Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. As the gentleman knows if he will yield, a criminal defense lawyer in a civilian court is going to use discovery at every opportunity to embarrass the United States of America and to blame America first for the acts of a terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And what concerns me the most is that they're going to make a mockery of our criminal justice system here in the United States and use it as a propaganda weapon in what I still refer to as this war on terror. This was one of the biggest mistakes this President has made. The decision to close Guantanamo Bay--I saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed down in Guantanamo; it was one of the most chilling things I've ever seen, as he prayed, bowed over his prayer rug, to Mecca. We haven't broken his spirit. And this administration again just granted him his wish. He gets his lawyer now, and he gets to come to New York City, just like his nephew, Ramsay Yusef did, who, by the way, did not get the death penalty. And as I close, as I move on, I sincerely hope that--this was a huge mistake--but I sincerely hope that this man is given the ultimate punishment so he can--not only here on earth but move on to the next world.

Mr. McCAUL. And this administration again wants to take the vernacular war on terror, they want to just erase the last, you know, 4, 8 years. No, it was never a war. These are just criminal cases that need to be prosecuted and we need to treat them that way.

Mr. McCAUL. Political correctness. And when has the Constitution of the United States been applied to enemies who are captured on the battlefield outside of the United States? I don't think that's ever been done. I'm not sure if that has ever been done.

Mr. McCAUL. And you're going to bring him into New York. And Osama Bin Laden, in the late 1990s, declared war against the United States. He actually declared war against the United States.

Mr. McCAUL. Precisely. And what came out in a shocking story that has not been told enough, in my view, was that FBI agents were there at the detention facilities reading them the Miranda rights. This is where this administration has shifted towards treating them as criminal defendants in Afghanistan, with full rights of the U.S. Constitution in Afghanistan. And I believe it is a sad day for America when we bring this mastermind of 9/11 to the very city where he killed 3,000 Americans.

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman would yield, this was clearly evident early in this administration under their global justice policy that no longer would apprehended terrorists captured on the battlefield be treated as enemies of war.

Mr. McCAUL. One, I want an attorney, and, number two, Take me to New York. And you know what? President Obama and this administration gave him his wish. I just want to end my comments by saying you and I have tried cases. This is going to be a circus, a show trial of the maximum. The motions to transfer venue, the motions to suppress the evidence, none of the information we got from Khalid Shiekh Mohammed using water-boarding, which has protected American lives, which, by the way, this administration wants to investigate and put those CIA and intelligence people in jail. The discovery alone, as the gentleman from Arizona stated, will keep this thing alive for years to come, will involve classified information that will not be properly protected as it would in the military court. Finally, on the security issue, I think the gentleman from Texas is right: this will become a Mecca for the terrorists, not only to al Qaeda but homegrown, radicalized homegrown, whether Mr. Moussaoui is homegrown, radicalized, or not, people like him will come to New York to blow buildings up and to prey on the jury perhaps or the judges.

Mr. McCAUL. If the gentleman would yield, what was the first thing that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed said when he was apprehended in Islamabad? It was two things.

Mr. McCAUL. My point is that that language has been taken out of the vernacular by this administration for whatever reason. We have our points as to why, but this is not being viewed as a war. What happened by the decision to bring in the mastermind of 9/11 to the very city where 3,000 Americans were murdered basically was a signal by this administration that the war on terror is over, that we are no longer going to treat terrorists as enemies of war; but, rather, we're going to go back to the Clinton administration years where we're going to treat them as criminal defendants, like Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, a criminal defendant. Not an act of war, but he is a criminal defendant. By the way, Ramzi Yousef did not get the death penalty. And he went to talk to his Uncle Khalid Shiekh Mohammed about flying airplanes into buildings, and look what happened. Moussaoui did not get the death penalty because a lot of evidence was held to be inadmissible in a Federal court. If they are true enemies of war, the best venue to try them is, as we did in World War II, by military tribunals. And the rules of evidence, as you know, Judge, I was a Federal prosecutor in the Justice Department, Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney, one of the finest in the country. But the fact is you bring them on American soil, give them all rights under the Constitution, as my good friend from Arizona stated, why does Khalid Shiekh Mohammed get constitutional rights?

Mr. McCAUL. Are we not in a war on terror?

Mr. McCAUL. Are we not in a war on terror, in your view?

Mr. McCAUL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. Again, reclaiming my time, I think I speak for most Americans, we do not want to see this thing swept under the rug. We don't want to see the rush to judgment that it was the act of one man--and perhaps it was--but the American people need to know the truth, and they need to know who he was talking to. And when the reporting came out that he was talking to the top al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen by emails and that there were communications in Pakistan, that raises big flags in this case. We cannot ignore that. It is our constitutional duty to ask the tough questions to get to the bottom of this case so that the American people, through their representatives, can find out what really happened that tragic day on November 5. And if we don't do that, and if the majority does not want to do that and bows to the President and his request, I think we are being derelict in our responsibilities. Again, this is a man who places allegiance more to the Koran than the Constitution, in his own words. ``Son of Allah'' on his business cards, dressed in the Pakistan garb, classic of the suicide bomber techniques to will your possessions away, wear the dress the morning of. I think he fully expected not to survive the incident. He did. And the best evidence we have is inside his head. Of course the first thing he did was ask for an attorney, and he is not speaking. That is the same thing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked for. When he first got arrested, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked for two things: I want a lawyer, and I want to be taken to New York City. And unfortunately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got his wish that day because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be brought to New York now under the President's new guidelines. I think getting to the bigger picture of all this, as we've taken ``war on terror'' out of the vernacular, we are moving back to this Clinton era where these terrorists are treated not as enemies of war but as criminal defendants. We are in a war, like it or not. We are in a war. We need to treat these people who mean to do us harm as enemies of war. The military tribunals are the best way to prosecute. We are going to bring Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into the United States to the very city where 3,000 people were killed at his hands. I was a Federal prosecutor. The Southern District of New York is one of the finest U.S. Attorney's offices and is probably best equipped to handle that prosecution, but the Federal rules of evidence are very different from the military tribunals. It's going to withhold evidence from trial. It will not protect classified information. It will turn to a showcase. And as in the case of Moussaoui, whose computer records were ruled inadmissible, he got life imprisonment. Ramsey Yousef, the perpetrator of the '93 World Trade Center got life imprisonment. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed deserves the death penalty. It was an act of war. Now, I don't know if the administration is saying, you know, basically that the war on terror is over, it's over so let's just go ahead and bring these people in and treat them like criminal defendants, but I think they are making a serious mistake, not only compromising the prosecutions of these terrorists but bringing them into a city that has been a target for quite some time. It's only going to heighten the state of alertness in New York City and become a mecca for jihadists around the world to come to New York to see the spectacle of a show trial. They ought to be tried in Guantanamo. Guantanamo never should have been closed or the order should never have been sent out to close it, and a military tribunal is best equipped to prosecute these individuals. Just let me say in closing, we've been dealing with the health care legislation. It is very important for the Nation, but we were struck by a heavy blow last week, November 5, at Fort Hood. We never expected it to be one of our own. We never expected an act of treason on that level, killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30 others, firing off 100 rounds, yelling out ``Allahu Akbar,'' talking to known al Qaeda operatives in Yemen and possibly Pakistan. There are too many questions in this case, too many red flags, and the American people deserve the answer. We in the Congress--and I know my good friend from Indiana stands with me--we're not going to sit back and follow the orders of this President to stand down and not exercise our constitutional responsibility. There is a separation of branches of government under the Constitution for a good reason. The executive branch can't sweep things under the rug. The American people, through their representatives, need to find out what really happened. The American people deserve the truth in this case. They deserve hearings, a full investigation and the truth to come out. I commend our great fighting men and women. I have had so many constituents who have gone through Fort Hood on their missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. They were serving very bravely and nobly in a very, very important struggle between radical Islam and freedom, between the jihadists and democracy. We will eventually win that struggle. We pray for the victims' families, and we pray that God holds their loved ones in the palms of his hands.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the 72 hours we were allowed, Republicans weeded through thousands of pages of bureaucratic provisions, mandates, programs and spending. Despite its monstrous size, this health care takeover has come down to a few clear, evident points: it raises taxes, raises premiums, increases health care costs, and dumps trillions of dollars of debt on our children and grandchildren. Small businesses and families will bear the weight of this bill for generations. We all agree that health care reform is urgently needed, but this bill destroys the American health care system as opposed to improving it. Instead of incentivizing the private market to offer more affordable health care coverage options, it punishes small businesses and their employees. It threatens jail time for individuals who do not purchase insurance and could soon lead to the rationing of care, depriving Americans of life-saving treatments that are not deemed ``cost-effective.'' Even doctors, the most experienced in this health care debate, oppose this proposal and have shared concerns of the many clinics and hospitals that will be forced to reduce or deny services. The over 2,000 page spending plan imposes nearly $800 billion in new taxes on individuals, families and small businesses. It places mandates on both individuals and employers which, according to the President's Economic Advisor, will result in the loss of up to 5.5 million jobs. These mandates will also discourage the hiring of low-wage and minority workers. In the face of both a recession and a 10.2% unemployment rate, Speaker Pelosi's unprecedented tax-and-spend approach will come at the expense of American citizens. Moreover, while the majority of Americans are happy with their health care coverage, an estimated 114 million Americans will lose their insurance under Speaker Pelosi's plan and be dumped into the government-run option. The plan also cuts more than $170 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage. The bill puts the government in the middle of Americans' personal health care decisions, as opposed to reform based on improving the quality and affordability of health care. While Democrats have continually touted the benefits of a public option, they themselves voted against an amendment to require enrollment for Members of Congress. This speaks volumes to the true quality of a government plan, as what I view as adequate coverage for the American public would also be adequate for my family. Furthermore, the bill also abolishes the private health insurance market, forcing all individuals to purchase coverage through a government-controlled Exchange and eliminating choices from the health care system. While this bill takes care of Members of Congress, it eliminates the freedom of choice for the American public. Republicans have introduced numerous bills to provide improvements in the cost and delivery of health care, but we have been denied a seat at the table. Behind closed doors, the Democrats crafted a monstrosity of a bill to take over one sixth of the economy, and then limited floor debate to four or five hours on one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation we have ever seen. The Republican alternative provides a common-sense approach to the main problems in our health care system. It would lower premiums, decrease health care costs, reign in federal spending, and allow for more options, choice, and innovation in the health care system. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that average premiums under the Republican alternative would be almost $5,000 less than under the Democratic plan in 2016. It would provide incentive grants for states to further lower premiums, and allow businesses to innovate ways to promote health and wellness and curb health care spending. The alternative would also expand high risk pools, prohibit insurance companies from denying individuals with pre- existing conditions, and ensure inter-state purchasing of health insurance. These reforms would drive down the costs of health care to make it more affordable for Americans while also protecting the choice and numerous options that citizens need. I have spoken to many health care professionals in my District as well as held town halls with my constituents, and both have expressed not only their opposition, but their fear, of this government takeover of health care. We are not listening to Americans, and we are missing the opportunity to use insight from the experts in the field to enact meaningful reform. This bill is not what Americans have asked for.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd just like to say, when things like this happen, you have to ask the question, many ask the question, why? Why did this have to happen? Why such a senseless act of violence that killed 13 people and wounded 30? Why did they have to die, our men and women serving in uniform? And there will be an investigation into why, what was the motivation of Mr. Hasan, but that's for a later day. Today we honor these fallen heroes. And when I think about them, I think about the mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters who have lost their loved ones both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the hardest thing we have to do as Members of Congress is to comfort these families who have lost their loved ones and try to make some sense out of it. They know that they have died for a just and noble cause. And, as Mr. Edwards knows, my good friend and colleague from Texas who knows so many people from the State of Texas that have gone through this training facility, one of the greatest in the world, the largest military installation in the United States, they are brave. I know there are many families at home today, many families watching the television, some maybe watching this on C-SPAN who are in tears, whose hearts are broken, who know that they can't get back what they lost. But to those families, know that we in the Congress hear their tears. We hear their cries. This resolution stands in strong support of them. We emotionally stand behind them, that we have passed legislation for both the veterans and active-duty servicemen, in addition to posttraumatic disorder. There are many issues regarding our veterans and our active-duty men and women. We are addressing those in this Congress. We are taking care of them. In my view, our most solemn obligation under the Constitution is for the Congress to not only take care of our veterans returning home but to fully support our active men and women serving both in the United States and abroad. With that, let me end by saying God bless them and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) such time as he may consume.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. McCAUL. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the provision authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to be subjected to civil suits by uninjured third parties. If complaints have been made against the Secretary for failing to enforce the law, the inspector general of DHS can already initiate an investigation. If that is insufficient, then Congress can act. Allowing any third party--anybody--to sue the Secretary is both reckless and unnecessary. This provision would be a boon to trial lawyers and to environmentalists at the expense of the Department of Homeland Security and national security interests. Citizen suits have no place in a national security context, and this would be the very first time that Congress would be authorizing such suits in the homeland security arena. Environmentalists file hundreds of citizen suits annually, and they consume substantial governmental resources and taxpayer funds. Some agencies expend almost their entire annual budgets simply responding to these lawsuits. For instance, in May of 2008, The Washington Post noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service had been caught in a legal vise that has forced it to spend most of its time responding to lawsuits and following judges' orders while its mission has slowed to a near halt. We cannot afford the same consequence with the Department of Homeland Security. In the meantime, the mission of the agency falls by the wayside. This bill currently allows a citizen suit by any person. There is no requirement that the person be harmed or that the person be a local resident or even a United States citizen. The Congress has always treated national security as an inherently governmental matter and one in which sensitive security-related information has been rigorously protected. This marks the first time that citizen suits may result in the disclosure of very sensitive chemical facility vulnerability information. The Department of Homeland Security also opposes the civil suit provisions. Deputy Under Secretary Philip Reitinger, who I had the pleasure to work with at the Department of Justice, testified that it is true that any civil suit provision at least raises a specter of some diversion of resources. As a former longtime litigator in the DOJ, he also testified that, inevitably, there is some risk of disclosure of information, and this information is very sensitive. That means sensitive security information could easily get into the wrong hands. I think yesterday is a reminder that we need to stay vigilant. Committee staff spoke just this Tuesday with DHS staff to see if their position on this citizen suit provision had changed. It had not. They are still strongly opposed to this provision. Introducing these provisions in the national security arena has the potential not only to divert DHS from its security-related missions but to also result in the disclosure of protected sensitive information. This entire bill, including the provision I am trying to strike, will inadvertently have an impact on the private sector, on business, and on the overall economy at a time when we can least afford it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.