actively supported war efforts such as war industry workers, u.s.o. workers, flight instructors, medical volunteers, defense contractors and so on. citizens can participate by obtaining a field kit from the library of congress, which contains the tools necessary to conduct interviews or help veterans with the interview process. several members of congress have already participated in interviews relating to their military service. i'm among one of them. among them are cliff stearns, the deputy ranking member of the committee who reported his experience as an air force captain during the vietnam war, and ranking republican steve buyer who recorded his experiences during the persian gulf war in iraq. again, i encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 1644 and just to

thank the gentleman, we had the traveling vietnam wail in -- wall in my hometown a little over a year ago. we had thousands of people come by and i was able to participate myself as a veteran. we got hundreds of stories during the vietnam war. and a small church, a small baptist church, there are 15 young men who went off to world war ii and three did not return. and i asked them to record this history for their church and community. we had my history profitser in college, wrote a book, apocklipts undone, recounting his capture in the philippines, the death march and time as a slave labor in japan for four years. an incredible account. i spoke recently to a 96-year-old veteran at the mountain home v.a. medical

center in johnson city about his experience before there was world war ii, when the u-boats were sinking our ships, taking supplies to england. he flew missions to bomb those before there was a war and i looked at his record and that part was inked out. that's a history that would have been lost without this. my own father-in-law flew combat missions in burma supporting during world war ii. i was in a hardy's one morning campaigning, shaking hands, and sat down to talk to two gentlemen and who did i talk to but two veterans who had survived the battle of the bulge and they shared their stories with me. and one veteran in the same blingt, the very same day had, won a silver star after having a severe head injury and i asked him how he was doing and he said, well, he was cutting back on his farming a little bit, he was 87 years old. that's the generation that built this nation and to lose those histories and i agree with you completely, how many times have

we said, i wish i had taken note of it, i talked to my grandfather, i talked to someone who served and gotten their story. now it's not all, most of us veterans won't share everything we did. i want to make that clear, too, for the house tonight. there's some things that we probably just need to be left unsaid. but those stories meant a lot to me and my family and i would encourage now that we have this opportunity for all the veterans who can and are able to and are willing to, to share these stories and document them. theye very important because as was stated, we're losing 1,500 to 1,700 world war ii receipt advance per day. i strongly encourage my colleagues and i'll yield back the balance of my time. to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, mr. speaker. you can tell me how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: you have 11 minutes. mr. filner: take a few since we're at the end of our day

here. i have had, mr. speaker, the honor and privilege of chairing the veterans affairs committee for the last four years. the voters of this nation have changed the party in charge so i think this will probably be my last day on the floor as the chairman. and i just want to thank the veterans of this nation from around the country and around the world. i met with them, they have changed me as a person, i have learned incredible amounts from them. i have learned how much we have to do to fulfill our commitment to our nation's veterans. and i think we've done a lot in this committee for the last four years. some of our staff is here and i want to thank them because they made it all possible. in fact, mr. speaker, we have a fellow from the military fellows program who worked with us for a year that the speaker set up for to us bring in the military folks from different services and from different occupations

to both help us and to help them with the year on capitol hill. and one of those is completing his year just about now, ricco. we want to thank you for all your work. asthma are in, he's going to be deployed to afghanistan after christmas. so we wish him the best but we want to thank you for the work. you've taught us a lot and we hope you will bring back some of our knowledge to your fellow marines. we have in the last four years, mr. speaker, added almost $25 billion to the health care needs of our veterans. that's over a 65% increase. that's unprecedented in the history of the v.a., to have such an increase. and we needed to do that. we have literally hundreds of thousands of new veterans, many with brain injury, many with ptsd, post traumatic stress disorder, and we have veterans aging from vietnam and even earlier wars, obviously. so we have tremendous need and

we put in billions of dollars into especially mental health care of our nation's veterans. we wrote a g.i. bill for the 21st century. which matched the g.i. bill really from 1944, the original g.i. bill. i don't know about you, mr. speaker, but i'm hear because of the g.i. bill. my dad came back from the war, got some education, we were able to buy a house. we were middle class for the first time in our life because of the g.i. bill. like eight other million families who took advantage of that. so we have brought those benefits in line to what it really cost to go to college. we have worked on homeless veterans, we have worked on women veterans, as you've seen today. we have tried to improve access for rural veterans. so we have done quite a bit. i'm looking forward to working with our counterparts in the new congress to continue the progress that we have made for veterans. we intend to cooperate fully,

mr. roe has been very good to work with. i'm not sure who the chairman will be from your side, but we have established, i think, good working relationships with virtually every member of your committee. so, as we conclude this bill, mr. speaker, i want to thank again the staff of our committee, i want to thank both the staffs on both sides of the aisle for their work in doing so much for veterans during the last four years. so i would urge passage of the kind bill, h.res. 1644, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and so the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1644. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. wu for today and for the balance of the week, mr. danny davis of illinois for today and mr. burton of indiana for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are ganted. -- granted. the chair lays before the house

a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, the law authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan for locate pay increases for civilian federal employees covered by the general schedule and certain other pay systems in january, 2011. if advise you to the adjustments that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate due to national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. our country faces serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. as the economic recovery continues, the time has come to put forth our nation back on sustainable fiscal course, an effort that requires tough choice and shared sacrifice. accordingly, i have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my statutory alternatives plan authority, under 5 u.s.c. to set alternative january, 2011,

locality pay rates. this decision will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well-qualified federal work force. under the authority of section 5304-a of title 5 united states code, i have detmined that the current locality pay percentages in schedule 9 of executive order 13525 of december 23, 2009, shall not increase from their 2010 levels. pursuant to the nonforeign area, retirement equity assurance act of 2009, sections 1911 through 1919, public law 111-84, i am also establishing applicable 2011 locality pay rates for alaska and hawaii that are based on 2010 locality pay levels. the locality pay rates established in 2010 and continued in 2011 under this alternative plan are shown in the attachment. signed, barack obama, the white house, november 30, 2010.

the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on oversight and government reform. and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, december 7, for five minutes. mr. jones december 7 for five minutes. mrs. miller of michigan today for five minutes. mr. frank today, december 1, 2, 3, five minutes each. ms. foxx today for five minutes minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does

the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i ask unanimous consent that following legislative business and any special -- mr. filner: the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material, mr. frank from massachusetts, mrs. richardson, mrs. cupttur, mr. defazio and mrs. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina soak recognition? ms. foxx: secretary permission to address the house for -- seek permission to address the house five minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: today, i rise to honor the rich and transformative legacy of jerry long. mr. long died earlier this month after serving as a leader in winston salem, north carolina civic and business life for decades. from his years as serving at the head of r.j. reynolds and the head of the chamber of commerce or his philanthropic efforts, jerry long was nothing short of a catalyst for dramatic and positive change for the people of winston-salem. thanks for his advocacy, the area is today a better place to live than it would have been had jerry long not taken such keen interests in the well-being of the people and people. passing earlier away this month at 82 years old, jerry long left a legacy of caring, general

rossity and a positive force of personality that helped transform winston-salem into the place it is today. his impact on this corner of north carolina will not soon be forgotten. in jerry long's investment in the community with only facet of his character. he was also a dedicated husband of 56 years to his wife as well as a faithful father to their six children and grandfather to 16 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. he was a man who knew how to live well and shape his world for the better. i hope that upon reflecting on his rich life, many will be inspired to invest in and give back to their communities and families in the way that jerry long forged himself into

winston-salem and his own family. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. garrett of new jersey. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. burton of indiana. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. lincoln diaz-balart of florida. ms. woolsey of california. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. mrs. miller of michigan. mr. franks of arizona.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. five minute special order ordered in favor of the the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks is vacated. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i know that it

comes as no surprise of this house that i have been one very critical of this administration's policies on a number of different fronts and i suppose that will be no different tonight. but mr. speaker, i guess i wanted to start out tonight by addressing the wikileaks issue. i know that a lot of people across america have looked upon this with interest and i guess it's significant in my mind that what we have seen on the wikileaks issue is really more conformatory. and wait has demonstrated is that this administration has practiced for a long time a foreign policy of apeasement and

has been a disaster. the most pressing question is how a 22-year-old private first class in a remote location in iraq could have gained access to so many of these documents especially since they are far outside his scope of responsibilities and represents a glaring failure on parts of the state department and even parts of the defense department. and some of these commonsense security measures could have been implemented prior to this. the pentagon has since announced that it will be implementing new policies, including technology that makes it impossible to copy classified documents to portable storage devices. the fact is that has taken too long for a commonsense policy to sink in and this administration certainly had lead time to consider this long before now. but guess it is indicative why

our bureaucracies are so inefficient and took the leak of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents before this government decided to get up to speed with the unique risks posed by one of the most modern conveniences, that being the computer. the u.s. army soldier suspected of leaking the documents and the wikileaks founder hid behind the claim that the government's so-called lack of transparency is unjustified. this is their main reasons for justifying their own actions, mr. speaker. and unfortunately in that process, they have provided a wealth of aid and comfort to groups that are at war with the united states of america. and of course, the claims to be fighting for truth and transparency. the reality his desire to promote himself has outweighed

for scores of innocent lives that he has endangered with his reckless publicity and this kind of a stunt in the guise of some greater cause. mr. speaker, it's telling that the foreign media sometimes is more comforting to justice than the american media sometimes. the american media willingly complied in disseminating this information and they are complicit in any harm that will come to american service members across the country as well. just to give you an example as well. the same "new york times" that was rett is ent to cover the story that is referred to as climategate ran the wikileaks' story on the front page of their story. this is hypocrisy that is

astounding. in other words, just to put it in perspective, i'll read with one of the bloggers of the "new york times" said. andrew webb, a reporter, one of the first ones to cover climategate and his first story only a matter of a few hours after the climategate blog posted, he states, quote, the documents -- and this is the climategate documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they will not be posted here. well, how gentlelady ant, mao nobel of mr. revkin to protect perhaps some of his liberal friends from being exposed in the over hyped notion of clobal warming but yet when people's

lives are at stake and america national security is at stake, the "new york times" is all too willing to publish the wicky leaks's information and i find that -- wikileaks's information and i find that unbelievable when men and women give up their lives so we can sleep peacefully, it's a strange time for them to do that. and to cap it all off, mr. speaker. the leading candidate for "time" magazine's man of the year is none other than the founder of wikileaks. before i yield to one of my colleagues here, i would like to say unlike other regimes, democratic governments hold secrets because sit sense --

citizens believe they should. this breach has endangered our ability to build trust and trust with our allies and does not serve the public's interest and most of all, it has strengthened and emboldended our enemies and wikileaks should be ashamed and should be pursued with whatever legal actions can be brought and of course, the "new york times" for their come policity in this effort should be ashamed beyond measure. with that, i would like to yield to my good friend, congressman lamborn, from colorado, to see if he has any thoughts. mr. lamborn: thanks to the gentleman for yielding. the wall street journal did not accept the dissemination -- offered to disseminate this latest round from the diplomatic arena and that is to their credit and unfortunately the "new york times" did not have

the same scrupples, which is extremely disappointing to me. representative franks, as we look at some of the reports of what were contained in the diplomatic leaks, there are some really troubling national security implications that arise. one is, we find, for instance, that it's confirmed that iran has received 19 advanced missiles from north korea. we have long suspected that there has been ties on a covert basis between those two countries. we have some evidence of that. this just makes it more of a glaring issue and our administration needs to be doing more, not just to stop wikileaks in the future from revealing our national secrets but in stopping iran and north korea from the propagation of deadly nuclear and missile technology that they seem to be doing. and the fact that iran is now

receiving -- has received 19 advanced missiles from north cree, each of which is capable of reaching western europe or even moscow is troubling to me. these are our nato allies that we are bound to defend if we are attacked and i don't think our administration is doing enough to stop the propagation, the dissemination of deadly technology from north korea to other countries. and when we are done talking about wikileaks, representative, i would like to talk more about some of these national security implications as well. and i would like to yield back at this time. mr. franks: thank you, mr. lamborn. i guess it's my judgment that this probably would be a good time to transition to that and we would like to hear from congressman steve king from iowa. and steve, do you have any thoughts about some of these national security issues? i know doug and i are kind of obsessed with them for good

reason, but we know that they care about national security in iowa as well. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding and bringing this special order here tonight and bringing this issue before the american people. this is a critical national security issue. i am so grateful we have individuals here in this congress, as intended by the founding fathers that focused on a variety of issues that can clearly see and be focused on the intelligence and bring it before the american people such that they understand, mr. speaker that you will turn your focus on this subject matter. there's been a lot of discussion about across the country about the wiki leaks issue and i look at this and i think, julian assange, australian citizen, made his living as a hacker, person who is proud of being able to crack anybody's security code and get in there and pull information out and dump it into the public

arena, into the public media sphere. for what purpose? what possible constructive purpose could be achieved by an individual who is a product of western civilization pouring forth state secrets from western civilization itself? has to be for either self-aggrandizement or the combination of undermining western civilization, an enemy of the things we believe in. i don't stand here with the intent to indict the aussies, i love the australians, they're a free-spirited, strong, free market, free-willed group of people. they've had to also take a continent and set they will con feint -- con innocent about the size of the united states itself, make a living down there in an environment that's sometimes beautiful, sometimes harsh. they have a spirit of their own and they remind me that in every conflict the united states has been in, they got their first in some of them,

they've been in all of them, it's a pretty good thing to say about the relationship between the united states and australia. it's not to say much about their citizen who i wish was our sint, he could be charged with treason. i looked into my book and took up the constitutional definition of treason, and many have called for the charges treason to be apply. it says treason against the united states shall consist only in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies, which certainly al qaeda and the taliban and the enemies of the terrorists who are lining up against us are our enemies, giving them aid and comfort -- giving aid and comfort to the enemies. well, mr. speaker, i think it's a subject we wouldn't have much

debate on here in this congress that this he has given aid and comfort to the enemy, empowered the enemy, put americans at risk, put the allies of americans at risk and in this precarious situation around the globe in this geopolitical military economic chess game that goes on constantly in the entire planet, he's taken away some of our advantage and given it to our enemies. i wish and hope that there's a way we can find a way to prosecute a man like that, that we can protect ourselves and if we fail to do that, or even if we're successful in that and it exposes other vulnerabilities, i suggest, mr. speaker that this congress take a look at new legislation, a new structure of law, that's really not brought about because of the actions of mr. assange but brought about because the actions of our enemies, our terrorist enemies. i've come to realize and i think there will be a

significant number of members of congress who realize that we don't have the tools to fight these enemies. that the idea that we could catch terrorists, like, frks, osama bin laden's chauffeur, we can't find a way to try that chauffeur and put him on trial with legitimate expectations of an effective prosecution and a conviction and penalty. that we have khalid sheikh muhammad sitting down in guantanamo bay yet two year into the obama presidency when president obama said he was going to close guantanamo bay and try the terrorists in civilian courts. we find out what happens when you try them in civilian courts, a whole bunch of information critical to the prosecution is left out so they were not successful. i look at this and make the charge, i think our military

tribunals are a useful way to do this and guantanamo bay is the best place on the planet to keep them but we don't quite have the legislative cool tooles or judicial tools, and i'm hope thfl congress will consider a proposal rooted in this thought and we'll set up a special court a special court like the fisa court, or perhaps even the fisa court and ask them to adjute -- adjudicate, when we catch somebody working against the united states, perpetrating terrorism against the united states and be able to process them immediately through the special court and have that court be able to rule if this was an attack against the americans or an attack american civilization that was designed to spread terror and fear here rather than a crime that was committed against individual americans. and be able to rule that that individual that fit within the category of an enemy of the united states, an enemy in this war on terror we have, and it's instantly move them off the

shores of the united states and down to guantanamo bay or another jurisdiction that's even further removed from these courts and under article 3, section 2 strip these federal courts from the jurisdictional ruling, if we do that, and it's a sticky constitutional question how we would deal with american citizens in that category but not such a sticky question when we talk about how to deal with julian assange, an australian citizen could be moved somewhere outside the united states, moved outside of the jurisdiction of the federal considerates of the united states and be adjudicated through a military tribunal. that's what i'm hopeful we'll be able to do. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman for the purpose of facilitating this discussion. mr. -- >> i think the recent civilian trial of the person in guantanamo bay who was tried

and found not guilty of about 250 counts of murder, though that's about how many people were killed in the terrorist attack on the embassy in africa, but was found only guilty of conspiracy to destroy government property, when over 200 people were murdered in that terrorist attack. mr. lamb born: that shows the weakness of using civilian trialing to -- trials to try these terrorist whors committing acts of war against the country and the wikileaks documents show that this administration has been trying to place these guantanamo detainees in other countries around the world like saudi arabia, they're offering them money, offering them concessions if they'll take some of these people off our hands so that the president can move closer to his goal of closing guantanamo bay. but that's a misguided policy from day one. these people should not be released, i think saudi arabia said in one of the cables that was disclosed that -- or they said later on they would just

release the people eventually if they were sent to their country and they would ultimately, as we know from cases in the past, many of them would find their way back to the battlefield where they would kill americans or american allies. i think that the whole misguided policy of guantanamo bay being closed is exposed by some of the wikileaks documents. but still, these should have never been disclosed in the first place, this administration needs to find a way to punish those involved and make sure it never happens again. i would like to yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i'd like to agree with the gentleman from colorado because you know, many of us, including the gentleman from colorado, including the gentleman from iowa, were very vociferous in saying that there would come a time then it would be obvious to the world that these civilian trials wouldn't work for enemy combatants that are

terrorists that were taken off the battlefield in afghanistan or iraq or wherever it might be because we knew that this would give al qaeda and other terrorist groups a perfect opportunity, a staging ground, as it were to be able to manipulate our system. not only does it give them the ability to have discovery where they're able to potentially undermine our entire security apparatus and gain information that is critical to protecting our agents in the field but this also gives them the ability to claim all kinds of things before the world and of course, the security elements of it are astonishing, and of course they use our own court system and our own court rules to make it very possible for them to escape justice. i thought to paraphrase president bush, he said something like this, he said we should not allow our enemies to use, destroy liberty by using the forms of liberty to destroy liberty itself. the reality is that we

sometimes can become vims of our own ostonesable decency this administration in its kowtowing to terrorists has been more committed to protecting terrorists' rights than it has to protecting the lives of american sints. i think that is a pro-- that is profound beyond anything i can suggest. it tells me that somehow the administration has a philosophical bent that is going in a way i think endangers american freedom and future generations. i'm hoping that somehow they would wake up in time. the gentleman is correct, wikileaks among other things has exposed the administration's effort to try to put these combatants in different countries to try to avoid the trap they set for themselves in america by insisting this be done in civilian trials and again it is a disgrace beyond words that the man who was instrumental in the murder of i think it was

224 people, mr. lamb born, yet he gets conspiracy to destroy government property. and that is unfortunately, sometimes the administration thinks of these things in academic terms but this is real life and national security in the 9/11 age is something we should all be focused on and this administration seems to be asleep at the wheel. i wonder if my colleague from iowa might have thoughts on that. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from arizona and i reflect on a trip i made down to guantanamo bay here i believe it was a year ago last easter. and the trip was designed to fill me and a handful of other members on the judiciary committee members in on the practices they had at guantanamo bay. i think it's something the american people have not had an opportunity to witness or hear about within the news is that there's a facility that's perfectly structured for the job that we have. which is to bring these

terrorists to a location and legitimately try them and give some resolution to their circumstances. i don't remember the exact number of inmates they had down there at the time but it was down to the hard core of the hard core, they'd already released those that could be released and the rest of them were a danger to american a danger to free people everywhere, a danger if they're released to come back, as mr. lamb born said to -- mr. lamborn said to attack troops and the free world. as we're looking at that facility it's a pretty wonderful facility if you want to be in a jail and be a muslim, for example. you walk into the cells, first of all, the temperature is set at 75 degrees. my house is a lot warmer than that in iowa in the summertime. because 75 degrees, they argued, was their cultural temperature, and i don't know that that's true, i would think it's 140 degrees is more likely some of their cultural temperature but in any case

it's set at 75 and you open the door to any cell, they have their own personalized cell, they have an arrow that points toward mecca, they don't have to guess which direction to pray, they get a nice, fancy prayer rug, it's a beautiful piece of work and they get a skull cap that's also hand worked dnd hand worked an don't the korans they get are carried in a in a zip lock bag so they are never touched by the hands of a infidel because that might anger the inmates at gitmo and they have their nice television and a break room they got together and here's this flat screen tv, there was, that went on fine for a while. their meal they get a choice of nine selections a day of islamically approved meals they can pick three squares out of the nine every day that are -- that fit within their cultural heritage in their way. it isn't like americans are serving them ham and beans like they'd give me or you or

anybody else in there they get to select from a special menu a special menu for special people they get a special rug a special skull cap a special zip lock bag delivered koran never touched by an infidel and they have as many as 20 attacks on americans a day at guantanamo bay. about half of them are physical attacks where they try to get one of our guards down, usually navy personnel, and try to get their handcuff chains around their throats and strangle them, the other half are throwing human feces in the face of our troops. what is the punishment? if there happened to be a domestic prisoner in the domestic prison if you continued with that, you'd find yourself in solitary confinement and eventually the punishment would be that you would be locked up in prison for life. but what we do is nothing. there is no penalty if khalid sheikh mohammed attacks a guard every day, the worst we can do to him is cut his outdoor exercise down to two hours a

day. two hours a day outside, the rest of the day you're in 75-degree temperature, meals you've chosen and there was one inmate that wanted a bible he converted to christianity. but it was forbid ton bring a bible into guantanamo bay because it would set the inmates off. the other inmates off who thought the bible was an insult and affront to them and they were watching their flat screen tv and a lady came on to a commercial she had a shirt sleeved shirt on and showed her elbow. i don't get that worked up over an elbow but they got all worked up over the elbow and trashed the room,er to up the furniture, broke the flat screen tv, scattered it all, it was a riot in their break room and what's their punishment for that? new furniture, new flat screen tv. we coddle these prisoners. we don't have a punishment for those that attack our american

guards. guards and we set up the trial room so that there are microphones, sound systems places for family members to observe, a sound-proof glass, when it gets down to the testimony, we have an officer that is assigned with the job to cut off the testimony until such time as the witnesses that don't have access to classified are marched out of the witness chamber and pick up the testimony. this facility is laid out for the purposes of trying people where national security is an issue. and if we had been trying individuals you talked about, mr. lamborn, i believe he would have been convicted in guantanamo guantanamo bay because the evidence would have been used rather than held back for fear of giving up a national see is secret. they have would do a lot more. what would be helpful if we had a commander in chief who was asking this congress rather than

to push that chain uphill. i yield back. mr. franks: thank you, mr. king. i suppose there is a lot of different issues we could talk about with respect to the wikileaks' situation here, but i would point out that probably one of the things it showed is that our appesaement towards our enemies and the passive nature that this administration has shown towards north korea and this is one of the most dangerous police states in the world and they aren't interested in becoming a diplomatic partner to any member of the international community and certainly not the united states. and a recent timeline of north korea is worth looking at here. in march of 2010, they were involved in the sinking of a

south korean submarine. killed 46 sailors. in november of 2010 u.n. security council reports that revealed north korea has been passing forbidden nuclear technology to state sponsors of terrorism. mr. lamborn talked about the missile technology and nuclear technology, including iran and syria. the syrian plant was a mirror image of the one in north korea and our friends in israel were able to make sure that that one didn't work so well anymore and they did the world a great favor in that regard because nuclear weapons in the hands of iran or syria would be a great danger to the human families to say the very least. in november of 2010, north korea shelled the island, a group of south korean islands and claimed

the lives of two south korean marines, two civilians were also killed and wounded around 15 marines and three other civilians and of course this administration, while they have some shows of resolve here lately, a lot of these things have occurred because they have stood by and let north korea get away with this so long and north korea does this sometimes to get attention and they have no respect for innocent human lives so blowing up a few people to try to get one of the democratic administrations to give them more money is something they don't hesitate to do and they have done this on a regular basis. the u.s., mr. speaker, must move to re-enlist north korea as a state sponsor to relist them as a state sponsor of terrorism and call on all nations to adopt

sanctions. it will collapse on itself if china and other countries in the world do not continue to prop them up. and china should be especially called upon to stop enabling this regime and join responsible nations and sending a message to north korea, abandon your aggressive agenda now. and it shouldn't come as a surprise to us, but china's objections kept us from seeing a security council report revealing that north korea has been passing banned technology to nations like syria and iran and delayed that for six months. in other words, because of china, because of their commitment to delay this, iran was given six additional months to adopt nuclear technology and no telling how far they were willing to go to advance this effort, but they were eventually forced to receive information.

and mr. speaker, i just have to say, you know, weakness and passiveness is provocative and it is time that this administration and the united states embark on one goal for north korea, and that is to see that north korean government fall and north korea be reunited and somehow, some semblance of freedom come to that people and that this country like many of its people would like to be reunited with the world community in a responsible way and to pursue a lot of diplomacy with north korea is wasted efforts and we should be pursuing now the effort to see north korea and south korea reunited under a free government like south korea. and would my friend from colorado have any comment?

mr. lamborn: i would like to say that this administration has not done enough with north korea. some good efforts have been made, but much more needs to be done. and much needs to be done with iran. and i'm particularly appalled that we did nothing in the last year when the green revolution started, when the fraudulent election took place. ahmadinejad was re-elected as president and rampant fraud throughout the country. and the people of iran were offended and resented that and they rebeled and they took to the streets. we did nothing to support them. that would have been and maybe still is the best way possible to overthrow this murderous regime in tehran. but we are doing nothing to help the opposition. and that type of lack of effort, i don't understand it. it's our best shot at freing the people of iran so they can

become more democratic and peace loving. there are many pro-western iranians, especially young people. many of them have been to the west and they like the west, and yet, we are doing nothing to support those in opposition to this government. and to find out from wikileaks, to have the confirmation that 19 of intermediate-range missiles that could go as far as western europe have been sent from north korea to iran and iran is working on a nuclear weapon at the same time, there is no question about that, this is unacceptable. this should not be happening. we should not be allowing north korea to send deadly arms to countries like iran or syria. rumors have it they want to do the same with burma or venezuela. we have to not let north korea

proliferate like this. and our administration should and needs to do more. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. kingston: before i yield to my friend from iowa, i would like to follow up what the gentleman from colorado said. sometimes we are unaware and this administration seems oblivious how serious a nuclear -- what a serious danger to the peace of the entire human family that would represent. but let's consider that for a moment. the ahmadinejad government, the government of the muscleas and ahmadinejad there have through their brazen, open statements have condemned israel, the united states and threatend both of our countries in ferms wanting to see israel wiped off the united states and united states ended as a world power and brought to our knees.

it's hard to even repeat some of the things that this iranian administration has said about america. and it's very clear what their intent is. and there are two elements to every threat, mr. speaker, when it comes to national security. one is the intent of a potential enemy and the second one is the capacity of that enemy to carry through with their threats. and if we have not understood by now the intent of jihad, the intent of state sponsors of terrorism like iran, then we are not listening very well, mr. speaker. the intent is clear, iran would see america destroyed tomorrow if they could. not the iranian people, but the iranian government as it stands now would see america in ashes if they could. so the idea of allowing them to gain nuclear capability seems to be astonishing beyond words to me, mr. speaker. this administration seems to

have embraced some sort of a policy of allowing iran to gain nuclear weapons and pursuing the idea of containment like we have in other situations with the soviet union. but that won't work with a jihadist government, because when we were dealing with the soviet union, we put our security in a sense and their sanity. we knew they wanted to survive and we had the capability to respond in such an overwhelming way that they were detered from attacking america. but when it comes to the jihadist mindset, mr. speaker, that is no longer a strategy that can be embraced. let me just say, mr. speaker. if iran gains a nuclear capability, nuclear weapons, this world will step into the shadow of nuclear terrorism. terrorists will have nuclear weapons and mr. speaker, i can't express to you the danger that will represent and the change it

will represent to all of us in the free world and really throughout the planet, because iran has shown themselves willing to make some of the most deadly weapons we faced in iraq and blowing up our soldiers with their exosive-form peneateors and pay money to see some of the taliban kill american soldiers in afghanistan. they have demonstrated their intent very clearly and this administration seems willing to allow them to have the capacity to carry out that intent. and while i'm walking by this neighborhood remind this administration that are iran has done military exercises that appear to every reasonable military analyst to be preparation for an e.m.p. attack against this country or some other enemy they might have. mr. speaker, i think this administration seems would hefully unprepared or even

unaway of how serious an electromagnetic pulls or a blast could be to this country. mr. speaker, if iran gains a nuclear capability, it will give them the asymmetric capability to launch an e.m.p. attack against this country and could cause an almost inarctic can you label damage to this country. a major attack on this country could defeat the u.s. military. it could see more than 60% of the population of the united states unsustainable. i don't know how you wrap your mind around a number like that. but yet, that is the path that we are on with this administration continuing to allow iran to gain nuclear weapons. and i would call upon the senate, mr. senate -- speaker,

to pass the grid bill, to begin to protect our electric infrastructure from either geoma magnetic storms that could be launched against us. this tration administration has paid no attention and it represents a real, credible threat against the united states and it is the weapon for terrorists and they know it. we have discovered their writings. they understand that. and yet, we stand by and this administration embraces the notion that we can allow a jihadist, terrorist state like iran to gain the world's most dangerous weapon and to be able to potentially launch against this country, an attack that could be absolutely devastating to our civilization and i continue to be astonished that this administration has

foresaken its constitutional duty in making sure the protection of the citizens of this country and national security of this country are job one. and i don't know what to add to that except maybe ask my friend from iowa to comment. mr. king: i mr. king spks i was a fan of ohio until ohio state beat the hawkeyes. i'm interested in some comments you made, the shadow of terrorism. we think about this as americans, watching the world fall under the shadow of nuclear terrorism. if we think worrying about jet airliners being flown into the twin towers or into the pentagon or off into the field in pennsylvania and what that did to this country, how it shook up this country, immobilized the country and our

daily lives, right down to football games and weddings were brought to an immediate halt, even though it was more than a thousand miles away to get to the other side of the continent they stopped their football games and weddings there too, and i suppose they stopped funerals for a while. that's how much it devastated this country. i thoith we shufe looked at those crises in september 11 of 2001 and said it's not going to break our stride. we're going to keep our pace, go forward and we're going to live. we're going to live while we adapt to the new threat that's come upon us. but this new threat out there now that hangs over our head, the shadow of nuclear terrorism that hangs over our head, out of north korea, who is completely belligerent today and out of iran as well and i will tell you mr. speaker that i wasn't happy with the job done by then command for the chief bill clinton in each of these issues, but particularly with korea, i thought he was too soft too tepid and i

thought north korea will march through this path and they'l become a nuclear power and nothing is going to stop them because we're not bold enough, not strong enough and didn't show the resolve necessary to cause home to back up and back off. north korea. also true with iran. and as i watched president bush, bush 43, come into office i was hopeful there would be a bolder position with regard to our posture with north korea and iran. i remember serving in congress some of those years and watched how the political handcuffs were put on george w. bush in such a way he didn't have the political support to use the bold actions that i believe might have been necessary then to avert the nuclear power that has materialized in north korea, nor the impending nuclear power that appears to be materializing in iran. i don't think george bush was able to utilize the tools. i don't know if he had the will.

i believe he did. i believe he had the judgment but not the political tools because this congress was so lined up against president bush, there were so many debates on this side of the aisle that were lined up against the commander in chief, 44 votes forced by this speaker of the house designed to unfund or undermine our troops to diminish the power of the commander in chief. while that was going on, north korea was furiously build agnew clear capability, iran was build agnew clear capability and one thing that did happen very good, many of them did happen good under george bush, he began the process to establish the missiles in poland and the radar in czechoslovakia and he had it set up to go to protect western europe and eventually america from missiles coming out of iran and what happened? we elected a new president, one

who i don't think has an understanding of this geopolitical chess game that's going on with our national security and the destiny of all humanity, who did what? pulled the missiles out of poland and the headlines in the warsaw papers said, betrayed. betrayed. i believe that was the largest and most colossal foreign policy mistake made by the obama administration that emboldened not just iran to accelerate their nuclear enkever but emboldened north korea as well to go to the point of shelling the islands of south korea because they know, at least think they they know that this country can't retaliate. i ask this question does this nation have the capability and will to shut off that building capability in iran and north korea? if we do, we have a strong position to negotiate from.

if we do not, we need to achieve that ability and negotiate from a strong position. there's more i'd say but i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman and yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman, rentive trent franks from arizona and i thank the gentleman, mr. king for his remarks about iran and the mistakes made by this administration in canceling those missiles. i was part of a group that went there, they put the best face on it but they are not happy. and yes, there are attempts to contain iran with a theater defense. that's good, as far as it goes. but theater defense for missiles -- against missiles is not the same as defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. that's what we would have had with the ground based interceptors in poland. i like that we'll have theater

ships with missiles on them in places around iran. i'm troubled by the role of turkey. i think they're not as stable of an ally as they once were under their current leadership. i'm not sure they're dependable these days. but iran is a developing -- is developing threats that will go beyond our theater defenses faster than we will have intercontinental protection in place. so they will -- they can go -- they will be able to go beyond our theater defenses before we have intercontinental defenses. so their threat is emerging faster than our defenses will be put into place. and that's what concerns me about the phased adapted approach, the theater defense and the alternative to the third site that would have been in poland. i yield back to the gentleman from arizona who is an expert on these issues. >> i think the gentleman is

absolutely correct, not that i'm an expert but that your points are absolutely correct. i would say it's important to realize that the european site was not only a redundant protection to the united states from potentially icbm's coming from iran but it was also something that could have calculated or factored into the calculus of iran in moving toward developing nuclear capability in the first place. because in a sense, mr. speaker, missile defense is the -- it's the last line of defense against an incoming miles. i think everyone can understand that basic equation. but it's also the first line of defense against nuclear proliferation because a rogue state like iran knows that they face great challenges and great dangers by pursuing nuclear weapons because they realize their neighbors understand the aggressive nature of that rogue state of iran and can't abide them having nuclear weapons and they realize that could

potentially invite some kind of preemptive attack. they continue to do that because they understand the strategic advantage they would gain to threaten their neighbors would be overwhelming. if, indeed, mr. speaker, we could have been in a place in poland to be able to intercept or knock down any missiles coming toward our allies in europe or the united states, it could have demonstrated to iran they would not have gained any strategic advantage by continuing forward and may someday in the history books be written that that's where we lost the battle because that's maybe where iran began to see they were going to be able to get away with creating nuclear capability. but mr. speaker, it is astonishing that this administration betrayed the people of poland, betrayed the people of the czech republic. when we had made promises to them, we did everything we could to reach out to them to have courage and stand with america in this endeavor then

our own administration pulls the plug and betrays them and it makes it difficult for other allies to express the same courage. of course the phase adaptive approach, it's a good name, nothing wrong with the name, some of our military leaders understand there are many, as mr. lamborn said, many important aspects of the phase aid daptive approach, the irony is that the bush administration was pursuing the phased adaptive approach long before the obama administration ever even understood that there was such a thing. and these things were on the books and all the obama administration really did was cancel the third site and unfortunately then make it clear that we would not have redundant capability to interdict any icbm's or long-range missiles iran could place a nuclear weapon on because we simply would not be able to do it in time. our capability is a wonderful capability, mr. speaker, but

the present aegis capability does not have the capacity or speed to shoot down icbm's unless they're in a perfect spot which is a rare occurrence. i would just suggest that this administration once again has placed their ideological commitment to the left above national security. and you know, there may be someday when we wish we had these days back again and with all of the challenges that we face, it seems like the administration forgets its first responsibility, its first constitutional duty of defending the citizens and the national security of this country. it shouldn't surprise us that they forget the idea of property rights and it shouldn't surprise us that they forget the rights of unborn children, it shouldn't surprise us they put people on the court who was no respect for the constitution. it shouldn't surprise us that somehow the foundations of the

nation, the right to live and be free and pursue our dreams is subordinated to the notion that we want to build a large state. those things shouldn't surprise us. but if this administration continues to go in the direction it's going, mr. speaker, i am afraid we will all wish we had these days back again when we could have prevented some great tragedies that may befall us because of the ideological commitment of this administration to weaken america. i wonder if my good friend louie gohmert of texas has any comments on along these lines? mr. gohmert: i have the same concern misgood friend from arizona has. as has been discussed here, people around the world, nations around the world, watch everything we do. to determine, are we serious about providing for a defense for america? are we serious about providing a defense for our allies? are we serious about standing

up against rogue nations, against attacks on freedom and liberty? and i know there's some disagreement among historians because there are those who believe that when the secretary of state, 60 years ago, gave a speech which in essence indicated that korea was really outside our sphere of influence, north korea had been massing and they'd been preparing, but it happened that they began moving south. after that speech. people notice when there is a weakness evidenced in america's leadership and often it leads to acts of violence. do you think it was any accident that the flotilla went against the israeli blockade of gaza where thousands of rockets had flown into israel,

destroying, killing, terrorizing israelis? we aeed originally that the block -- we agreed originally that the blockade was necessary because of the death and destruction. was it any accident that the flotilla ends up setting sail to try to at least challenge that blockade after this white house snubs the prime minister of israel, treats them worse than chavez or some third world dictator, treats them so shabbily and begins to side with israel's enemies, like in may, voting with israel's enemies to make them disclose all their weaponry. was it any accident that that's when the -- those who want to challenge israel's very existence sent the flotilla south? i don't think so.

when it comes to strong leadership that protects america, i mean, my friends have been discussing this issue of guantanamo and i know you would be as delighted as i was to read the headlines, the five charged in the 9/11 attack seek to plead guilty. "new york times" arlington. guantanamo bay, -- "new york times" article. guantanamo bay, cuba, the detainees charged with planning the september 11 attacks said they wanted to confess in full a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death at the start of what had been listed as routine proceedings monday, the judge said he received a written statement from the five men, dated november 4, saying they planned to stop filing legal motions and, quote, to announce

our confessions to plea in full, unquote. speaking what has become a familiar high-pitched tone in the cavernous courtroom here, the most prominent of the five said, we don't want to waste our time with motions. that was what they said. around this administration, unfortunately, came in after -- just a month after this, because this is december 8, 2008. 2008. these guys were ready to plead guilty. they were ready to be put to death. they had already proclaimed as cleed sheik muhammad did, they were going to plead guilty and take their punishment. oh, no, the strong leaders in this administration said no, no, no, not so fast. we want to give you a show trial

in new york city, cost ourselves billions of dollars and put new yorkers at risk so you can have a big show and we can pound our chests and talk about how civilized we are. what civilized nation would not protect itself so it can remain civilized instead of being overtaken by these people. the civilized thing to do is to protect the civilized people that put you in office. but this is not what this administration did. they came in and basically said, you know what? hold off on that guilty plea. once these guys heard they were going to get a show trial, well, for heaven's sakes, they were pulled back on their guilty plea and two full years later, this administration has now announced, we aren't sure when we are going to bring them to

trial and it has shown weakness in leadership and i just remind my friend and i know he knows the quote from john stuart mill who said, war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. the decay and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. nothing with is more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. i yield back. mr. franks: kind of hard to top that. i guess tonight the message that i was hoping could be relayed more than anything else is that there has been a general asleep- at the wheel of this

administration when it cooms to national security. and unfortunately, we live in a 9/11 world and those who don't hold to the ideals of freedom. and this administration is continuing down this path. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i don't want to come to this floor in future days and have to decry what we failed to do. so i think there is still time for this administration to wake up and realize that allowing iran to gain nuclear weapons, allowing north korea to proliferate nuclear technology throughout the world and allowing terrorists to use the forms of liberty to destroy liberty itself in our civilian courts, allowing the potential of terrorists to gain control of an e.m.p. capability that could

threaten our whole society, standing by while the senate sits quietly and does nothing to pass the grid bill passed in the house of representatives, these are very, very important things, mr. speaker. and i just hope somehow that this administration realizes that their first purpose and their first responsibility to god, country and fellow human beings is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of the citizens of the united states. and mr. speaker, i hope that happens and with that, we would yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 60 minutes. mr. gohmert: i have so much

respect and abiding love and affection for my dear friend from arizona and as well as my friend from colorado and my friend who was here earlier from iowa, my dear friend, steve king. congressman king and i were down in guantanamo guantanamo together and i heard him earlier talk about pulling back the privileges and punishing assault at guantanamo guantanamo bay against our own service members. i did recall something that he may not have recalled, there was another severe form of punishment when such an assault is committed on our guards at guantanamo, which apparently is pretty customary down there of throwing urine or feces on our guards and they have to come up with creative ways to do that. but one of the other ways and

it's the only other way in addition to taking some of their outdoor exercise time doub down to two hours, the other thing that they have been known to do in order to really punish them, actually torture them is to take away some of their movie-watching time during the day. it's just devastating to the guantanamo guantanamo detainees to have some of their movie-watching privileges taken away, because they threw fees yes, sir or urine -- feces on one of our servicemen or women. it really teaches them a lesson. it shows them. if you mess with us, you aren't going to watch as many movies as you would have otherwise. we'll show them. and i was hearing on the news today also that chinese muslims

who have been transferred out of guantanamo guantanamo have given interviews, indicating they were treated better in guantanamo guantanamo than they were in their home in china. so despite the way that some people have tried torl characterize the prison in guantanamo guantanamo, it is not quite as bad -- in fact, not by a long shot, better living conditions than these people ever had in their lives. but then again, some of them wanted to blow themselves up and they haven't had that opportunity down there. so if some version of a great abundant life is to blow themselves up and kill a lot of innocent people, then yes, they haven't had that life to blow themselves up and kill innocent people down in guantanamo guantanamo bay. but the messages that are coming out of this administration are

particularly worrysome when our own enemies perceive weakness in the president of this country or his administration. it propels them into action. it propels them into actions that harm the united states that they would otherwise be afraid to move forward with. in fact, when one thinks about president bush with support from democrats and republicans alike going into iraq, one of the things that came out of that was a country teatering once again on the edge of nuclear proliferation, nuclear program going forward, potential

terrorists harboring state of libya. when president bush ordered our troops into iraq, libya realized, uh-oh, this president is quite serious, he is willing to commit american troops in harm's way to take out a ruthless leader who says he supports terrorism and supports threatening the united states. maybe i better cancel our nuclear program and make peace with the united states. one of the by-products about the invasion of iraq that at that time at least, there was a president who would step up and was not afraid to take action when someone continued to try to threaten the united states. a friend who publishes in the "jerusalem post" and i have had

the opportunity, honor and privilege to read some of carolyn glick's writing here on the house floor before, but has great insight so often into areas of foreign policy not only with regard to israel but with regard to the united states and our place in the international stability when we do show that we can and will be strong. and there was an article that was published in the "jerusalem post" written by carolyn glick, november 26, 2010 and the things she has to say are important enough to read. carolyn's perspective here into our record, mr. speaker, for

anyone who may not otherwise may have been privy to her observations. this is her article, "crises are exploding throughout the world and the leader of the free world is making things worse." and i'm quoting. on the korean peninsula, north korea just upended eight years of state department by showing a team of nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state -of-the-art centrifuges. and just to op off the show is steven bosworth, was arguing that this revelation is not a crisis. the north fired an unprovoked

shelling at south korea which says it is a crisis. but the obama administration remains unmoved. on tuesday, defense secretary robert gates, thanked his south korean counterpart for showing restraint. on thursday, kim resigned in disgays for that restraint. the you has spoken strongly of not allowing north korea's aggression to go unanswered, but in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt north korea back to multi lateral disarma meant talks that will go no where because north korea supports it. contrary to what president obama claims, china does not share the u.s. interest in denuclearizing north korea.

consequently beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal. then there is iran. the now inarguable fact that pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferate ateors are involved in uranium-based nuclear weapons program. the north koreans don't care that the u.n. security council placed sanctions on iran. and the presumptive role in iran's nuclear weapons program expose the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block north korea's path to a nuclear arsenal. every day as the regime in pyongyang and tehran escalate their aggression and confrontational stances, it becomes more and more clear that the only way to neutralize the

threat they pose to international security is to overthrow them. at least in the case of iran, it is also clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better. iran's regime is in trouble. since the fraudulent presidential elections 17 months ago, the regime has moved against its domestic foes, but dissent has only grown and popular resentment towards the regime has grown, the president, ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guards have become terrified of their own people. imprisoned rappers and outlawed western music. they have purged their school books of persian history. everything that smacks of

anything nonislamic is viewed as a threat. members of the regime are so frightened by the public that this weak, several members of parliament tried to begin i am peefment proceedings against ahmadinejad. apparently they hope thatous ing him will end the public's call to end revolutionary change. but coe mee nee hasst -- khomeini is standing by his man. the policy implications of all this are clear. the u.s. should destroy iran's nuclear installations and help the iranian people overthrow the regime. but the obama administration will have none of it. earlier this month, gates said, if it's military solution, as far as i'm concerned, it will bring together a divided nation, unquote system of in his view, the iranian people who risked death to defy the

regime every day, the iranian people who would -- who revile ahmadinejad as, quote, the chimpanzee, unquote, and call for khomeini's death every evening from their rooftop will, quote, rally around the chimp, unquote, and around the dictator if the u.s. attacks the military installation. continuing the article, he says, due to this thinking, as far as the obama administration is concerned, the u.s. should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs. as was noted last week this boilerplate assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever is what passes for strategic wisdom in washington as iran completes its nuclear project.

this u.s. refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings state department wise men and women to the conclusion that the u.s. has no dog in this fight. a state department spokesman, p.j. crowley, said the parliament's bid to impeach ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of, quote, rivalries in the government, unquote. then there's lebanon. since ahmadinejad's visit last month, it is obvious that iran is now the ruler of lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its hezbollah proxy. hezbollah's open threats to overthrow the prime minister's government, hezbollah's role in asass nating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged, just make this tragic reality more undeniable.

yet the obama administration continues to deny that iran controls lebanon. a month after ahmadinejad's visit, obama convinced the lame duck congress to lift its hold on $100 million in u.s. military assistance to the his bomb la-dominated lebanese military. and the u.s. convinced israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town of gazar, despite the fact that u.n. forces are hezbollah's -- are at hezbollah's mercy. in the midst of these crises, obama has maintained faith with his two central foreign policy goals, forcing israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 ar misties lines and scaling back the u.s. nuclear arsenal with an eye toward unilateral disarmament.

that is, as the forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, obama's central goals remain weakening the u.s.' most powerful regional ally in the middle east and rendering the u.s. incompetent to deter or defeat rapidly prolive rating -- proliferating rogue states that are at war with the u.s. and its allies. having said that, the truth is that in advancing these goals or ba uh -- obama is not out of step with his predsessors. george h.w. bush and bill clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the u.s. conventional and nonconventional arsenals. clinton and george w. bush adopted appeasement policies toward north korea. pee i don't think yang owes its nuclear arsenal to those presidents' desire to be perceived to do nothing.

and the nuclear weapons in many other states owes its existence that then secretary of state condoleezza rice insistence that they not see -- say anything about the iranian built and financed nuclear reactor in syria in 2007. as for iran, obama's attempt to appease the regime is little different from his predecessor's policies. the bush administration refused to confront the fact that the wars in afghanistan and iraq are iranian proxy wars. they refused to acknowledge that lebanon is run by tehran and that the 2006 war in israel is nothing more than a proxy war extension of the war in

afghanistan. obama's quote, reset, unquote policy is nothing but a continuation of the bush policy, the clinton administration set the stage for vladimir putin's k.g.p. state by squandering the u.s.'s massive influence over post soviet russia and allowing boris gentleman stin and his cronies to transform the country into an impoverished clepping to be rahcy. -- kleptocracy. finally the bush policy of giving away land was shared with clinton and the second president bush. is obama really worse than everyone else or just the late nest a line u.s. potts -- presidents who have no idea how to run an effective foreign policy? the short answer is he is far

worse than his predecessors. a u.s. president's maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very small. the foreign policy establishment in the -- in washington is entrenched and uniformly opposed to bending to the will of the elected leaders. the elites in the state department and the c.i.a. and their cronies in academia and policy circles in washington are also consistently unmoved by reality. which as a rule exposes their policies as rues now. the president has two ways to shift the ship of state. first, he can use his bully pulpit. second, he can appoint people to key positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy. since entering office, obama has used both of these powers to ill effect. his travel across the world condemning and apologizing for u.s. world leadership. in so doing, he has convinced

ally and adversary alike that he is not a credible leader. that no one can depend on u.s. security guarantees during his watch. and that it is possible to attack the u.s., its allies and interests with impunity. obama's call for a nuclear-free world combined with hisive stance toward israel's reported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the u.s. nuclear arsenal and his ineffective response to north korea's nuclear brinksmanship and iran's nuclear project have served to convince nations from the persian gull to have south america to the pacific rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. by calling for nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear armament in history. given his own convictions, it is no surprise that all his key

foreign policy appointments share his dangerous views. the state department's legal advisor, harold cove, believes the u.s. should spord nate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. under secretary of defense for policy believes terrorists become rattled by us because they're poor. she is advised by leftist extremist, rosa brooks, attorney general eric holder has decided to open criminal investigations against c.i.a. operatives who interrogated terrorists and try illegal enemy combatants in civilian courts. in all these cases and countless others, obama's senior appointees are implementing policies that are more radical and dangerous than the radical and dangerous policies of the washington

policy establishment. not only are they weakening the u.s. and its allies, they are demoralizing public servants who are dedicated to defending their country by signaling clearly that the obama administration will leave them high and dry in a crisis. when a republican occupies the white house, his foreign policies are routine lie hi criticized and constrained by the liberal media. radical democratic presidents like woodrow wilson have seen their foreign policies reined in by republican congresses. given the threats obama's radical policies are provoking, it can only be hoped that through hearings and other means the republicans in the senate and the house of representatives will take an active role in curbing his policies. if they are successful, the american people and the international community will

owe them a debt of gratitude. that's as published in "the jerusalem post," november 26, 2010. interesting. it is quite disconcerting when we realize that this administration is sending out signals we won't stand by our friends, and thinking that if we send a message out, that we will embrace those who want to destroy our way of life, destroy our country and have pledged to do so, if we just show we're willing to be compassionate, they'll be deeply moved and come around to our side. hardly. history -- history teaches us very clearly that when people who despise another nation get

messages that that nation they despise is weak or will not defend itself, then they're provoked to action to destroy it, to take it over. now, hopefully we're a long way from that happening because there are enough people here in washington that believe that strength and a showing of strength and a showing of willingness to do what it takes to keep our oath to provide for the common defense for this country, that that is what keeps us at peace. that is what helps prevent wars. i believe it was reagan who used to talk about no one was ever attacked because people believed they were too strong. they attack because they think there's a weakness that they can take advantage of.

that's why after we pulled out of vietnam and that footage remains being shown to muslims in an attempt to radicalize them, see, america flees in the face of danger. see what happened in 1983 after the marine barracks was blown up and nearly 300 marines were killed? they left beirut. see what hpened back in 1979, when an act of international law, what international law would say was an act of war, american soil was attacked when our embassy was attacked, hostages taken, we did nothing but beg for tehran to let them go for over a year. that was another sign of weakness. when another act of war on the

u.s.s. cole was committed, we responded by lobbing some rockets, doing virtually no damage to people who were at war with us. so what are our enemies who want to see the united states destroyed, who have swn to destroy this country and our way of life, what are they to think when repeatedly we show weakness and we show that those who have nothing but hate, disdain and contempt for this country will be met with a warm embrace, what are they to think but to have more contempt for this country? now, carolyn glick mentions international law and that this president's advised by people who believe the u.s. should subordinate its laws to an abstract and largely unfounded notion of international law. i took a course in international law at baylor law

school under a visiting professor from japan. i did a research paper, got an a on it by the dean of a japanese law school visiting baylor for that year and having a conversation with him after the course was over, i said, for all the reading we've done and all the studying, all the discussion, debate, i come back to the conclusion that basically in short international law is whatever the strongest nation around says it is. and he says, in essence, you've learned from this course well. that's exactly right. international law is whatever the strongest nation around says it is. says it is. and yet, in response to attacks,

threatened attacks, threatened efforts to destroy our way of life, what we have seen is an effort to bow before those who want to destroy us, those who are not our friends. i filed in the three congresses that i have been in office here and i will file in the fourth one next ar, the u.n. voting accountability act that says a nation that votes against us more than half the time in the u.n., they are sovereign nations, we aren't going to tell them how they have to vote, any nation who votes against us won't get any financial assistance. you don't have to pay people to hate you, they'll do it for

free. and it's still true. america, the united states of america, is truly the greatest nation in the history of mankind. there are more liberties and more freedoms in this country than have ever been observed by the citizens of any country. as great as solomon's israel was, they didn't have the liberties for the people that this nation has. this is a nation that is supposed to be governed by the people who, on election day, go out and actually hire people to do their bidding for the subsequent years. for too long, not enough people have come out on hiring day to make sure that the best people got hired. for too long, people have not studied the applications, the

resumes, done the interviews of those who are seeking to be hired as the servants to go do their bidding as the people are the government. and so as the old addage people ensure democracy no bother they deserve. we have gotten what we deserve whether anyone likes it or not. the nation got we deserved. whether this nation likes this president or not, the nation got what we deserved and absolutely a truism that you can take to the bank, madam speaker, is that in 2012 elections, we will have a president elected or re-elected, who is no better than the nation deserves. now, there is one area of tremendous ignorance in this country and there's nothing

wrong with ignorance in an area of someone's knowledge unless they persist in that ignorance and refuse to learn and fill that void. we are told by our president that this is not a christian nation and i will not debate that. maybe we're not. but i know how the nation was founded. and i know enough history. and there are so many wonderful books. this is anher one by william federer, "americans, god and country" and i have read all the things that i'm about to enter into here in different areas as i studied history as a history major, but federaler -- federer has put these together to i will

ume ate how we got started. going back to july of 1776, hopefully, most people in america would know july of 1776 is when the declaration of independence was signed. but in july of 1776, benjamin franklin was appointed part of a committee to draft a seal for the newly united states, which would characteri the spirit of the nation. now, this was not adopted, but this was benjamin franklin's proposal. he proposed -- and this is a quote, moses lifting up his wand and dividing the red sea and pharaoh in his char yot

overwhelmed with the waters, with this motto, quote, rebelion to tyrants is obedience to god, unquote. that was benjamin franklin's proposal for our national sale. and -- seal. and what we had, two-sided seal is reflected on the back of every dollar bill. on the one side, the eagle with the ribbon through his mouth with the latin words, out of many, one. we come from all over the world, immigrants, loving immigration, immigrants come from all over the world, come here to the united states and become one, one in language, one intraaddition, one in our history, one strong american people.

the intent was back then as they me from all areas of the world that there would be no divided americans, whether you came here from europe, africa, asia, you came here and you were no longer african, european, asian, south american, you were american. you were brothers and sisters together in this land. and although you celebrate tradition, your rich culture from wherever your immigrant ancestors came from, still you would be here and become one people. well, in a letter that ben franklin wrote in march of 1778, ben franklin is attributed with this writing, quote, whoever

shall introduce in the public area fairs the principles of presumptive crist tanity will change the face of the world, unquote. another quote from benjamin franklin was, a bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district, all studied and appreciated as they merit are the principal support of virtue, morality and civil liberty. and ben franklin's pamphlet entitled "information to those who would move to america" which was written to europeans who were considering the move to america or intending to send their young people to seek their fortune in this land of opportunity, ben franklin wrote the following, quote, hence bad

examples toll youth are more rare in america, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. to this may be truly added that serious religion under its various denominations is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. ben franklin went on to say, quote, atheism, infidelity, rare and secret. so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shot with either meeting with an atheist or infidel. and the define being seems to have manifested the mutual

forebearance and kindness with which the different sex treat each other with the remarkable prosperity which he has been pleased to favor the whole country, unquote. ben franklin. he was talking about the sects and denominations, they were christian denominations he was talking about. in a letter, ben franklin wrote this, quote, i'm now entering in my 78th year, if i live to see this peace concluded, i shall beg leave to remind the congress of their promise then to dismiss me. i shall be happy to sing with old simian, quote, let our servant depart in peace for my eyes have seen thy salvation,

unquote. in another letter that ben franklin wrote april 17, 1787, he said, quote, only a virt youous people are capable of freedom as nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters, end quote. then on june 28, 1787, ben franklin delivered a powerful speech to the constitutional constitution which was in a bitter debate over how each state was to be represented in the new government. the hostile feelings created by the smaller states being pitted against the larger states was so bitter that some delegates actually left the convention. ben franklin, being the president and zpwoffer of pennsylvania hosted the rest of

the 55 delegates attending the convention. being the senior member of the convention at 81 years of age, he commanded the respect of all present. and as recorded in james madison's detailed records, he rose to speak in this moment of crisis. this is from the book, but this speech that ben franklin gave in 1787 at the constitutional convention truly was given at a moment in crisis. it had been going for five weeks and nothing but anger and bitterness had persisted in the convention. they were no where close to coming to agreement on anything, much less a constitution. now i was taug in school that benjamin franklin was a diest that he believed some power,

something, created the universe, created the nature that we have come to know and then steps back and never interseeds and never does anything to deal with the ways of man. yet, when you read his own words, you read letters he wrote, things he said that's quite clear, a diest he was not. he was two years away from meeting his maker and suffering from gout. as the senior delegate, governor, president, whatever you wish to call him at the convention and considered the host, he still had to be helped in. he was not doing well physically, but mentally, he was sharp as ever. his witness was amazing as ever. -- his witt was amazing as ever and this is the speech he gave in this time of critical crisis

in the constitutional convention in 1787. he was addressing the president of the constitutional convention, president washington, not president of the country yet, bsehe was no constitution and no president under that, but he said, mr. president, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks, close attendance and continual reasonings with each other our different sentments on almost every question, several of the last producing many nos as yeas thinks there is proof of the i am perfection of the human understanding. we seem to feel our unwant of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. we have gone back to ancient

history for modern government and examined the form of ancient government which is having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. and we viewed modern states all around europe but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances. in this situation, of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth and scarce able to delish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understanding? in the beginning contest with great britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. our prayers, sir, were heard

and they were graciously answered. all of us who were engaged in the strug. must have served frequent instances of a superintendenting providence in our favor. to that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the meanings of establishing our future national felicity. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend, or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? ben franklin goes on and says, i have lived, sir a long time and the longer i live, the more convincing proofs i see of this truth, god governs in the affairs of men.

if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire could rise without his aid? we've been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, quote, except the lord build a house, they labor in vain that build it. unquote. franklin then says, firmly believe this, he said, i also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babel. we shall be divided by a -- by partial local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall be -- shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. and what is worse, mankind may

hereafter from this unfortunate incidence despair of forming governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance. i move therefore that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and his blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business. and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to efficient in that service. -- to officiate in that service. franklin sat town. -- sat down. there are notes the response to the speech by benjamin franklin, was reported by delegate jonathan dayton of new jersey he wrote these words, quote, when he says the doctor, he's talking about benjamin franklin, as some

affectionately called him. dayton said, quote, the doctor sat down, and never did i behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of washington at the close of the address, nor with the members of the convention, general -- nor were the members of the convention generallyless affect. the words of the venerable franklin fell on our ears with a weight and authority even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in the roman senate. unquote. following franklin's historical address, james madison moved, seconded by roger sherman of connecticut, that dr. franklin's appeal for prayer be

enacted. edmund jennings randolph of virginia further moved with these words, quote, that aer is month be preached at the request -- that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the fourth of july, the anniversary of independence, and thenceforward, prayers be used in ye convention are every morning, unquote. the clergy of washington responded to this request -- actually, that was philadelphia. responded to this request and affected a profound change in the convention when they reconvened on july 2, 1787, and jonathan dayton, again records these words, quote, we re-- we assembled again and every unfriendly feeling had been expelled. in a spirit of conciliation had

been cultivated, unquote. on july 4, the entire convention assembled in the reform calvinistic church according to the proposal by edmund jennings randolph of virginia, and heard a sermon by reverend william rogers. his prayer reflected the hearts of the delegates following franklin's admonition. these are his words. quote, we fervently recommend to the fatherly notice our federal convention, favor them from day to day with thy inspiring presence, feed their -- be their wisdom and strength, enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the

good of the great whole that the united states of america may form one example of a free and virtuous government. may we continue under the influence of republican virtue -- and that's with a little r, not this republican party to protect -- partake of all the blessings of cultivated and christian society. with that prayer, reverend william jennings concluded as requested by the gentleman from virginia, edmund jennings randolph, as a result of franklin's speech, as a result of following through on franklin's request to begin with prayer, as physical lowed

by randolph's request for a sermon and ending with a powerful prayer, we got a constitution. although it's certainly ignored around this town so often that even by the supreme court as they did when they ignored the bankruptcy law and the constitution to allow the travesty of the g.m. and chrysler debacle to become law as unconstitutional and illegal as it was. we still haven't -- we still have a constitution we have got to get back to. we still have a situation that franklin noted that so many in our early days noted, can sustain us if we continue with

a prayer, as franklin saw, as if we continue to hold to those values on which this nation was founded, but a nation in which you destroy the family, destroy the nuclear family, you've destroyed the building block for any great, truly great society, that's been broken down. you enslave people basically or make them indentured servants by doling out money from washington, leuering young people into ruts from which they can never rise, it's disgraceful. it's immoral. this congress, this city, this government should be propelling young people, encouraging, invigorating, incentivizing people to reach their god-given

potential, for heaven's sake, not leuering them into ruts from which they can never arise. not leuering them into ruts from which they can -- not leuering them into ruts from which they can only clamor and big for more help from washington. they're to be empowered with opportunity, not with handouts but with opportunity to reach their own god-given potential. a mother eagle does not continue to feet feed her babies indefinitely. the little hatch lings are not -- hatchlings are not fed for the rest of their lives. they're nurtured, they're taught, then they're given the opportunity to spread their wings and fly. it drove me from the bench as a judge to have seen repeatedly

what this congress' laws had done to lure people into holes and give them no way out. that was never the intention of the founders. that should never be the intention of a moral society. you help those who truly cannot help themselves but for those that can, you don't keep telling them to get in the wagon and continue to make fewer and fewer people pull the wagon until they can no longer bear the load and the whole system collapses of its own weight. you can't keep doing that. we've done so much damage to this nation, $1.6 trillion deficit last year, $1.3 trillion projected for this year.

$3 trillion in two years. incredible. do people not know, even modern history? the soviet union didn't even spend that kind of equivalent but they spent quickly enough trying to keep up with our defensive posture through the defense system and with their own socialistic programs, they could not get anyone to loan them more money. does that sound familiar? we're having to buy our own debt -- we're not having to we just won't quit spending. it's immoral. it's so irresponsible. and i hear people saying, but it's just so hard to make these difficult cuts. it isn't.

as a freshman here in 2005 and 2006, standing on this side of the aisle, i heard people rightfully on the other side of the aisle saying, you guys are running a deficit budget. between $100 billion and $200 billion. that's irresponsible. and the democrats who said that were right. we should not have been running a deficit budget in 2005 and 2006. it was irresponsible. it needed to stop. friends on that side of the aisle said you put us in the majority, we'll end this crazy spending in such a deficit form. and yet when the gavel was handed to speaker pelosi, in january of 2007, what we began to experience was spending like this nation has never known until january of 2009 when the

spending went on steroids and instead of having a $100 billion to $200 billion deficit in one year, we went to having nearly -- between a $1 trillion and $2 trillion deficit in one year. how long before we face the same consequence that the soviet union faced when countries around the world said, look, we have been warning you that if you didn't get your spending under control, we wouldn't loan you any more money. we won't. we're done. you're on your own. and then the nation realizes, you can't print enough money to pay your way out of the debt the soviet union had creat and the very kind of debt we're creating now. so they had to announce, we're out of business. the states were on their own.

it can happen here. it's got to stop. and it's not that hard. all we have to do is go back to the budget of 2006 or even 2007, the republican congress created. and say, you know what, we as democrats condemned the republicans for spending too much in the 2006-2007 budget, and so let's go back to that budget. we condemn them for spending too much in 2006 and 2007, let's go back to that budget. let's use that budget. and let's stop these automatic increases every year. year. i have been following that bill every congress. it's time it passed. i brought it to the attention of our leaders in 2006, in january and february of 2006, yet no action was taken by the republican congress and obviously the last two democratic congresses have had a

sero-based line budget bill. go back to 2006 and 2007, no automatic increases. we get spending under control and we take care of our indebtedness and still strong and even stronger. and then we send a message loud and clear and i hope speaker boehner does, invite prime minister netanyahu and address a joint session so both sides can see standing and applauding the leader of our great friend and ally in the middle east, israel. let the nation see that and then that symbolism be followed by action where we don't reward our enemies and the enemies of our dear friend israel and we don't punish our dear friends and dear

allies. if you are our friend and ally, we work with you. if not, you're on your own. we aren't going to continue propping up countries that hate us. there are so many lessons to be learned from history, both of our own nation and foreign and current history. and may god have mercy on us if we do not learn those lessons. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for a motion. mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.. those opposed, no. the yeas have it. the motion is agreed to.

>> this week members are expected to take a resolution to keep the federal government operating past the current december 3 deadline. live coverage of the house when members return always here on c- span. in a few moments, president obama and congressional leaders talk about their meeting today and plans to work together on tax policy. in about a half-hour, the pit again releases its report on the don't ask don't tell policies regarding gays in the military.

secretary gives is urging congress to repeal the policy. later, an update from the national commission on fiscal responsibility. after that, a panel of school superintendents from around the country looking to improve education. >> find great holiday gifts that are c-span store, and from books to dvd is, to muds, umbrellas, and more. it is all available online at c- span.org. >> after meeting with congressional leaders today, president obama said trekked -- treasury secretary tim geithner and jack lew would work with congressional leaders. you will also hear from republicans and democratic leaders.

>> hello, everybody. for those of you who are curious, we're using this room because we have about 100 volunteers decorating the white house. we're spending a little more time in the eeob. i just wrapped up a meeting with leaders from both parties. it was the first chance to get together face to face since the election to work together to move the country forward. it is no secret that we have had differences that have led us to part ways on many issues in the past. but we are americans first, and we share a responsibility for the stewardship of our nation. the american people did not vote for gridlock.

they did not vote for unyielding partisanship. they are demanding cooperation and progress. and they will hold all of us -- and i mean all of us -- i accountable for it. i was very encouraged that there was broad recognition of that in the room. i just want to say i thought it was a productive meeting. i thought people came to it with a spirit of working together. i think it is a good start as we move forward. i think everyone understands that the american people want us to focus on their jobs, not ours. they want us to come together around strategies to accelerate the recovery and get americans back to work. they want us to confront the long-term deficits that cloud our future. they want us to focus on their safety and security, and not allow matters of urgent importance to become locked up in the politics of washington. today we had the beginning of a

new dialogue that i hope and i am sure most americans hope will break through the noise and produce real gains. as we all agreed, that should begin today because there are some things we need to get done in the weeks before congress leaves town for the holidays. first, we should work to make sure that taxes will not go up by thousands of dollars on hardworking middle-class americans come january 1st, which would be disastrous for those families, but also could be crippling for the economy. there was broad agreement that we need to work to get that resolved before the end of the year. there are still differences about how to get there. republican leaders want to permanently extend tax cuts not only to middle-class families but also to some of the wealthiest americans at the same time. here we disagree. i believe, and the other

democrats who were in the room believe, that this would add an additional $700 billion to our debt in the next 10 years. i continue to believe it would be unwise and unfair, particularly at time when we are contemplating deep budget cuts that require broad sacrifice. having said that, we agreed that there must be some sensible common ground. so i appointed my treasury secretary, tim geithner, and my budget director, jack lew, to work with representatives of both parties to break through this logjam. i have asked the leaders to appoint members to help in this negotiation process. they agree to do that. the process is beginning right away and we expect to get some answers back over the next couple of days about how we can accomplish our key goal, making sure the economy continues to grow and we put people back to

work. and we also want to make sure that we're giving the middle class the peace of mind of knowing that their taxes will not be raised come january 1. i also urged both parties to move quickly to preserve a number of other tax breaks for individuals and businesses that are helping our recovery right now and are set to expire. this includes a tax credit for college tuition, a tax credit for 95% -- and that -- a tax break for 95% of working families that i initiated at the beginning of my presidency, as well as a tax cut worth thousands of dollars for businesses that hire unemployed workers. we discussed a number of issues as well, including the importance of ratifying the new start treaty so that we can monitor russia's nuclear arsenal, reduce our nuclear weapons, and strengthen our relationship with russia. this treaty has been vetted for

seven months now. it has gone through 18 hearings. it has support from senators of both parties. it has broad bipartisan support from national security advisors and secretaries of defense and secretaries of state from previous administration, both democrat and republican. it is absolutely essential to our national security. we need to get it done. we also talked about the work of the bipartisan deficit reduction commission and the difficult choices required in order to get our fiscal house in order. we discussed working together to keep the government running this year and running in a fiscally responsible way. we discussed unemployment insurance, which expires today. ipad asked that congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own. none of this is going to be easy. we have two parties for a

reason. there are real philosophical differences, if -- deeply held principles to which each party holds. the atmosphere in this meeting was extremely civil. there is no doubt that those differences will remain no matter how many we -- how many meetings we have. there is always going to be a political incentive against working together, particularly in the current hyperpartisan climate. there are always those who argue that the strategy is to try to defeat your opposition instead of working with them. even the notion of bipartisanship itself has gotten caught up in this mentality. a lot of times coming out of these meetings, both sides claim they want to work together, but try to paint the opponent as unyielding and unwilling to cooperate. both sides come to the table, they read their talking points, then they head out to the microphones trying to win the news cycle instead of solving

problems. it becomes just another move in an old washington game. i think there was recognition today that that is a game we cannot afford, not in these times. and in a private meeting that i had without the staff -- without betraying any confidences -- i was pleased to see several of my friends in the room say, let's try not to duplicate that. let's not try to work the washington spin cycle to suggest that somehow the other side is not being cooperative. i think there was a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together to try to deal with these problems. and they understand that these are not times for us to be playing games. as i told the leaders at the beginning of the meeting, the next election is two years away. there will be plenty of time for campaigning. right now we're facing serious

challenges. we share an obligation to meet them, and now will require choosing the best of our ideas over the worst of our politics. that is the spirit in which i invited both parties here today. i am happy with how that meeting went. i told all the leadership that i look forward to holding additional meetings, including at camp david. harry reid mentioned that he has been in congress for 28 years and never been to camp david. i told him we would have to get them all up there sometime soon. i appreciate their presence and the tenor of the conversations. i think will actually real -- yield results before the end of the year, and i look forward to continuing this dialogue in the months ahead. thank you very much, everybody. >> let me begin.

the president at the white house, but we had a very frank conversation. we all understood what the american people said election day very thoroughly. the president and the democrat leaders acknowledge that the american people want us to create jobs and cut spending. the president did suggest that to unlocked the tax agreement -- this agreement that we have, that the secretary of treasury and the budget director would sit down with four of our members, one from each caucus on the hill, to begin a discussion to try to unlock this disagreement we have