Jerry Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. It had not been my intention to speak on this measure in order to save time, but you're making a point that's really very fundamental. I would like to commend both of you, the chairman and the ranking member, for the fabulous job here. But, most importantly, some years ago I had the opportunity to Chair the VA Appropriations Subcommittee. During those years, we were most concerned that, while there was bipartisan support on the House floor and funding rose for veterans, that the various organizations that support funding and veterans here in Washington were not helping us much out there where the people really get their service at the veterans hospitals. There has been a radical change in our ability to make sure that service is being delivered effectively. And it's due to the work of the two of you and the bipartisan effort here that we have had this success. So thank you.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following projects that were included in H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010: Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis. Bill Number: H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 Project Name: Mojave Water Agency Non-Native Plant Removal Account: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mojave Water Agency Address of Requesting Entity: 22450 Headquarters Drive, Apple Valley, CA 92307 Description of Request: $667,000 will be provided to help complete a project to remove invasive weeds from the Mojave River area in cooperating with an ongoing local initiative. The Mojave River serves thousands of acres of federal land, including the Mojave National Preserve. Non-native plants are a constant threat to the Mojave River's ecosystem. Removing them will conserve vast amounts of water, which is a very precious resource in this area. Removal will also protect wildlife and dramatically reduce the risk of flood and fire. Project Name: Prototype for a National Carbon Inventory and Accounting System Account: General Provisions Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Environmental Systems Research Institute Address of Requesting Entity: 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100 Description of Request: This project will develop an online visual mapping and analysis system capable of measuring and displaying the amount of carbon produced and removed by our nation's farms, ranches, and forests. It will allow for better, timelier, and more coordinated conservation, land management, and environmental policies at the local, state, and national levels. The project will help improve the environment and help our nation's farms, ranches, and forests. Project Name: Nutrition, Diet, and Lifestyle Research for Longevity and Healthy Aging Account: National Institute of Food and Agriculture Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center--Lifestyle Medicine Institute Address of Requesting Entity: 11175 Campus St., Loma Linda, CA 92354 Description of Request: This project will build on fifty years of ongoing research to support the nation's priorities for wellbeing, prevention of disease, and healthy aging. The Institute will conduct research in nutrition and diet and compare the aspects of diet and lifestyle to health and longevity. It will utilize this research to improve the health care system, to increase wellness and prevention of diseases, and to educate the community on the healthiest lifestyles and activities, such as proper dieting and nutrition. The university is situated in Loma Linda, CA, which has one of the longest-living populations in the nation.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend Frank Reyes, an exceptional educator who has helped the San Bernardino Community College District become a national leader in programs designed to meet a diverse student body. Frank Reyes has been involved in education in San Bernardino County for more than three decades, beginning with receiving a bachelors and masters degree from California State University, San Bernardino, and culminating in his current position as Executive Director of Governmental Affairs for the 16,000-student San Bernardino Community College District. Prior to joining the district management team, Frank worked as a counselor, professor, Director of Community Services and Director of the Counseling Department. He has shown a dedication to his hometown, and the students there, which has paid huge dividends for the community college district. He is part of the team that has helped keep costs down, while improving the campuses and their quality of education. This has helped make the two colleges--Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, and Valley College in San Bernardino--among the most diverse in the Nation. In his current role in administration, Frank has been extremely successful at winning competitive government grants for the community college district. After a major earthquake in 1992 made nearly all of the buildings at the Valley College campus unsafe, Frank led a team that secured Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to build a new library, health and human services building, administration and student services building. Most recently, the campus has added a 37,000-square- foot campus center, a new art building and modern gallery. I was proud to work closely with Frank in bringing funding to deserving projects for the colleges. Thanks largely to his hard work, the Federal Aviation Administration provided $12.6 million for a new state-of-the-art fire academy that focuses on commercial aviation fires. Located at the San Bernardino International Airport, the facility attracts students from all over the country for real-life training on a jet fuselage. Most recently, I was delighted to work with Frank in winning the donation to Crafton Hills College of the swimming pool used in the 2004 Olympic Trials, which will be part of a recreation facility used by both the students and the community. Frank has developed a national reputation for education excellence, serving on the International Development Team in Spain in May 2006, as well as the Defense Department's partnership with the Hispanic Associations of Colleges and Universities (HACU). Frank was also selected to be part of the U.S. Delegation to China in February 2006. The delegation continues its work on business, education and cultural exchanges. He has been a national leader with HACU, ensuring a significant federal funding increase for schools with significant Hispanic student bodies. His community involvement beyond the colleges has been widely recognized--he has been listed in the Inland Empire Magazine as one of The Most Influential Hispanics and was named Latino of the Year by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He has been Chairman of the Board for the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Foundation for two years, and is an active Board member of the Hands of Mercy, an organization which builds loft houses for the indigent. Madam Speaker, after three decades of service to the students and people of San Bernardino County, Frank Reyes is retiring from the community college district. Please join me in thanking him for his hard work and dedication, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much for yielding me the time. I really rise for a couple of reasons to speak generally about this bill. First is to say that the two people who are providing the leadership for this bill are as fine of members of the Appropriations Committee as there are. Chairman Price is one of those people who digs into issues, does his homework. He treats people in a fair and balanced way. Beyond that, he's a fabulous person to be associated with in the Appropriations Committee. Hal Rogers, on the other hand--let's see, what can I say about Hal Rogers? A wonderful Member from Kentucky, who also in this arena knows as much about this subject as anybody that I know. One of the things that's disconcerting to me about this bill, for it is one that perhaps addresses the most important area of responsibility we have, that is, protecting our homeland. Combine this bill with our national security measure and that is our national defense and America's ability to protect freedom in the world. But, indeed, it's interesting to note that at a subcommittee meeting recently, I spent some time dealing with another bill, an area that the public isn't always so supportive of, namely, the foreign assistance or foreign aid bill. And it came to my attention in this process and exchange that the foreign aid bill that will be coming to the floor very soon is approximately $10 billion more than our Homeland Security bill. Think about that. We're in a condition where people, to say the least, here at home are pressed to the wall, all kinds of concerns besides the economy, concern about our security here at home. And they don't always stand up intently to say we've got to be sending our money overseas in the form of foreign aid. In this arena, the Homeland Security bill has almost $10 billion less in it than the foreign aid bill. Now, it's a very interesting commentary, to say the least. Beyond that, let me mention to both the chairman and the ranking member, California, of course, has lots of border. Later on, I will have an amendment relative to border security. But, indeed, I know many of the Members who are listening to this discussion today are worried about their own borders in their home territory. If we cannot advance technologically and by way of funding our ability to protect our homeland and be dead serious about it, projecting over a 10-year period, then we're making a very big mistake in this House. The work that's done by our chairman and our ranking member has produced a very fine product. They really have balanced, within the limited means that they have, the priorities that I think I would apply myself. But, indeed, I want the Members to know that there is still a lot of work to do. And, one more time, congratulations to both Hal Rogers and to our chairman.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, as I proceed with this amendment, I want to one more time associate myself first with the remarks of my ranking member regarding the manager's amendment but, in turn, express my deep respect and appreciation for the two gentlemen handling this bill. Chairman Price and my colleague from Kentucky have worked very professionally together and I think this House would be served well if we extend it to all of our subcommittees. The amendment which I have at the desk is a relatively simple amendment. I rise to restore some balance to what otherwise is a thoughtful and very constructive bill. My amendment takes a small fraction of funding, increases recommended for administrative expenses, and adds 200 new Border Patrol agents out of that transfer of funding, agents that will serve on the front lines of the bloody drug war raging in Mexico and produce increased security across our borders from entry by way of smugglers and people who are coming here for other sorts of contraband activities. My amendment seeks to increase the resources for those who are charged to keep our Nation safe and secure as well as ensnare money and illegal weapons flowing southbound; resources that will fulfill the promises repeatedly made by President Obama to both the American people and the courageous Mexican Government in their fight against the cartels. In fact, it was just 2 weeks ago that the President unveiled a new strategy on securing the southwest border and fighting the cartels, a strategy that calls for sustained enhancements to border security and counternarcotics activities. The President's budget request calls for only 44 new agents. That's right, only 44 new agents. Contrast that with the 2,500 additional agents this Congress funded just last year; 44 new agents in this bill, 2,500 additional agents last year. How can we support such a flattening of this crucial security asset? How can we risk a reduction in the size of the Border Patrol when our border security needs are so great and the agent attrition rate is now creeping up to about 11 percent? The decision to fund what is essentially a current services budget for Border Patrol comes in conjunction with a request for more than a 30 percent increase in administrative, policy, and bureaucratic functions at DHS. Talk about getting your priorities all wrong. Think about that, 11 percent versus 30 percent. Clearly a higher priority ought to be given to border security by way of more personnel. At a time of such obvious need in the face of a bloody and all too real drug war, now is the time to follow through on border security, not plateau and rest on our laurels. As Ranking Member Rogers has often pointed out, Chairman Price has done a laudable job scaling back the President's request for more bureaucrats and made some rather prudent enhancements to operations in this bill. However, the Border Patrol agents are not increased above the request, and I think it is something this Chamber should weigh in on heavily. So my amendment seeks to add 200 agents while asking the DHS administrative offices to get by on no more than a 14.8 percent increase, an increase that is more than sufficient and one that many of us probably think is too high during the current fiscal climate. My amendment simply asks what's more important: resources to provide our operators and watch guards in the field or added bureaucracy? We have all read the terrible stories of the brutal murders in North Mexico. Let's follow through on our commitment to secure our borders, stop the advance of the cartels' influence, and improve on our homeland security. I urge the Members to support this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd be happy to yield.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague's speaking on my amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following: in regards to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis. Project Name: Joshua Tree National Park Visitor's Center Account: National Park Service, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Twentynine Palms Address of Requesting Entity: 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California 92277 Description of Request: The Joshua Tree National Park Visitors Center annually hosts nearly one and a half million visitors in a cramped, obsolete facility where it is impossible to display the cultural history of the area, provide needed community and informational services, or even provide appropriate information to visitors to the Park. These funds would allow for an improvement and expansion of the Center to provide the space to display the fabled Campbell Collection of Native American artifacts, as well as a wide array of other objects of interest to both the visiting public and to researchers. Amount: $300,000 Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis. Project Name: Big Bear Department of Water and Power for Big Bear Lake Water System Infrastructure Improvements Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power Address of Requesting Entity: 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, California 92315 Description of Request: This project would provide improved water pressure at peak demand periods and improved water quality resulting from the replacement of steel pipes with PVC. Although the City of Big Bear is located in an area prone to wildfires, much of its water supply infrastructure is unable to even meet minimum requirements for fire flow. Engineering studies have identified 181,800 feet of pipeline that must be replaced to meet current standards. Amount: $500,000. Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis. Project Name: The City of Calimesa for Storm Drain Improvements Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Calimesa Description of Request: The funding provided would be used by the city to manage storm flows that currently flow in natural channels that degrade water quality and disrupt traffic endangering individuals and property. The City in conjunction with Riverside County will improve the channel and form what will be the backbone for a citywide drain system. Amount: $500,000.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much my colleague's yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to say just a few things about the way these two people are working together. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and my friend Robert Aderholt have done a fabulous job on this bill. Not the most expensive bill of the 12 that are around but probably one of the very most important bills, for it decides whether the legislative branch works effectively or does not work effectively. I want the Members and our public to know that these two people have done a fabulous job in putting us on a course that I think makes sense. I especially want to express my appreciation for concern about the buildings that are the places where we must work and operate the legislative branch. Those are institutions in the place that are in serious difficulty because of lack of repair, et cetera. They are on a course that will make sure that we extend their life and their service to all of our people in an effective way. Further, the Capitol Visitor Center has been mentioned by several, but let me suggest that it's a fabulous new addition to the Capitol, but there is an institution developing there as well. We do have a way in Washington to create new bureaucracies almost no matter what, and there are those who believe that they're the only ones that know how to show off the CVC and the Capitol to our public. The long history of Members' staffs developing expertise as well and representing us well by taking our constituents through these facilities is a very important part of our process. I want to congratulate the ranking member, but especially the gentlewoman, for language in the bill that very specifically tells those who run the CVC that this is a people's institution and the people's elected representatives ought to play the most significant role in the way it is run.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am, in its present form.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, in its present form.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding. We had a discussion on the floor yesterday where you were essentially asking me this question: How can we get a handle on reasonably controlling the time, et cetera? And you and I have had back and forth regarding that whole discussion. I appreciate your concern about the schedule here. But my goodness, when you have the number of amendments that we had filed on this bill, and we knew many of them would fall off, you and I discussed that between each other. But then the first amendment, to have that taking us back to the Rules Committee is incredible, and I can't quite believe you'd do that.

Mr. LEWIS of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to attempt to be of some service to the Obama administration and others in the House that may be concerned about a decision he made not too long ago. And I'd ask unanimous consent that we put Executive Order 13492 in the Record at this point.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I do.

Mr. LEWIS of California. It is amendment No. 118. Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. I offer an amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this executive order put in the Record at this point. Presidential Documents--Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009-- Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained At the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Guantanamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantanamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order: (a) ``Common Article 3'' means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions. (b) ``Geneva Conventions'' means: (i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114); (ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217); (iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and (iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516). (c) ``Individuals currently detained at Guantanamo'' and ``individuals covered by this order'' mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants. Sec. 2. Findings. (a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantanamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantanamo, either by returning them to their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo are eligible for such transfer or release. (b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantanamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo. (c) The individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention. (d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantanamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantanamo require a comprehensive interagency review. (e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo. (f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted. (g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally. Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantanamo. The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantanamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantanamo Detentions. (a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantanamo (Review) shall commence immediately. (b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials: (1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review; (2) the Secretary of Defense; (3) the Secretary of State; (4) the Secretary of Homeland Security; (5) the Director of National Intelligence; (6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and (7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned. (c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following: (1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantanamo and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source. (2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible. (3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantanamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations. (4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantanamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions. (5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate. Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order. Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantanamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantanamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter. Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted. Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Barack Obama, The White House, January 22, 2009. As we all know, Mr. Chairman, the President signed Executive Order 13492 to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility in January. More than 4 months later, there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the Congress. Yet the administration is raising to move detainees, all the while withholding information from the Congress and the public. First, let me say that last week a suspected plotter of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa arrived in New York for a high-threat trial. Second, last week, the government of Palau announced that it would accept some of the Uyghur detainees. Press accounts linked this announcement to some significant level of assistance on the part of the American government to Palau. The Uyghur detainees are affiliated with a listed terrorist group and received weapons training in camps in Afghanistan run by leaders affiliated with al Qaeda. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about any group that's been trained under those circumstances. Finally, last week, the Department of Justice announced that four of the Uyghur detainees have been resettled in Bermuda, a visa waiver country. The Congress and the American people found out about these actions and efforts after the fact. And there is more. Three detainees have already been transferred to Saudi Arabia, one to Chad and one to Iraq. And we are hearing rumors about possible deals with Yemen, Italy and Albania. All of this has been done without an assessment of the risks to the American people at home and abroad or without an assessment of the risk to our U.S. forces by such releases. The Guantanamo detainees include the perpetrators of some of the most horrific terrorist acts against Americans, including 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Africa. Director Mueller of the FBI attested to Congress 3 weeks ago that bringing detainees to U.S. soil poses risks to national security, including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking attacks in the United States. Additionally, the Department of Defense has reported that at least 14 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about the release of people of that kind who threaten our interests anywhere in the world. This administration is ignoring or is disregarding those risks, and it is stonewalling the Congress. We need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or to resettle anymore detainees at the expense of an increased risk to Americans. We need to help the President simply fulfill his campaign promise. The President has been very busy since his inaugural. There is little question he has been down many a pathway, and he has even found that some of those pathways might very well have been mistakes. Well, this is a case where I believe a decision was made without its being carefully thought through, let alone knowing the serious implications of the actions to be taken. We are attempting by this amendment to help the administration rethink that decision that they have made. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.