Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker earlier today a news conference was held with Congressmen Donald Payne, Chris Smith and myself along with representatives from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), to draw attention to the desperate situation in Sudan. We heard compelling firsthand accounts of what transpired in Khartoum last week. Arrests, detention, tear gas and beatings of peaceful Sudanese protestors including several high-ranking Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) officials. These protestors had gathered in the streets to press Sudan's President Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP) to demand passage of important laws by the National Assembly. Khartoum's actions are inexcusable, but why should we be surprised, given the head of state is an accused war criminal. We also know from widely reported information that the National Congress Party (NCP) is obstructing the establishment of conditions for free and fair elections. The world also still awaits reform of the national security law. Against this backdrop of violence and intimidation by Khartoum, the NCP and the SPLM entered into intense negotiations over the weekend. While reports indicate that a tentative compromise has been reached, the outcome is still far from assured. And if the coming weeks don't yield the necessary results, the long-suffering people of Sudan will watch any real prospect of lasting peace and justice slip away. Will the U.S. stand by and allow this to happen? For years the U.S. has been a leader on the world stage in advocating for the marginalized people of Sudan. This is an issue, unlike many in Washington, which has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. In January 2005, after two and half years of negotiations, the North and the South signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) bringing about an end to the 21-year-old civil war during which nearly two million people died, most of whom were civilians. I was at the signing of the CPA in Kenya along with Congressman Payne. Hopes were high for a new Sudan. Sadly those hopes are quickly dimming as President Bashir becomes further entrenched and principled U.S. leadership on Sudan wanes. On the eve of the five-year anniversary of the signing, the CPA hangs in the balance as does Sudan's future. President Obama's special envoy to Sudan, General Scott Gration, was appointed in March of this year. Many in Congress, myself included, had pressed for a special envoy in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan particularly at this critical juncture in the implementation of the CPA and with genocide in Darfur still ongoing. While there have been times in the months following that I have been concerned by the direction that this administration appeared to be taking in Sudan, I refrained from any public criticism, not wanting to do anything that could jeopardize peace or progress on these critical issues. But I can be silent no longer. The time has come for Secretary Clinton and President Obama to personally and actively engage on Sudan. During the campaign, then candidate Obama said, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' He went on to say, ``The Bush administration should be holding Sudan accountable for failing to implement significant aspects of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), imperiling the prospects for scheduled multiparty elections in 2009.'' I could not agree more. Accountability is imperative. The CPA is not up for re-negotiation. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with this president and this president alone. I have consistently received reports from people on the ground that this administration's posture toward Sudan has only emboldened Bashir and the NCP. The December 12 Wall Street Journal editorial page put it this way, ``As a candidate, Mr. Obama stood with the human rights champions of Darfur and pledged tougher sanctions and a possible no-fly zone if a Sudanese regime infamous for genocide didn't shape up. His tone has changed in office . . . . the preference for diplomacy over pressure has encouraged the hard men in Khartoum to stoke the flames in Darfur, ignoring an arms embargo and challenging the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force there.'' Khartoum is savvy in the ways of Washington. This softening in the U.S. posture has not gone unnoticed. In recent written testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, the top UN investigator said, ``In contrast to that leadership of 2004 and 2005, the United States appears to have now joined the group of influential states who sit by quietly and do nothing to ensure that sanctions protect Darfurians.'' This administration's engagement with Sudan to date has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. Having been to Sudan five times, I've seen the work of their hands with my own eyes. In June 2004 I was part of the first congressional delegation with Senator Sam Brownback to Darfur, soon after the world began hearing about the atrocities being committed against the people of that region. I witnessed the nightmare. I saw the scorched villages and overflowing camps. I heard the stories of murder, rape and displacement. In the summer of 2004, the Congress spoke with one voice in calling what was happening in Darfur genocide. In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government against its own people, it is also important to note that Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's. I was troubled by Special Envoy Gration's comments this summer at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that ``there is no evidence in our intelligence community that supports [Sudan] being on the state sponsors of terrorism list . . .'' despite the findings of the 2008 State Department Country Reports on Terrorism that ``. . . there have been open source reports that arms were purchased in Sudan's black market and allegedly smuggled northward to Hamas.'' Last week marked the anniversary of the adoption of the 1948 Genocide Convention. In the aftermath of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust the world pledged ``Never Again.'' But these words ring hollow for the woman in the camp in Darfur who has been brutally raped by government- backed janjaweed so that they might, in their own words, make lighter skinned babies. Were these horrors taking place in Europe would the world stand by and watch? The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which sits just blocks from here, bears witness to genocide and related crimes against humanity around the world. The museum's warning for Sudan stems from ``(t)he Sudanese government's established capacity and willingness to commit genocide and related crimes against humanity. This is evidenced by actions the government has taken in the western region of Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and the South that include: Use of mass starvation and mass forcible displacement as a weapon of destruction; Pattern of obstructing humanitarian aid; Harassment of internally displaced persons; Bombing of hospitals, clinics, schools, and other civilian sites; Use of rape as a weapon against targeted groups; Employing a divide-to-destroy strategy of pitting ethnic groups against each other, with enormous loss of civilian life; Training and supporting ethnic militias who commit atrocities; Destroying indigenous cultures; Enslavement of women and children by government-support militias; Impeding and failing to fully implement peace agreements. These are hardly our partners in peace. And yet, we cannot claim that Khartoum has been unpredictable, that we did not know what they were capable of. Tragically, they have been utterly consistent for nearly 20 years. They have consistently brutalized their own people. They have consistently failed to live up to agreements. And they have consistently responded only to strength and pressure. And so I say once again, time is running out. The urgency of the situation calls for intervention at the highest levels of the U.S. Government--specifically the Secretary of State and the President of the United States. The people of Sudan cry out for nothing less.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise to share with our colleagues the recent passing of John Warren Cooke, former speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates. He died on November 28, 2009, at the age of 94. Born on February 28, 1915, in Mathews, Virginia, Speaker Cooke had a long history of service to Virginia, spending almost 4 decades in the House of Delegates from 1942 to 1980. After serving as the Democratic majority leader for 12 years, he became Speaker in 1968. He was well regarded on both sides of the aisle and considered a true gentleman. After retiring from the Virginia House of Delegates, Speaker Cooke returned to his hometown to continue serving as the publisher of the Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal, as he had done since 1954. Speaker Cooke's father, Major Giles B. Cooke, served on the general staff of General Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. As a 26-year-old, Major Cooke was on Lee's staff at Appomattox. As the ninth generation of his family to serve in the Virginia General Assembly and one of the last living Americans with a father in the Civil War, Speaker Cooke will surely be missed by the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I submit an obituary for Speaker Cooke published in The Washington Post on December 2. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2009] Courtly, Powerful Speaker of Va. House for 12 Years (By Matt Schudel) John Warren Cooke, 94, who served 12 years as the quietly influential speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, died Nov. 28 at his home in the Mathews County town of Gloucester. The cause of death could not be learned. Mr. Cooke, the last member of the Virginia legislature who was the son of a Confederate veteran, was the Democratic majority leader in the House of Delegates for 12 years before becoming speaker in 1968. He exercised his authority with a courtly demeanor and a gentle hand but was, as described in a 1979 Washington Post article, ``one of the state's most powerful but little-noticed officials.'' He served in the House of Delegates from 1942 to 1980, when Virginia was struggling with integration and changing from its Democratic, rural roots to a more urban and Republican- leaning state. Among other achievements, Mr. Cooke helped bring a new bipartisan spirit to Richmond by appointing Republicans to key committees for the first time in the legislature's history. Until 1969, Virginia's legislators had no offices and conducted their business from their desks and briefcases. As speaker, Mr. Cooke had absolute authority to appoint the 100 members of the House to committees as he saw fit. His committee choices, usually based on seniority, could affect the direction and tone of legislation and whether it reached the full House for a vote. Mr. Cooke, known as ``John Warren,'' was well liked and was praised by his colleagues as ``the soul of fairness.'' A 1970 Post story said Mr. Cooke's ``geniality'' and ``quick dry wit'' served him well in politics: ``He guides smoothly and skillfully, he is courteous, he is a gentleman down to his toes--and he is very, very popular.'' Mr. Cooke was considered a possible gubernatorial candidate in 1969 and 1973, but he bowed out of the races to remain in the House, representing a Tidewater district north of Williamsburg. In 1972, as the Democratic speaker, he helped arrange a compromise between contentious factions of the Democratic- controlled legislature and Republican governor Linwood Holton to institute a sweeping reorganization of the state government. John Warren Cooke was born Feb. 28, 1915, in Mathews, Va. His father, who was 76 when his son was born, was an Episcopal priest who had served on Gen. Robert E. Lee's staff during the Civil War. Mr. Cooke attended the Virginia Military Institute and returned to his home town to work for the Gloucester-Mathews Gazette-Journal. He was publisher of the weekly newspaper from 1954 until March of this year and was president of the old Tidewater Baseball League. Survivors include his wife of 62 years, Anne Brown Rawn Cooke of Mathews; and two children, Giles Buckner Cooke III of Williamsburg and Elsa VanNess Verbyla of Mathews.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I want to thank Chairman Mollohan and Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their efforts. I will not be supporting the bill for the reasons that are in my submitted statement. But I want to raise another issue that somebody ought to focus on in this Congress. This bill will allow people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York City and I believe personally it will endanger the citizens of New York City. And they're now going to come in and ask for up to $75 or $100 million to do that. That's money that you could put in food pantries or education. Secondly, we have asked that this information be nonclassified so people can know where these people from Guantanamo Bay are going. Twenty-six of them--and it's classified and I can't say any more--are being sent to Yemen. Yemen. That's where the sheikh who had the impact on Major Hasan Nidal, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, that's where he operates. And al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is all over Yemen. So you are going to release people from Guantanamo Bay, who served with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was the mastermind of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, 30 from my congressional district. Khalid Sheik Mohammed beheaded Daniel Pearl. Think of Daniel Pearl's family. Think of Debra Burlingame and the family of others; and they're going to send them to Yemen. And then they're also going to send two others to a place that no one would believe that they're really going to send them. By not adopting the amendments that we offered in conference, one, I believe this bill will endanger people in New York City; two, it will put pressure on New York City. You will see stories in the paper. As you vote for this bill, know that you will see stories in the paper of snipers on the rooftops, and tanks moving. Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be in New York City for 4 years, 4 years or more--Moussaoui was in northern Virginia for over 4 years--and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will say things and do things that will be unconscionable. So as you vote for this bill, you are, in essence, allowing that to take place. It's crazy, absolutely crazy, to think that you can try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Guantanamo Bay with no cost and no danger to the American citizens, but then they're going to bring him and others into the U.S. So Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets a civilian trial when a young 19-year- old person in the Army, man or woman, who does something wrong has to go through a military court system. The bill spends too much. I believe that by bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the others here, we may very well endanger people and bring about another attack. And secondly, to spend all that money to protect Khalid Sheik Mohammed when he could have been tried down at Guantanamo Bay just doesn't make any sense. No one believes that that makes sense. And lastly, to send people to Yemen and other places I think will endanger this country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the Commerce Justice Science division of this conference report, as I serve as the Ranking Member on that Subcommittee. First, I want to thank Chairman Mollohan, Chairman Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their hard work on the CJS portion of the bill, and for their spirit of collaboration and cooperation on this conference agreement. However, I believe the subcommittee was given an overly generous conference allocation. At $64.4 billion, the bill is almost a 12 percent increase above last year's level. In my view, this level of funding was well in excess of the amount necessary to produce a good bill. The bill contains important funding to support NASA, fight terrorism and gangs, and to give our federal law enforcement critical resources. The CJS division of this package places important limitations and reporting requirements related to the closure of Guantanamo and the movement of detainees. However, I believe stronger language is necessary, and I regret that amendments I offered at conference to prohibit the transfer and release of detainees into the United States and to require unclassified reports were defeated on party line votes. There were press reports just yesterday that a former Guantanamo detainee transferred to Saudi Arabia is now a kingpin for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and at large in Yemen. There are already 10 ex- Gitmo detainees on Saudi Arabia's list of most-wanted terrorists. The current transfer policies will likely result in many more similar stories. Because my amendments were defeated, this bill will allow dangerous detainees to be transferred to the United States and to unstable countries abroad. It will allow 26 Yemeni detainees to be returned to Yemen--the emerging al Qaeda stronghold in the Arabian Peninsula where radical cleric Anwar al Aulaqi--the advisor of Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Hasan Nidal--operates freely. I submit for the Record an article on al Aulaqi that appeared in today's Washington Post. It will allow 2 other detainees to be released to a country worse the Yemen. I cannot share the location because my amendment to declassify this information for the American people was defeated on a party-line vote. It will allow Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be transferred to New York City and provide him a platform to spread his hateful message-- endangering our country. I am disappointed that the CJS conference report was not brought to the floor as a stand-alone bill, as we were prepared to do weeks ago. Instead we are once again faced with a bloated, half a trillion dollar omnibus. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2009] Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Attack Grew More Radicalized in Yemen (By Sudarsan Raghavan) Sanaa, Yemen.--The Yemeni American cleric at the center of investigations into last month's massacre of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., became more openly radical in Yemen, following a path taken by other extremists in this failing Middle East nation with a growing al-Qaeda presence, according to relatives, friends and associates in Yemen. In interviews, they said Anwar al-Aulaqi, 38, blamed the United States for 18 months he spent in a Yemeni jail, a little-known chapter in the cleric's life that some described as a key path in his radicalization. Aulaqi, who was born in the United States and spent time in Yemen as a child, left for Britain in early 2002 after he drew scrutiny from U.S. authorities. The United States alleges that Aulaqi was a spiritual adviser to three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers while he was a prayer leader at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church and at a mosque in San Diego. An examination of some of Aulaqi's sermons and lectures, as well as interviews conducted here, shows that he increasingly began to publicly endorse violence as a religious duty after he returned to Yemen in early 2004, completing his transformation from an imam who condemned the Sept. 11 attacks to an Internet preacher who views Americans as legitimate targets. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, who has been charged in the Fort Hood shootings, first contacted Aulaqi by e-mail last December. U.S. authorities intercepted some of the e-mails, but no threat was perceived. The FBI has declined to comment on Aulaqi, citing an ongoing investigation. After the Fort Hood attack, Aulaqi issued a statement calling Hasan a ``hero.'' In an interview later with a Yemeni journalist, Aulaqi denied that he had ordered or incited Hasan to carry out the attack but said Hasan considered him a confidant. Aulaqi's path to radicalization, at first, appeared unlikely. The Aulaqis' descendants were sultans who once ruled what is now Yemen's southern province of Shabwa, home to the ancestral village where Aulaqi now lives with his wife and five children. Aulaqi's father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, is a former president of Sanaa University and agriculture minister. While in Yemen during his childhood, Aulaqi studied in a secular high school in the capital, Sanaa, along with children from other elite families, before returning to Colorado in 1991 to attend college, said a close relative in an hour-long interview. The relative spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid harming his family's efforts to persuade Aulaqi to become moderate. He said Aulaqi was an avid swimmer who enjoyed deep-sea fishing. His ambition was to become college professor, focusing on finding ways to address water shortages in Yemen, the relative said. Like many Arabs, the relative said, Aulaqi was angered by the U.S. assault on Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War but didn't show signs of radicalization afterward. ``He was very moderate. He was always against al-Qaeda ideology,'' said the relative, adding that Aulaqi's contact with the hijackers was a ``coincidence.'' After Sept. 11, Aulaqi grew frustrated and felt targeted by U.S. authorities, the relative said. ``Sept. 11 changed a lot of Muslims,'' the relative said. ``And the invasion in Iraq in 2003 made him even stronger in his beliefs.'' U.S. authorities have alleged that Aulaqi had become radicalized while still in the United States, before the Sept. 11 attacks, but they never found evidence to detain him. Beginning in 2002, when he left the United States for Britain, Aulaqi lauded Palestinian suicide bombers on a Web site and in lectures attended by ultraconservative Muslims. He spoke at fundraising events hosted by Cage Prisoners, a rights group in Britain, but did not incite violence or express support for al-Qaeda, said Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainee who heads the group. ``He wouldn't have been so popular if his message was not moderate and across the board,'' Begg said in a phone interview from London. In early 2004, Aulaqi returned to Yemen. At a lecture at Sanaa University, he spoke eloquently about Islam's role in the world. He railed against U.S. policies in Iraq. He denounced Israel, according to those present at the lecture. But he stopped short of calling for violent jihad. ``He was not inciting us to use arms,'' recalled Adil al- Howlari, who now works as a journalist for the United Nations. ``He was talking about how to use English to spread Islamic values.'' Aulaqi eventually took classes and lectured at Iman University in Sanaa. The university is led by Sheik Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, an influential religious figure whom U.S. officials have described as Osama bin Laden's spiritual leader and placed on a list of global terrorists. The university has a reputation as an incubator of radicalism. John Walker Lindh, an American who fought with the Taliban, is a former student. Other students allegedly took part in numerous attacks. Aulaqi's relative said the cleric had given four lectures at the university about Islam's role in medieval Spain. By 2006, Aulaqi's influence had widened into the world of terrorism through his Web site and Facebook page, even though most Yemenis had never heard of him. Starting that year, investigators have found Aulaqi's sermons downloaded on the computers of suspects in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in Britain and Canada. In mid-2006, Yemeni authorities arrested him. Aulaqi was accused of inciting attacks against a man over a tribal matter involving a woman. Aulaqi denied the allegations in an interview with Begg last year and accused the U.S. government of pressuring Yemen to keep him locked up. In that interview, Aulaqi said he spent the first nine months in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Around September 2007, FBI agents interrogated him about the Sept. 11 attacks and other issues, Aulaqi told Begg. Although he wasn't physically abused, Aulaqi said, a U.S. Embassy legal attache swore at him. He was never charged and was released in December 2007. Yemeni officials have declined to comment. After his release, Aulaqi's stance on using violence for jihad grew more forceful. Last December, he penned a letter calling for fighters and financing for al-Shabab, the Somali Islamist movement with ties to al-Qaeda. And this January, he published an essay titled ``44 Ways to Support Jihad.'' It called, among other things, for Muslims to stay fit and train in weapons to fight on the battlefield.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in a speech at West Point earlier this week, President Obama explicitly designated Yemen as an emerging al Qaeda stronghold. The President stated, ``Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold--whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere--they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.'' How can the President reconcile these legitimate concerns about Somalia and Yemen while simultaneously releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees to these dangerously unstable countries? Last month, the Obama administration secretly released another detainee to Yemen--information hidden from the American people under a provision in the FY 2009 spending bills explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of any information to the American people. If the American people knew who these detainees were, the acts of terror they have committed, or to which countries they were going to be released, they would never stand for it. This is a dangerous precedent. Given that more than 74 Guantanamo detainees have returned to active terrorism, there's a real concern about the potential for these remaining detainees to return to a life of terror. The American people deserve the facts. I encourage the public to visit The New York Times ``Guantanamo Docket'' Web site to review what scant information about these detainees was released by the previous administration. I know they will find these summaries deeply troubling. Of the many unstable countries to which detainees may be sent, I'm most concerned about the impending release of 26 detainees to Yemen, a growing haven for al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf. It is my understanding that the administration is also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic understanding of world affairs would agree is unacceptable. Unfortunately, this information, again, has been classified. As the President acknowledged, Yemen is one of the most unstable countries in the world today, and a country where al Qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, stated in an October Voice of America interview, ``In Yemen, we have witnessed the reemergence of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the possibility that that will become the base of operations for al Qaeda.'' A number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees have returned to Yemen to launch terrorist attacks, including one just 2 months ago. On October 13, Saudi police prevented an imminent suicide bomber attack as two al Qaeda terrorists slipped across the border from Yemen. One of these would-be suicide bombers, Yousef Mohammed al-Shihri, was a former Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He quickly left Saudi Arabia for Yemen, where he rejoined al Qaeda. In September 2008, another former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, helped orchestrate the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operation. Yemen is also now home to the radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who influenced Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal M. Hasan and who U.S. intelligence believes to be a critical link to al Qaeda's efforts to radicalize Americans and Europeans. I repeatedly urged the President to halt the release of detainees to dangerously unstable countries. It is counterintuitive, and dangerous, to return terrorist detainees to countries he acknowledges as al Qaeda sanctuaries. If this administration is not prepared to show good judgment on this issue, this Congress must take action to provide oversight and reconsider these irresponsible decisions. But this Congress has yet to hold a single hearing to raise these concerns and demand answers from this administration. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better judgment from this administration and better oversight from this Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, this Thursday the House Homeland Security Committee will hold an urgent hearing to investigate the admission of uninvited guests to the recent White House state dinner. This security lapse certainly merits a full investigation, but it pales in comparison to the gross security lapse that the Obama Administration is committing in releasing scores of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to dangerously unstable countries--including Yemen, Afghanistan, and other al Qaeda strongholds. Yet neither the Homeland Security Committee, nor any other committee, has seen fit to hold a single hearing on the release of these detainees. In fact, the majority included a provision in FY2009 spending bills explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of any information to the American people. If the American people knew who these detainees were, the acts of terror they have committed, or to which countries they were going to be released, they would never stand for it. This is a dangerous precedent. Given that more than 74 former Guantanamo detainees have returned to active terrorism, there is real concern about the potential for these remaining detainees to return to a life of terror. The American people deserve the facts. I encourage the public to visit the New York Times ``Guantanamo Docket'' Web site to review what scant information about these detainees was released by the previous administration. I believe they will find these summaries deeply troubling. This Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to the American people to hold hearings, request information, and work with the administration to have an open dialogue over transfer and release policies. This has not happened. And 10 months after the administration issued an executive order to close Guantanamo, we have no more information about this than we did when the President took office. Of the many unstable countries to which detainees may be sent, I am most concerned about the impending release of 26 detainees to Yemen--a growing haven for al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf. It is my understanding that the administration is also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic understanding of world affairs would agree is unacceptable. Unfortunately, this information has been classified. Yemen is undoubtedly one of the most unstable countries in the world today--and the country where al Qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, stated in an October Voice of America interview, ``In Yemen, we have witnessed the reemergence of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and the possibility that that will become the base of operations for al- Qaida.'' A number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees have returned to Yemen to launch terrorist attacks, including one just 2 months ago. On October 13, Saudi police prevented an imminent suicide bomb attack as two al Qaeda terrorists slipped across the border from Yemen. One of the would-be suicide bombers, Yousef Mohammed al Shihri, was a former Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He quickly left Saudi Arabia for dangerously unstable Yemen where he rejoined al Qaeda. In September 2008, another former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al Shihri, helped orchestrate the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operations. Yemen is also now home to radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who influenced alleged Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal M. Hasan and who U.S. intelligence believes to be a critical link in al Qaeda's efforts to radicalize Americans and Europeans. I have repeatedly urged the President to halt the release of detainees to dangerously unstable countries. The consequences of such releases could cost American lives. I implore this Congress to get serious about its oversight responsibility. The American people deserve better.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the birthday of a great American president, Zachary Taylor. Zachary Taylor was born on a farm in Barboursville, Virginia, on November 24, 1784. His father had served with George Washington in the Revolutionary War and his family members were prominent planters. Zachary Taylor had a 40-year military career in the U.S. Army, serving in the War of 1812, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, and the Mexican-American War, where he earned the nickname ``Old Rough and Ready,'' because of his willingness to share his troops' hardships. Taylor became a national hero after facing overwhelming odds to triumph in a battle against the Mexican General Santa Anna at Buena Vista. This extraordinary record of service to the Nation was further enhanced when Zachary Taylor was elected president of the United States in 1848. Under his administration, the Department of the Interior was created. Much of Taylor's administration was focused on the issue of the expansion of slavery, with the Compromise of 1850 coming shortly after his death. Madam Speaker, I call the attention of the House to the life, legacy, and accomplishments of Zachary Taylor on the upcoming 225th anniversary of his birthday.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an editorial from the November 8 Washington Post by columnist Jim Hoagland. Hoagland's piece is aptly titled ``Listen to the Dissidents.'' Hoagland points out the limits of ``engagement'' as pursued by the Obama administration--particularly engagement that relegates human rights issues to the back-burner. It is tragic that, as Hoagland points out, ``the dissident--a hero and catalyst for enormous change in the Soviet empire, China, the Philippines and elsewhere only two decades ago--has become a largely neglected and absent figure in this administration's diplomacy.'' I join the growing chorus of voices in urging the President to listen to the dissidents. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2009.] Listen to the Dissidents (By Jim Hoagland) Barack Obama's extended hand was whacked across the knuckles by the leaders of Iran, Syria and assorted other thuggeries last week. But the Obama administration did manage a good demonstration in Burma of how its brand of engagement can and should work. Kurt Campbell, the State Department's top Asia official, traveled to the isolated military dictatorship to talk with its corrupt junta. But Campbell also insisted on having a highly visible meeting with the leader of the country's democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, and then publicly called on her persecutors to grant her party more freedoms. This is the balance that has been missing in Obama's outreach to other authoritarian states. Demonstrators on the streets of Tehran underlined the president's missing link Wednesday by chanting: ``Obama, Obama--either you're with them or you're with us,'' as Iranian police beat them, according to news accounts. Obama and his advisers need to take the dissidents' message to heart. The dissident--a hero and catalyst for enormous change in the Soviet empire, China, the Philippines and elsewhere only two decades ago--has become a largely neglected and absent figure in this administration's diplomacy. Media coverage of political protest globally also seems to have waned since the end of the Cold War. True, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made symbolic gestures toward the politically oppressed on their travels and in pro forma statements. But, as the president's coming visit to China will again show, dissident political movements have not been incorporated into his strategy for changing the world. The president believes so strongly in his powers of persuasion that the transformative work once done by Lech Walesa, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Corazon Aquino, Wei Jingsheng and others now falls largely on his shoulders. Campbell's meeting with Suu Kyi provided a useful corrective, for one country at least, to this tendency. George W. Bush proved that it is possible to overdo support for dissident movements and the vilification of their tormentors, just as his father demonstrated that it can be underdone (see Bush 41's effort to keep the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia from disintegrating). The Bush 43 administration, in fact, bears some of the responsibility for the eclipse of the dissident in the public mind. The focus of many journalists' and political activists has recently been on U.S. human rights abuses rather than those of much more brutal foreign regimes. So Obama's decision to reach out and encourage hostile regimes to relax their grip internally made initial tactical sense, especially in Iran. The administration deserves some credit for the current political fluidity there. Removing the United States as a heavy-handed, threatening enemy helped expose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's manifest failures of governance and helped meaningful dissent to surface and spread. But the extended-hand tactic may have run its course there. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's highest authority, used inflammatory language to denounce Obama and the U.S.- originated proposal on uranium reprocessing given to Iran on Oct. 1 in Geneva. Even though U.S. officials claimed at the time that Iran had ``accepted'' the proposal--which effectively drops the long-standing U.S. demand for Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium as a condition for negotiations--Khamenei said that its terms were unacceptable. Meanwhile, protesters were voicing concern that Obama's single-minded pursuit of a nuclear deal is conveying legitimacy to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad--at the dissidents' expense. They did not seem to have been impressed by the general words of support contained in a message issued by Obama to mark not this political uprising but the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, an event celebrated in Iran but not here. Syria also served notice that its priorities have not been influenced by Team Obama's repeated blandishments for better relations. Israel intercepted a major clandestine Iranian arms shipment destined for Syria and the Hezbollah guerrillas it supports in Lebanon. And As-Safir, a Syrian-controlled newspaper in Beirut, launched a vitriolic, sexist attack on Michele Sison, the able U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, that concluded by calling on its readers to ``silence this chatterbox''--an ominous statement in a country where U.S. and European diplomats have been murdered. Friendly, principled engagement is a useful tool--up to a point. It is probably worth exploring in Burma with new steps. But there also has to be a workable Plan B--something Obama will now have to demonstrate that he has developed for Iran and Syria.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Against the counsel of the State Department and others in Washington's foreign policy establishment, President Reagan uttered these six words standing at the Brandenburg Gate June 12, 1987--words that marked his presidency and defined an era. Former Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers famously said when he defected that he believed he was joining the right side by rejecting communism, but that he was leaving ``the winning side for the losing side.'' Reagan however, who was himself indelibly shaped by Chambers' account of his defection in the historic book Witness, always believed he was on the winning side. Unbothered by those who cautioned that he would offend the Soviets, Reagan, the eternal optimist, felt compelled to issue this challenge to Gorbachev believing what seemed to be unimaginable at the time--that one day the wall would in fact fall. Erected in 1961 the Berlin Wall was an enduring symbol of communism-- a physical manifestation of the divide between East and West, free and captive. With rapt attention, many Americans gathered around their televisions 20 years ago as scenes emerged of East Berliners pouring across the border, tearfully embracing strangers, and raising glasses of champagne as they rejoiced with West Berliners in their newfound liberty--the free world rejoiced with them. For decades an epic struggle had been underway between two vastly different ideologies. Then, in the span of a year, three giants converged on the world scene and human history was forever changed. England's Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Poland's native son, Pope John Paul II, and our own Ronald Reagan boldly championed freedom, inspired hope in millions and gave those living behind the Iron Curtain the courage to imagine a world transformed. While the Soviet Union is relegated to the history books, today there remain ideologies that threaten human freedom and dignity. There remain governments who rule by fear. There remain people held captive in their own nation. Similarly, there are those who still warn that America ought not meddle in other countries internal affairs. There are still those who caution against disrupting bilateral relations. There are still those who maintain that the desire for freedom and basic human rights is not universal. But the events of 20 years ago teach us something very, very different. Ask the Sharanskys and Solzhenitsyns whose lives in prison improved when leaders in the West spoke out on their behalf. Ask the thousands of East Berliners who, facing certain death if caught, dug tunnels, constructed hot air balloons and built pulleys in their desperate attempts to escape a literal prison. There are lessons to be drawn from this anniversary--lessons which must inspire our foreign policy today. People yearn for freedom, they crave dignity. These things are not bestowed by the government and as such cannot forever be denied by the government. People are inspired by words. Dictators cower when their lies are exposed. And seemingly impenetrable regimes can find themselves on ``ash heap of history.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I rise in strong opposition to the bill because our Nation is going broke. I rise in opposition to this bill. We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes more than $56 trillion in entitlement obligations. I am also deeply concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000 and is nearing $12 trillion for the first time in our history. Any plan put forward must control costs, not add billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit. America is going broke. Is this the legacy this Congress wants to leave our children and grandchildren? News Release ``Health care is a very personal issue and there are very real consequences to what Congress does on this issue. Congress must be committed to offering affordable, accessible, and portable health care choices with the goal of fixing what's broken and keeping what works. I know there are good and reasonable people with deeply held views on every side of the health care reform issue. That's why I believe all sides need an opportunity to be heard and offer ideas so that a bipartisan consensus can be reached. ``I believe every fair-minded person would agree that Congress needs to find a way for the millions of Americans without health insurance to be assured of quality, affordable health care when they need it and to address the concerns of those who are paying for a plan they believe falls short of the coverage they need. Part and parcel of that discussion, I believe, also must be the recognition that there are many folks are paying for a health insurance plan that they like and want to keep and they don't want the government involved in their health care decisions. ``I am very concerned, however, about the health care reform process under way in Congress. House Democrats on October 29 unveiled a 1,990-page health reform bill--H.R. 3962--which is estimated to cost just under $900 billion over 10 years. Especially troubling is the majority leadership's intention to fast track the legislation for House consideration within days of its introduction. ``Congress needs to listen to the American people, take its time and get health care reform legislation right. This is too important an issue to rush through under some artificial timeline. It is for this reason that I am cosponsoring a resolution calling for any health care reform legislation considered by Congress to be made available online in its final form 30 days prior to being voted on in the House. I believe that every American must have the opportunity to read and understand what Congress is considering. Now with the latest bill covering nearly 2,000 pages, that is more important than ever. A copy of H.R. 3962 is available on my Web page, www.wolf.house.gov. ``I opposed the first version of the Democrats' health reform legislation (H.R. 3200) that was introduced this summer, and nothing that I have read so far in the newest version introduced on October 29 changes my view. This legislation would set up a government insurance option with rates to be negotiated between providers and federal health officials. It has mandates for every American to have insurance and for employers to provide insurance. It would expand Medicaid to historic levels adding new mandates on states. The revenue sources identified include a surcharge on wealthy taxpayers and changes to Medicaid and Medicare which would translate to about $500 billion in cost savings over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ``When President Obama earlier this year directed Congress to come up with a health reform plan, I had hoped that both Republicans and Democrats could work together on this issue of such complexity in a bipartisan way and reach consensus on a plan to address the needs of uninsured Americans, protect those with insurance plans they like, and keep a lid on deficit spending at a time when our economy is reeling from recession and spiking unemployment. What we have seen, however, is the opposite. The speaker and House majority worked alone on H.R. 3200 that initially was to be voted on by the House in early August. They have continued to work behind closed doors to refine that plan, and the latest bill, H.R. 3962, was drafted solely by the majority. ``I don't believe that is the right way to develop public policy on an issue of such importance and far-reaching consequence to every American. This is a complex issue to legislate, and there are legitimate questions that Congress must answer. Among the many questions to be resolved are how to make sure health care decisions are patient-centered and remain between physicians and patients and not prescribed by some government formula; how to provide for Americans who don't have health insurance and ensure those with pre- existing conditions can get insurance; how to protect those who have health insurance and don't want to be forced to give up their plans or pay more for them; how to control health care costs and pay for health care reform without increasing the deficit; how to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not subsidizing health insurance for those illegally in our country; how to ensure that the self-employed and small business owners can afford insurance, and how to ensure that young adults can continue to be carried under their parents' health plan until they reach age 25. ``I have concerns about a government-run insurance option and what that will mean in the way of costly mandates for small businesses and other employers during a time when unemployment is teetering near 10 percent. I am also concerned about how Americans will pay for a $900 billion plan as our country tries to work its way out of an economic recession and faces trillions of dollars in debt and a growing annual deficit that could be near $2 trillion. I also have questions about finding a half trillion dollars in savings in Medicare and Medicaid costs. What will that mean for senior citizens today? ``We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes more than $56 trillion in promised entitlement obligations through Medicare and Social Security. I'm also concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000 and is nearing $12 trillion for the first time in our history, and unprecedented federal deficits, which could result in increased interest rates for consumers if we continue to finance government by borrowing from foreign lenders. I have the leading bill in the House to establish a bipartisan commission to review entitlement spending with tax policy on the table to ensure that Congress addresses these spending issues, which if left unchecked, will be disastrous for future generations. (For more information about the SAFE commission, go to www.wolf .house.gov/SAFE.) ``I again want to emphasize: it is important for Congress to fix what's broken with our nation's health insurance system. But we have to do it the right way without changing what is working. We need a plan that controls costs without adding billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit; ensures competition and choice; provides that patients and their doctors make the decisions on medical care rather than a government-run agency, and addresses skyrocketing medical liability costs and tort reform. ``I believe that the legislation in the House falls short of those goals and that Congress has a lot more work to do to provide the kind of health reforms Americans want and need.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlelady, and I particularly thank her for her comments about China. I rise in support of this, but there is a connection because in China today there are 35 Catholic bishops that are either in house arrest or in jail and Protestant pastors that plundered Tibet. China, unfortunately, and I think the American people know, has now become our banker. This ties in to the health care bill that we are ready to vote on tomorrow. That bill will cost $1 trillion. To think America is unsinkable, the White House projects the Federal debt will grow by more than $9 trillion in the next 10 years. How big is a trillion? One million seconds equals 12 days. One trillion seconds is more than 30,000 years. China is our banker. This bill will cost $1 trillion, and it is important that we deal with this issue. Now, the second poster sums up on where we are today. This happens to be Uncle Sam. He is saying, don't let the debt defeat a great nation. We are obligated to China. China holds a large portion of our debt. The Saudis hold a large portion of our debt. The Saudis, who funded the radical madrassas up on the Pakistan-Afghan border and some who were on the airplanes that killed the people on 9/11, 30 or more so from my congressional district, hold our debt. We need to get control of this debt. And the health care bill will not lower costs. The health care bill will cost over $1 trillion. What kind of legacy are we leaving for our children, and I have five, or our grandchildren, and I have 14? A legacy of debt and deficit. So $1 trillion for this health care bill. We have $57 trillion of unfunded obligations. We have $12 trillion in debt. So I close by saying to vote against the bill, because it costs us money; and on behalf of Uncle Sam we say, don't let debt defeat a great nation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the following statement released by former Egyptian presidential candidate and political prisoner Dr. Ayman Nour who was restricted from traveling to the United States by Egyptian authorities. On November 3, 2009, the Egyptian public prosecutor issued an administrative decision preventing me from traveling to the U.S. and to other countries in the Middle East and Europe. My visit to the U.S. was scheduled for November 6, 2009. The decision by the public prosecutor came as a shock, and is unjustified, especially in light of the recent permit I was granted for a visit to the European Parliament in April 2009. During that visit, I met with various European leaders and underwent substantial medical examinations. I was forced to postpone other necessary physical examinations because I could not obtain a visa for the UK from Belgium. The public prosecutor's decision conflicts with Egyptian Constitution, Article 52, which stipulates that, ``it is not acceptable to prohibit a citizen from staying somewhere or to be forced to stay somewhere.'' Article 52 states that ``citizens have the right to permanent or temporary immigration abroad.'' Adding to this is the absence of objective reasons given by the authorities that would have prevented me from practicing my right. In other words, there is no probability that I will escape while I am abroad, and I do not owe money to any entity, which means that restricting is uncalled for and unnecessary. The double standard in my case is evident in the fact that the public prosecutor permitted others with real legal obstacles, similar to those described above to travel abroad in the past. The public prosecutor justified his politically motivated restriction by referring to the fact that I was released from prison on February 18, 2009 for medical reasons, while my official release date had been set for July 22, 2009. This decision was based on claim 12886/63Q dated April 21, 2009, which allowed me to obtain an automatic curtailment of my sentence according to Article 86 of Prisons Bylaw 79/1961. The fact that I was granted an exit permit on March 15, 2009 for my Europe visit mentioned above, is further indication that the current travel restriction is unwarranted. I would like to present the following facts: (1) The public prosecutor's decision is only one example in a series of aggression, abuses, and insistence of the political regime to deprive me of my basic human rights, including the following: a. The right to work and earn a living as an attorney. The temporary governmental committee which ran the Association Bar canceled my membership in April 2009. I was the only individual to receive this cancellation despite the fact that there were dozen of similar cases. b. The right to sell my assets. The notary public offices were instructed to prevent me from registering any contracts unless I provide documents proving my release. To date I have been unsuccessful in obtaining a legal declaration of my release from any governmental authority. Likewise, they subsequently prevented me from opening a bank account. These restrictions not only affect my professional life, but intrude upon my personal life, including the ability to sustain my family and to seek the necessary medical attention I require after incurring serious injuries during my four years in prison. c. The right to healthcare coverage. As a registered journalist, I should enjoy the benefit of health insurance coverage through the Supreme Council of Journalism and Press Syndicate. This has also been restricted to me, as the syndicate was instructed to freeze my salary and prevent me from my legal right to receive medical treatment. d. The right to appear in court to claim my civil rights. I have been prevented from appearing before several courts to make any claims for my basic civil rights. e. The right to file claims of defamation. The public prosecutor prevented me from filing the claims of defamation to the criminal court. I subsequently published these claims in the media. More than two thousand of these claims have been frozen, which encourages more illegal moral attacks against me. f. The right to re-open my case in light of new evidence proving my innocence. The public prosecutor has failed to grant my request to review my claim in light of the newly acquired evidence of my innocence. This evidence would serve to acquit me from the original verdict by the Court of Administrative Justice, which took criminal proceedings against me on January 29, 2005. g. The right to speak to the state-owned media. I am currently restricted from responding to claims broadcast against me in the state-owned media. The public prosecutor did not consider my claims to respond to the claims against me in the state-owned media. h. The right to establish an NGO or join any social organization or group. At the instruction of the State Security forces, I have been deprived from establishing any nongovernmental organization or from joining any social or sport clubs. They threatened one of the clubs that granted me an honorary membership and forced them to remove me. i. The right to privacy. I am monitored at all hours of the day by government security forces. Recently, I have embarked on a ``knock-on-the-door'' campaign to meet citizens throughout Egypt. During these events, government security personnel followed me continuously. In addition, my phone calls remain illegally tapped. j. The right to actively participate in politics. I have been restricted from practicing my political and partisan rights. This decision is being held up by an outdated 1937 Supreme Constitutional Court ruling, which subsequently has been discontinued by newer rulings from the same court which provides persons in my similar situation to receive the right to participate in politics, even after serving prison time. It is evident to the public that such abuses arose in response to my political stances in an attempt to control my political and personal life. The authorities claim they are doing right by me in releasing me for health reasons on February 18, 2009, only very few months before the legal release. It is plain to see that this early release is in line with their goal of suffocating me politically and depriving me of my basic human rights. (2) Regarding my trip to the U.S. and other countries, the following facts should be stated: a. I received an invitation from the Coalition of Egyptian Organizations in the U.S. to speak to Egyptians and Egyptian Americans living in various states. The same coalition invited Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suliman, Amr Mousa, Ahmed Zweil, Mohamed Elbaradie, and a number of other public figures. b. The aforementioned invitation met my earnest desire to meet with Egyptian communities abroad and to discuss their problems and issues of interest. I also received some other invitations from other organizations and entities including the following: Council on Foreign Relations, National Endowment for Democracy, various think tanks, American universities, U.S. congressmen and political figures, Egyptian communities in three major states, U.S. media representatives. c. The invitations do not include any meetings with representatives of the U.S. Administration. I have already announced that the main purpose of my visit is not to conduct high-profile meetings. I plan to focus solely on meetings with the Egyptian and American citizens and U.S. public representatives. This visit was motivated by my belief in communicating with the global community to advocate our political and partisan views. Other political figures from Egypt made similar visits recently, including Gamal Mubarak, who visited the U.S. several times, and Chief of Parliament, Fathi Sorour, who is set to meet today with Egyptians in the U.S.; the same day I received the government decision preventing my travel plans. d. My request for travel was submitted to the public prosecutor three months ago, to which I received no response. I subsequently re-submitted the same request several times until he finally got back to me with demands for more details about the invitations I received from the U.S., as well as information about the medical examinations I plan on undergoing. After several back-and-forth messages dealing with requests for translation of documents' authenticity and such, it was clear that the public prosecutor was insisting on delaying procedures. This situation concluded with a negative response today in answer to my 3-month long request for travel permission. In conclusion, we would like to thank the various organizations and groups which invited me to visit the U.S. Because of the unfortunate decision by the Egyptian public prosecutor, I am forced to remain in the country at this time. I will continue with my plan to address the Egyptian and American community via video conference. I would like to thank in particular the Coalition of Egyptian Organizations in the U.S. and its leaders, among which include: Cameel Halim, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Dina Guirgus, and Omar Afifi, all who exerted tremendous effort to organize the proposed events in the U.S. and worked closely with colleagues here in Cairo to make the necessary arrangements for my potential visit to the U.S. The Egyptian public prosecutor's decision to prevent me from traveling abroad compels us to work even more fervently overcoming the legal obstacles we face. We are not canceling the visit to the U.S., but consider this only a postponement for another date, which we are tentatively scheduling for 2010. We call upon the Egyptian and international community, as well as to human rights organizations worldwide to condemn the aforementioned abuses, which are an assassination to my civil rights and human rights, and are more painful and damaging than the physical suffering I yet experience. My treatment in Egypt is in direct contradiction to the international conventions signed by Egypt, most importantly, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We assert that insistence on violating our rights will increase our belief in the right of Egyptians to democratic and nonviolent reform. We will work diligently on putting an end to the unjust and unacceptable situation of civil and human rights in Egypt. We will continue to fight against the inheritance of our country to despotic rule, and against the deprivation of our people from practicing their rights.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights attorneys who submitted testimony for a hearing last week of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. [Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009] On the Religious Case in Shanxi and the Status of Religious Freedom in China (By Mr. Dai Jinbo) I. The Status of China's Religious Freedom in Recent Years Since the release of the Regulations on Religious Affairs (hereafter abbreviated as Regulations) by China's State Council in 2004, house churches and other unregistered religious organizations have all been regarded as illegal by the ruling administration. House churches that do not want to join TSPM (Three-Self Patriotic Movement) churches, due to disagreement concerning their beliefs, have become targeted because they refuse to acquire administrative approval by registering their house church as a religious organization. The Regulations have become the basis for government departments to carry out selective law enforcement on unregistered religious organizations including house churches. This is also a result of China's institutionalization of religious issues. Therefore, with the official implementation of the Regulations in 2005, house churches in various places have all faced or have experienced being banned, fined and /or requested to suspend their religious activities by the government. This can cause such administrative sanctions against them on the grounds that they are not registered. In terms of banning, there are various kinds of different rulings authorizing the ban. These rulings include administrative penalties meted out by the religion management departments to ban illegal religious organizations, ban illegal venues for religious activities and ban illegal Bible training workshops. The religious affairs departments also manage civil affairs departments and use their capacity as a governing entity for social organizations and religious organizations to ban and crack down on house churches on grounds that they are illegal social organizations. An example is the persecution experienced by the Autumn Rain Church in Chengdu in June 2009. Even public security agencies would also interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations and prevent them from making progress towards autonomy. Further evidence of this type of religious persecution is the case in Baixiang, Wenzhou, in March 2009. While the Chinese government was attempting to control and crack down on unregistered religious organizations, including house churches, these unregistered religious organizations did not succumb. Instead, they took the path of defending their rights in accordance with Chinese law. By defending their rights, they have exposed the Chinese government's violation of the rule of law and the principle of human rights. While cracking down on unregistered religious organizations on grounds that they are not registered, it is a violation of the international convention and the relevant provisions concerning religious freedom in China's constitution. This has also made more religious organizations reach a consensus, that is, whether being registered or unregistered is not a criterion for defining a religious organization as legal or illegal. If they are no legally registered, this should not deprive the citizens of their right to religious freedom. An excessive number of cases involving violations of citizens' religious freedom would negatively affect China's international image. Controlling unregistered religious organizations by banning them could not achieve the desired effect. Some local governments have changed their strategies of cracking down on the unregistered religious organizations and turned religious issues into non-religious issues, thus, trying to control unregistered religious organizations by means of limiting their access to venues. This is mainly reflected in two approaches. One approach is targeted at urban religious organizations that primarily rent their venues. The government departments often secretly force the landlords to cancel the lease or not to renew their lease so that the religious organizations will not have stable venues for religious activities. The second approach is to forcefully demolish unregistered facilities for religious activities on grounds that they were illegally built. The religious case in Xiaoshan in 2006 was evidence, as was the case in 2009 where the Land and Resources Bureau in Jinghai County, Tianjin, ordered the party concerned to demolish their newly-built church facilities. They also fined the church in excess of 10,000 Yuan on grounds that they had violated the law of land management. Therefore, the unregistered religious organizations in China cannot obtain legal church assets. This has caused a breakdown in achieving religious freedom in China. The recent case in Linfen, Shanxi, will produce a profound impact on China's religious freedom. This is also an issue of church assets. Since according to the current Law of Land Management and the relevant provisions in the Urban Planning Law, a construction project not only requires a certificate of land use but also requires a planning permit for the construction project. However, the government departments would absolutely not want to process these procedures for houses that may be used for gatherings of house churches. Churches are often unable to obtain approval when they are trying to resolve the problem of meeting venues by building new houses, this includes some TSPM churches. Some registered legitimate historical facilities, used for religious activities also found it very hard to obtain approval for construction of new churches. If houses are built without approval, they would be considered ``illegal constructions'' and would face the risk of being demolished at any time. At dawn, on September 13, 2009, more than three hundred police officers, without producing any legal paperwork, stormed into ``Gospel Shoes Factory,'' a gathering venue for house churches in Fushan County, Linfen, Shanxi. The government broke into the gathering place of the church members and used military weapons, wood sticks, bricks, iron hooks and other sharp instruments beat the people, while smashing and looting the property. They severely beat more than one hundred Christians who were caught entirely off guard. Many lost consciousness and many more collapsed in pools of their own blood. At the same time, bulldozers and other heavy machinery were dispatched to destroy and demolish many buildings. All this had occurred because the government departments deemed their meeting venue as ``illegal buildings'' for the sake of cracking down and oppressing house churches. The local government has tried to negotiate with local church leaders since this religious incident. The negotiations between the government departments and the church failed. On September 23, Yang Rongli of Linfen Church and six other church members decided to report the situation to the provincial government. On their way to the province capital they were stopped by the local government. A large number of PAP officers were stationed at the Cathedral in Linfen city, blocking the entrance to the church and confiscated important items in the church. They also prohibited believers from going to meet there. Many church members, including the pastor of the Linfen Church, Huang Xiaoguang, were detained illegally, put under house arrest, or closely monitored. It seemed that the local government wanted to completely destroy the house churches in Linfen. At present, the situation is still developing yet the media has not reported any incidences on this case. According to Mr. Fan Yafeng, who is rather familiar with the situation, states that house churches in Linfen, Shanxi, are one of China's ten major house church systems in China. If house churches in Linfen were destroyed by the government through the use of illegal force, this would be the ultimate invasion in the Chinese government's crackdown on house churches and persecution of citizens. According to Professor Li Fan's research at the World and China Institute, a non- governmental think tank, house churches in China make up at least half of China's NGO resources. If such respectful and honorable house churches are destroyed, this will be a major regression of China's religious freedom and a serious violation of citizens' religious freedom. This would cause a massive blow to China's non-governmental forces of freedom and would seriously hinder China from making any progression toward religious freedom and the rule of law. II. Specific suggestions to the U.S. Congress 1. We request that the U.S. Congress review and forward the religious case in Linfen and relevant information concerning the status of religious freedom in China to President Obama. It is our desire to increase attention to the religious case in Linfen. Furthermore, it is our desire for President Obama to convey this religious persecution to the Chinese government during his visit to China. 2. We request the U.S. Congress to immediately ask the spokesperson of the U.S. State Department to hold a press conference focusing on the religious persecution case in Linfen. 3. We request the U.S. Congress pass a resolution to adopt strong measures in response to the Chinese government's infringement of human rights and religious freedom. 4. We request the U.S. Congress encourage and support the U.S. Embassy in China to periodically meet and communicate with the groups of Chinese human rights lawyers and advocates. We also request that the U.S. Embassy will make U.S. entry visas more accessible for these people who are fighting for China's democracy, freedom, and rule of law. 5. We request that the U.S. Congress send a letter to the Chinese government expressing concern for Pastor Wang Xiaoguang of Linfen Church in Shanxi who is currently being detained, as well as church leaders, such as Yang Rongli, Yang Hongzhen, Li Shuangping, Yang Chaizhen, Yang Xuan, Cui Jiaxing, Gao Fuqin, and Zhang Huamei. [Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009] The Challenges Rights Defense Attorneys in China Face and Its Future Prospect (By Mr. Li Fangping) We are now living in the China set against such a dramatic background of the times: First, the economic system is fast evolving while its political system has seen little changes over the years. Second, its legal system is increasingly improving, but the public power is often not restrained by the law. Third, the citizens' awareness of their rights is increasing and the more the awareness to defend one's rights, the more prominent the abuse and the shirking of responsibilities by the public power becomes. With the advent of the Internet in China, the first widespread and passionate participation by the citizens in political matters occurred in 2003 during the ``Sun Zhigang Incident,'' which successfully made the State Council announce the annulment of the system of ``internment and deportation.'' In the next year, ``The State respects and safeguards human rights'' was solemnly written into the Constitution. In the next five years, right defense attorneys have, as a professional social group committed to promoting rule of law and safeguarding human rights, presented themselves before the world. Certainly, in a country where rule of law is still far from realized and where there is full of terrible things against ordinary citizens, the work and life of right defense attorneys must be full of obstacles and frustrations. Just because we engage in work involving human rights, government departments not only do not understand the significance of our existence, they also regard us as the targets of their domestic defense. We seem to have become personae non gratae in the eyes of the government and we are often treated unfairly. Some of us have been beaten and kidnapped. The personal freedom of some of us is illegally restricted and some of us are illegally stalked by force. Some of us are forced to report our activities and some are driven out by our landlords due to pressure from the government. Some are threatened and given a disciplinary warning by Bureau of Justice and lawyers' associations. Some are simply fired by their law firms due to pressure from the government. This year, the right defense attorneys as a social group are enduring more pressure than ever before. As far as I can confirm, there are now at least 17 attorneys at this time unable to practice law. These attorneys have always persisted in providing legal assistance or defense services for clients to safeguard their legitimate rights. They include victims of Sanlu poisonous milk powder, parents of children victimized in the earthquake, HIV carriers, peasants who have lost their land, detained Tibetans, house church Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, right defense activists, political dissidents, victims of family planning policies and clients from other various areas. Judicial administrative departments in Beijing and other places have terminated attorneys' rights to practice on the ground that these right defense attorneys have not passed the so-called ``annual evaluation'' or that the law firms where they work have not passed the ``annual inspection.'' However, the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual inspection'' for law firms themselves are not the administrative penalty that can terminate the right to practice of the attorneys or of their law firms. We can see that the ``annual evaluation'' for attorneys and the ``annual inspection'' of law firms have degenerated into an illegal, disorderly and remediless administrative penalty in disguised form that overrides the disciplinary penalty in the industry and administrative penalty on the practicing attorneys. What delights us is that on the one hand, the right defense attorneys have not given up their idea of safeguarding rule of law and human rights. Each time they negotiate with judicial administrative departments, they express their criticism on the illegal administration and their firm belief that China will certainly develop into a country under rule of law. On the other hand, the disadvantaged social groups whose rights are harmed also express their desire of ``attorneys for us, and we for attorneys.'' It is my belief that the appeal for rights by the ordinary people whose rights are harmed, and the sense of mission of the attorneys, will combine to form a powerful synergy in promoting the progress of our country in human rights and rule of law. Though the road to rule of law and human rights in China will be hard and long, yet the long march of this time is attracting more and more people, including you, us and them. Given this situation, I, as a member of this social group of defense attorneys, personally am full of confidence for the ``Same World, Same Human Rights.'' Finally, let me express my gratitude for all my friends who are concerned about the rule of law in China and the progress in human rights!

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Uncle Sam is saying, Don't let debt defeat a great Nation. America is going broke. We must carefully weigh the implications of a costly new government spending program at a time when the country already owes $56 trillion of entitlement obligations to China and to Saudi Arabia. I am deeply concerned about the national debt, which has doubled since 2000 and is nearly $12 trillion for the first time in history. Any plan put forward must control costs, not add billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit. America is going broke. Is this the legacy Congress wants to leave to our children and our grandchildren? Don't let debt defeat a great Nation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights attorneys who submitted testimony for a hearing last week of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. [Written Testimony submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the rule of law in China, Oct. 29, 2009] By Cracking Down on Heresies, the Government Reduces Venues for Religious Activities in Rural Areas (By Mr. Wang Guangze) From May 2006 to July 2007, I was working as Beijing-based editor and commentator for the magazine Phoenix Weekly, a subsidiary operation of Phoenix Satellite TV. During that period of time, I had tried to make some reports on the status of religious freedom. Phoenix Satellite TV and its subsidiary magazine Phoenix Weekly were registered in Hong Kong, but due to their pro-CPC features, the CPC gave them the special permission to set up a reporter's station in Beijing and recruit employees. The restrictions on its scope of news reporting are rather lax as compared with other media outlets in mainland China. This is also the main reason why this witness was able to report on religious cases, while other media outlets in China had no such right to report on related content during the same period of time. The religious case of ``Three Grades of Servants'' was published in the eleventh issue of Phoenix Weekly in 2006, in a Chinese article of as many as 11,000 characters. The entire report consisted of three articles: ``An underground church and sixteen cases involving death,'' ``Xu Wenku and his religious kingdom,'' and ``Religious reality in a rural village.'' The entire report was written by two journalists, Deng Fei and Liu Zhiming, after they conducted interviews. They were notified by a witness, who also gave guidance on conducting interviews. In the end, I edited on the articles and published them. Through investigations and interviews, we found that the mainland Chinese Public Security department and prosecution department accused ``Three Grades of Servants,'' a Christian church under the management of Xu Wenku, of carrying out an order to murder twenty members of another Christian house church that called itself ``the Lightning in the Orient.'' Both police and prosecution agencies believed that the two parties not only had the motive of competing for the recruitment of believers, but that there were also conflicts between their religious creeds. After the case was cracked, mainland Chinese police effectively cracked down upon this type of mutual hate-killings between different religious factions, stopping this kind of hate-killing from spreading. In the meantime, mainland police also destroyed the religious activities of the two house churches. According to estimates, the religious belief of tens of thousands of people's may have been affected. According to the indictment, Xu Wenku and others swindled people out of 20.5 million RMB in various parts of mainland China by illegally hiring believers and collecting contributions, etc. At the beginning of 2007, Xu Wenku and other core members of ``Three Grades of Servants'' Church were sentenced to death and were immediately executed. Through investigations and interviews, we believe that the relatively secluded venues for religious activities in rural areas have given rise to religious heresies or have led some people to be engaged in illegal activities in the name of religion. On the other hand, mainland police, while cracking down on heresies, also take the opportunity to destroy venues for religious activities in rural areas, reducing the number of venues for villagers' religious activities. I believe that mainland police have failed to distinguish the normal religious activities from the illegal and criminal behavior in the religious activities that should be cracked down. As a result, the religious environment in the countryside continues to deteriorate and has entered into a sort of vicious cycle: While cracking down on heresies, the venues for religious activities were reduced. After the venues for religious activities were reduced, the religious activities of villagers were forced to be more secret, and secret religious activities often tend to nourish the creation of heresies and varying degrees of illegal religious activities. For more evidence, please view the following relevant report at: http://www.boxun.com/hero/wanggz/.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Madam Speaker. To meet the President's deadline for closing Guantanamo, there has been a rush during the past 2 months to transfer as many detainees as possible to their home countries, or to a third country that would accept them. On September 26, the administration announced that a detainee named Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed was transferred to Yemen. The announcement did not reveal the terms of his transfer but said the United States has coordinated with the Yemeni Government to ensure that the transfer took place under, quote, appropriate security measures. There is an ongoing and very real concern about detainees returning to terrorism. According to data from the Department of Defense, at least 15 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity. The 15 percent that have returned to terrorism following release were merely those detainees who were perceived to be low security risks. That's why they were released years ago. The detainees pending release now are the worst of the worst. Their recidivism rate may be much higher than 15 percent. If these detainees are to be transferred, they should go only to governments that are willing and able to try, detain, rehabilitate or monitor them. Yemen does not meet that standard. An economic crisis, domestic security challenges, and Islamic terrorism are right now threatening to overwhelm the Yemeni Government. The FBI director recently highlighted Yemen as an area of persistent al Qaeda activity. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula openly advertises their intent to attack the United States and our overseas interests, and is able to work in relative freedom in Yemen. Counterterrorism measures in Saudi Arabia have forced extremists to seek refuge abroad, and many have relocated to Yemen's ungoverned areas. Known al Qaeda terrorists, including USS Cole bombers, have escaped from prison in Yemen to return to terrorism. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month of the rising threat to Saudi Arabia from the deteriorating security situation in Yemen. Saudi police prevented a bomb attack on October 13, and one of the perpetrators was a former Guantanamo detainee who entered the country from Yemen. The bottom line is that terrorist detainees should not be sent to Yemen where al Qaeda operates freely and the government appears unable to control their actions and movements. Reuters has reported that the Obama administration has already cleared 75 of the remaining detainees for transfer abroad, and that includes 26 detainees from Yemen. Based on what we know, this administration is planning to send more, perhaps many more, detainees to this lawless country, increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on Americans. The administration should immediately terminate the return of detainees to Yemen, and the congressional committees of jurisdiction should investigate and demand a full justification. The release of any detainee to Yemen represents a potentially dangerous threat to the United States and U.S. citizens, both military and civilian. As of now, the administration has gone down a dangerous road, and Congress is idly allowing them to make these misguided decisions.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following testimonies of two Chinese human rights lawyers who appeared at a hearing today of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Written Testimony Submitted to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the Rule of Law in China by Mr. Jiang Tianyong Dear members of U.S. Congress, ladies and gentlemen: How are you? My name is Jiang Tianyong and I come from mainland China. I am an attorney and most of the cases I take on involve religious belief, and are usually referred to as ``sensitive cases.'' I am also a Christian and as such a person, I need to worship God in gatherings with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am going to discuss three things, and I hope I can give you an idea of the actual status of the rule of law and religious belief in China. The first one is an event I would like to share: On the afternoon of Mother's Day of May 13, 2007, I was praying and singing hymns of God with my brothers and sisters in Christ gathering. It was in a private large room in Beijing. Suddenly, several dozen people broke into the room. Only about a dozen of them were wearing uniforms and the rest were in plain clothes. One of them forced us to stop our activities and to remain still where we were. We were not allowed to leave the place. The intruders claimed that they were law enforcement officers from the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Religious Administration. They said that our gathering was an illegal one and abolished it immediately! They sealed our donation box and took videos and photos of many of us. They also recorded the identification information of every one of us. After that, they conducted a long interrogation. It was after 1 AM that I left the site. Between that day and July 2009, I had no place where I could meet with my fellow Christians in a gathering. This is my experience in China as a Christian. The second event occurred on April 16, 2009. Attorney Li Fangping and I became the defense counsels for the living Buddha from Burongna Convent in Tibet that day. The living Buddha is the abbot of Burongna Convent and Ya-tseg Convent in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Ganzi of Sichuan province. He was charged with weapons possession and functionary embezzlement. However, after a detailed investigation, we found the living Buddha was actually charged for some other reasons. After the March 14 Incident in 2008, people in the Tibetan prefecture were organized by the government to engage in a ``Campaign of Education in Patriotism.'' Monks and nuns were forced to study in the convents and were kept there for a long time. What, then, was the content of their education? They were commanded to criticize the Dalai Lama and to call him a jackal and to break away from him. Every one of them was commanded to trample on the portrait of Dalai Lama and spit on the portrait before he or she was allowed to pass the test. Given such a situation, over 200 nuns from Burongna and Ya-tseg Convents could no longer endure this, and they finally broke out of the convents on May 14, 2008 and went to protest in the streets, demanding religious freedom. As the living Buddha was the leader of these two convents, he was arrested. His case was tried on April 21, 2009 and both of the attorneys and the living Buddha denied the charges. There is still no result from the case, but we worry about the fate of the living Buddha. The third piece of evidence I would like to share is that starting from 2008, I began to defend Falun Gong practitioners in nearly 20 Falun Gong cases. I have found that the crackdown on Falun Gong is indeed a serious human rights disaster. My clients were arrested simply because of the practice. They were tried simply because they gave practice books to others. Some of them were sentenced to imprisonment just because they distributed materials that expose the facts of persecution. They often face torture and there are special funds, special locations, special people and special tools in torturing Falun Gong practitioners. When Huang Cheng from Jinzhou, Liaoning province was tried in court, everybody could see the scars on his body; Chen Xinye from Shenyang, Liaoning province suffered a bone fracture in the beatings; they poured mustard water into the nostril of Li Zhigang from Harbin, Heilongjiang province; Zhou Huimin from Chengdu, Sichuan province was beaten to death. When it comes to Falun Gong cases, the law is often trampled and it is hard to safeguard the defendant's right to defense. Sun Feng from Tangshan, Hebei province was deprived of his right to meet with his attorney; Ge Hefei from Handan of Hebei province was sentenced while his attorney was forbidden to intervene. In Falun Gong cases, attorneys are forbidden to defend their clients on the proper application of law or the nature of the incident. They are forbidden talk about the Constitution or human rights. They are only allowed to say whether the defendants did something or did not do something. I and other human rights attorneys in China are suffering an increasing level of harassment, suppression, and persecution [by the government], because we serve as defense counsels in cases of safeguarding the freedom of religious belief. Respectively in 2006 and 2008, the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice intentionally fabricated complications in the annual inspection and registration of my attorney's license. On July 9, 2009, the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice announced that my attorney's license was revoked. We [human rights legal defenders] are often stalked, harassed and threatened by the secret police from Domestic Defense Protection Squad. On special occasions or when foreign leaders visit China, we are often forbidden to leave our residences. For example, when President Obama visits China next month, I will be forced to stay at home. My family members are also often harassed and people from the Bureau of Justice often come to talk with us and forbid me to get involved in some cases. Because our landlords can't endure the pressure from the secret police, they refuse to renew our leases, and therefore we often are forced to move out. Because we handle cases involving religious belief, Li Heping, Li Xiongbing, Wang Yajun, Tang Jitian, Liu Wei, Wen Haibo, Xie Yiming, Wei Liangyue, Zhang Xingshui, other attorneys and I have still not passed the so-called ``annual inspection.'' Therefore, there is no way we can continue to work as attorneys at this time. However, legal professionals, including attorneys, members of house churches and other religious believers, have not abandoned their rights in face of the crackdown. The civil society in China is growing and will become more mature. I think all of you present here today should keep your confidence in this. We also need the attention and support from all of you present here today, and the U.S. government. I propose the following: 1. We recommend that you pay more attention and give more support to the non-governmental forces in China, such as the US State Department's International Visitor Leadership Program, so that more human rights attorneys can participate in the program; 2. We recommend President Obama and other government officials meet with human rights defenders and attend gatherings of house churches during their visit to China; 3. We recommend President Obama can talk with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao and restore the freedom of Liu Xiaobo, Chen Guangcheng, Hu Jia, Guo Feixiong and Guo Quan. We also hope that with President Obama's visit, we will be able to know the whereabouts of Attorney Gao Zhisheng; 4. We recommend officials in the U.S. Embassy in China make contact with human rights defenders and dissidents more often and more widely, and invite them to attend some activities held at the embassy. Thank you! A Testimony on the Current Status of China's Law on Religious Freedom (By Mr. Zhang Kai) As a human rights attorney in China, I am hereby making this statement concerning the current status of its law on religious freedom as well as some suggestions based on cases related to house churches affairs and their human rights advocacy in recent years. Over the past few years, a large number of Chinese people have been seeking faith and have become Christians. However, they are often unable to enact their everyday religious spiritual life under the law. Christian churches in China consist not only of the officially recognized TSPM churches, but also house churches organized by the believers themselves. The development of house churches was a result of the Christian belief that Christ, rather than the government, should be the leader of the church. Because of the theological differences between the TSPM and the house churches, many Christians prefer to have religious gatherings with their relatives and families at their own homes. However, members of these house churches are often interrupted, harassed and pressured by the government during religious services while meeting in their homes, with some believers administratively detained, reeducated through labor, and even criminally punished. I. illegal intervention in christian belief mainly includes the following aspects 1. Banning house churches on grounds of being ``cults.'' In 2000, the Ministry of Public Security issued The Ministry of Public Security Circular Concerning a Few Questions About Identifying and Banning Cult Organizations. In this regulation, the following are confirmed: there are seven types of cult organizations clearly defined in the documents by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, and there are seven types of cult organizations identified and confirmed by the Ministry of Public Security, totaling fourteen types of cults. However, of these fourteen cults, eleven are related to Christianity--including the Shouters, the Disciple Union, and the Total Scope Church. Since this regulation runs directly counter to the basic principle of the modern rule of law concerning the separation of the government and religion, it has further led to the direct crackdown on a large number of house churches composed of bona fide Christians, tried or labeled as cults, in the course of law enforcement. In accordance with Item 1 of Article 27 of the Security Administration Punishment Act currently in effect, anyone would be subject to administrative detention or fines (I) for organizing, abetting, intimidating, seducing and defrauding, or instigating other people into practicing cults or superstitious activities or for using cults or superstitious activities to disrupt security and order, and to harm the health of other people; (II) for conducting activities under the pretext of religion or Qigong, to disrupt security and order or harm the health of other people. This article has led to the confiscation and damages of the large amounts of church assets as well as the detention or reeducation through labor of believers. 2. Punishment on grounds of conducting cross-regional preaching. In some local regulations, believers are prohibited from cross-regional preaching. However, one of the characteristics of Christianity, as a religion, is that Christians preach wherever they go and spread the Gospel to every corner of the world. In the Provisional Regulations on the Management of Religious Activities in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, it is clearly set forth: ``Professional religious people shall not conduct cross-region, prefecture, city or county preaching without approval from the religious affairs bureaus of the government.'' In one place in Xinjiang, a believer, who went to another church, had barely read one sentence from the Bible when he/she was removed from the position in the church by the Religious Affairs Bureau. In some places, violators of this law are directly given administrative detention and even reeducation through labor. 3. Banning on grounds that they are not registered. At present, the regulations on religious affairs require that the establishment, change, or cancellation of religious organizations be registered in accordance with Regulations on Management of Registration of Social Organizations. However, house churches are unable to register independently. As a result, they are banned by local governments or the Public Security as illegal congregations or on grounds that they were not registered. 4. Intervening at will in the religious activities of believers. According to the surveys conducted in some cities in southern Xinjiang this year, the government religious affairs departments (i.e., Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commissions) of Wensu, Baicheng, and the Aksu area, appointed or removed at will clergymen at the house churches and restricted the normal religious activities such as ``breaking of bread'' and baptism, without going through democratic elections by believers. Even the programs celebrating Christmas by believers must all be reviewed and approved by the religious affairs departments. Some religious venues were illegally shut down without following any legal procedures. 5. Suspected intention of insulting Christians. In 2008, the People's Government of Wensu Town even issued a plaque of ``Peaceful Mosque'' to the Christian Church in Wensu. This action, by blurring the Christian and Muslim faiths, caused a widespread revulsion toward Christians, and may provoke the conflict among peoples of different religions in the future. 6. Large numbers of facts show that administrative penalty rulings are not issued and that fines were imposed without legal and official tickets. For example, Li Enfu, a citizen in the Wushi area who has believed in Christianity ever since he was a child, had been appraised as an ``Excellent Self-employed Individual'' several times, even though he is handicapped. Yet, just because he had participated in religious activities, Li Enfu was fined repeatedly. In 2002, this citizen was fined 4,000 yuan and actually paid 2,000 yuan, just because he took a Christian calendar from the Wensu church and this calendar was an official publication of the government. In 2006, he was fined 8,500 yuan for attending a Christian gathering held at his own home. And in March 2009, Huang Ming and Li Enfu were fined a total of 3,000 yuan for holding the gathering and leading the prayers. 7. Punishing Uyghur ethnic minorities in Xinjiang for believing in Christianity. In the Xinjiang region, it is especially difficult for the Uyghur people who believe in Christianity. They basically operate underground. In southern Xinjiang, there are about one hundred Uyghur Christians. They can only hold completely secret gatherings in groups of two or three people. Last year, their leader, Wusiman, was reeducated through labor, and co-leader Alimujiang was criminally punished. II. comments on the ineffectiveness of legal relief concerning christian belief When lawyers involved in these kinds of cases provide legal services for believers, they often experience tremendous obstruction. For example, the courts refuse to take the cases; when they do take cases, they don't hold hearings; and when they hold hearings, they do not give rulings. It is extremely difficult to file relevant cases with the courts, which do not go through any standard legal proceedings. According to Chinese law, if a case cannot be established, there should be a ruling that the case is not established. And based on that ruling, the party concerned has the right to appeal. However, very often, these courts neither process the filing of these cases, nor give any rulings. This year, in the Hanzhong region in Shanxi, we instituted the relevant administrative proceedings, and the court just refused to take the case. Such phenomena are quite widespread. Although some cases were filed and the litigation fees were paid, the courts kept postponing the hearings. Four years ago, when I started administrative proceedings in the Hanyin area in Shaanxi, I was told by the local political and judicial commission that there wouldn't be any court hearings. Even now there still hasn't been any court hearing. III. based on the above facts, we are making the following suggestions As the aforementioned facts mainly include the harm directly brought upon house churches by the judiciary or law enforcement, we hope that the international community can give more attention so as to increase surveillance and reduce such harm. We hope that the U.S. government will carry out more specific implementations in the following areas: 1. Urge and help the Chinese government to draw up the Religious Freedom Law, which should be consistent with universal values. 2. Have more American officials or those at the U.S. embassy in China attend worship services in house churches in China. 3. Have American government officials or staff at the U.S. Embassy in China periodically communicate with human rights lawyers to learn about their situations.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the ``Sweats for Vets'' initiative taking place in Virginia's 10th District, which I am honored to represent in Congress. When I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center during August recess, I learned about an effort being undertaken by groups of veterans and other organizations across the United States to provide ``pieces of home'' to our wounded warriors in veterans' hospitals. Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1177, based in Leesburg, Virginia, is one of these groups. Their ``Sweats for Vets'' program has provided sweatpants, sweatshirts, and books to patients at the Martinsburg Veterans Hospital, as part of the hospital's support program. This gesture helps make a hospital more comfortable for our wounded soldiers. The town of Purcellville, also located in the 10th District, has joined with VFW Post 1177 and American Legion Post 293 in collecting sweat sets for patients in local veterans' hospitals. The ``Sweats for Vets'' initiative has become a tremendous morale booster. I would like to recognize the Purcellville mayor, Bob Lazaro, for leading the initiative in the town. By undertaking this project, he is leading an important effort to help our wounded warriors and improve their stay in the hospital. I salute the efforts of both VFW Post 1177 and the town of Purcellville, to help bring comfort to those service personnel recovering in veterans' hospitals.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, the national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent with nearly half of the states reporting increases in the month of September. And it is growing--it could reach 10 percent. The national debt is approaching $12 trillion, and the `09 fiscal year registered a staggering $1.4 trillion in red ink. Meanwhile the House is expected to consider a health insurance reform package with a price tag nearing $900 billion, with a Government run public option. America is going broke. We have watched the dollar slide--recently reaching a 14-month low against all other major currencies--which if not addressed this could lead to even higher consumer prices. We can't spend our way out of this mess, and it won't magically get better without action from Congress. The country is in trouble and it's time to stop the bleeding. The action that will lead to a solution is the bipartisan commission Jim Cooper and I have proposed with every spending program on the table with tax policy. Over 75 members of the House support this idea. Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and ranking member Gregg have similar legislation in the Senate. So do Senators Voinovich and Lieberman. The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission bill is an opportunity to create a renaissance in this country for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this is a poster of Uncle Sam going broke. America is going broke, and we are taking away the future economic security of our children, grandchildren and of everyone listening. The national debt is racing toward $12 trillion, and it is growing at rates that haven't been matched since World War II. It will double over the next 10 years. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, hit the nail on the head in this week's National Journal when she said, ``It's like fiscal jenga, where people are piling on more and more debt, and finally, something's going to be the cause of it collapsing, but no one believes their thing is going to be the tipping point.'' Why is this Congress, Mr. Speaker, willing to keep piling on the debt? Why are we turning a blind eye toward our children and grandchildren? The FY 2009 fiscal year ending September 30 registered a $1.4 trillion deficit, leaving red ink as far as the eye can see, and leaving trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Medicare and Social Security add up to a massive $57 trillion in promises Uncle Sam has made but can't keep. Make no mistake. Unsustainable spending has far-reaching implications for the United States. It touches every sector from health care to job creation, and it gives the foreign investors who hold America's debt more control. What is this administration doing? Is Congress prepared to let America sink? How can this Congress stand by record joblessness that is almost reaching 10 percent? Does Congress care? Our manufacturing base is crumbling. The state of the dollar is falling. Foreign lenders own nearly 40 percent of our domestic economy, and China and Saudi Arabia have now become our bankers. If lawmakers in this body were serious about the debt and about the deficit issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would have an honest conversation and would do something about it. In June of 2006, they stood in the same place, and spoke about the introduction of a bill called the SAFE Commission Act. They explained that the country is having trouble. It's a bipartisan commission, and it puts every spending program on. It comes back and requires--it requires, Mr. Speaker--that Congress vote up or down. In a bipartisan manner, Congressman Cooper and I have had this bill in now for 3 years. I have little faith that this Congress will act through regular order and will tackle this enormous, growing problem. It will take this approach: Instead of dealing with these issues, Congress will ignore them. In closing, it reminds me of the Simon and Garfunkel song, which they sang in Central Park, called ``The Boxer.'' It says: Man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. I would change the words to say: Congress hears only what it wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Therefore, this Congress is allowing Uncle Sam to go broke. It is time for us to deal with it in a bipartisan way for the good of our children, for the good of our grandchildren and for the good of everyone who lives in this country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell for receiving the Carrington Williams Preservation Award. The Carrington Williams Preservation Award is presented by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to an individual whose accomplishments in furthering the cause of preservation have been noteworthy and will be long-lasting. This year, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation selected a Virginian of remarkable accomplishments for the Commonwealth and to the preservationist cause to receive this award. The award is made in honor of Carrington Williams, whose dedication to preservation, especially Civil War battlefields, is well known. He served as chairman of the predecessor organization to the Civil War Preservation Trust, the Association for Preservation of Civil War Sites. He was chairman of the federal commission that wrote the management plan for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and he served as the founding chairman of this organization. The Honorable William J. Howell is the 54th Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, a nearly 400-year old institution and the oldest continuously elected law-making body in the world. First elected a delegate in 1987, he represents the 28th House District which includes parts of Stafford County and the City of Fredericksburg. In addition to his noteworthy legislative contributions to public education and public safety, the 2007 enactment of his legislation for historic land use changes were supported by statewide and regional funding of roads, railroads, and transit. He has been a strong supporter of restoring the Chesapeake Bay and also led the effort to enact Virginia's national model program for preserving open spaces using free market principles. He has stood firmly with battlefield preservationists in many of their efforts, including those at Slaughter Pen Farm in Fredericksburg, as well as more recently at the Wilderness. And his leadership enabled the General Assembly to appropriate $5 million in state funding for Civil War battlefield preservation. Speaker Howell is chairman of the Virginia Sesquicentennial American Civil War Commission that is now preparing to mark the 150th Anniversary in 2011 of Virginia's entry into the Civil War. He has been twice honored by the Civil War Preservation Trust with its State Leadership Award. He was one of the overseers of the recent State Capitol renovations as well as one of the leaders in organizing the commemoration in 2007 of America's 400th Anniversary at Jamestown.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Conference Report for H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 because it includes more than just the comprehensive annual defense policies and budget authority for the Department of Defense, which is the intended purpose of the bill. I continue to fully support the efforts of our troops on the ground, but have serious concerns about controversial hate crimes legislation added by the Senate. When the House voted on this legislation in June, I voted yes, because I supported the policies laid out in the House version of the bill. But the Senate's addition has no place in this bill. I was also disappointed to see that provisions to fix Concurrent Receipt that were included in the House version of the bill were removed in conference. This is a well deserved and long overdue benefit for our nation's veterans. I want to express my support for the provisions in this legislation which will improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families, strengthen commitments to military retirees, and bolster our national security. Without the hate crimes provision, this bill in total is good legislation for our troops and veterans. In addition to the pay raise for our military, it includes important TRICARE provisions that I continue to support. I have a long history of supporting our troops and veterans and will continue to work to support policies that benefit our military and hope that future defense related legislation can be considered without the inclusion of extraneous and inappropriate provisions. I also strongly support provisions included in this legislation with regard to federal employees that will improve the efficacy of the federal workforce and remedy historic inequalities in federal retirement benefits. These improvements will strengthen our national security workforce, including more than 700,000 civilians employed worldwide by the Department of Defense. I am particularly pleased that legislation I have introduced with Representative Jim Moran, which would credit unused sick leave for federal employees, has been included in this bill. According to a Congressional Research Service report, current inequities in sick leave policy result in a loss of productivity costing taxpayers more than $68 million each year. This will remedy this and result in a more productive and cost-effective workforce. The other important federal workforce provisions included in this legislation will: change the computation of certain annuities based on part-time service; expand the class of individuals eligible to receive an actuarially reduced annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System; authorize the re-deposit of retirement funds under the Federal Employee Retirement System; change the retirement credit for service of certain employees transferred from the District of Columbia service to the federal service; alter the retirement treatment of Secret Service employees; and phase in the use of locality-based comparability payments to replace cost-of-living adjustments for certain federal employees, and include a provision from the Senate-passed bill allowing for the re-employment of federal retirees on a limited, part-time basis without offsetting their annuity from salary. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the last several months to advocate for the inclusion of these provisions from the House and Senate bills and I am pleased that they have been maintained in the conference agreement. Although I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill, I strongly support the inclusion of these provisions strengthening the federal workforce.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. The front page of the Washington Post yesterday featured a story about the Dalai Lama's visit to Washington this week--a trip which will be marked by what doesn't take place. For the first time since 1991, this spiritual leader, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, will not be afforded a meeting with the President of the United States. This is a mistake which has far-reaching consequences. China has initiated a global effort to stop heads of state from hosting the Dalai Lama. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page pointed out yesterday, ``China routinely assails countries whose leaders meet with the Dalai Lama, targeting France and Germany in recent years by cutting off diplomatic exchanges and canceling conferences and the like.'' The Dalai Lama is set to travel to New Zealand and Australia later this year and, as the Post reported, ``he has yet to secure a commitment from their leaders to meet.'' Will these countries follow our lead? I've been to Tibet. I've seen the Buddhist monks and nuns in Drapchi prison. I've met frightened Tibetans who quietly showed me their forbidden photo of the Dalai Lama. I wonder if their plight received even passing mention during internal White House deliberations about whether to meet with the Dalai Lama before the President's November trip to China. Or, were they simply a nuisance in the context of a larger bilateral relationship? An unnamed administration official in the Post story justified the decision by saying ``this President is not interested in symbolism or photo ops but in deliverables.'' I, too, am interested in deliverables, as is the human rights community, but I'm interested in symbols. And the President should be, too. Symbolism is powerful. If we surrender to this Chinese government, we have surrendered something far greater than the President may realize. The Tiananmen Square demonstrators of 20 years ago understood that symbols speak volumes. They carried papier-mache models of the Statute of Liberty. Ronald Reagan, too, understood symbols. He understood there was something symbolically stirring about him standing at the Brandenberg Gate and calling on the then-Soviet leader to tear down that wall that divided the people of East and West Berlin. Ronald Reagan understood there was something symbolically powerful about invoking the name of Solzhenitsyn when he spoke at the Danilov Monastery in Russia--the very same dissident who more than a decade earlier, reminiscent of this week's events, was denied a visit with President Ford who was worried about upsetting the Russians prior to a summit. This administration may not be interested in symbolism, but that will come as devastating, devastating news to millions around the world who yearn for freedom, who cry out for basic human rights, and who expect America, our country, to be their champion when their own voices have been silenced. What about the Coptic Christians in Egypt? The Baha'is in Iran? What about the oppressed citizens of Burma and North Korea and Vietnam? They should rightly be alarmed by the treatment of the Dalai Lama, as this is just one more example of a growing pattern in this administration of sidelining human rights. It's not too late. I call on the President to invite the Dalai Lama to the White House; to reclaim the moral high ground and not kowtow to the Chinese government that brutally oppresses its people. I call on the President to stand side by side with his holiness--a man of peace--and align America once again with the oppressed, not with the oppressors.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I want to talk about an issue dealing with our national security. CNN reported this morning that the security situation in Yemen is rapidly deteriorating, making a dangerous new haven for al Qaeda and terrorists. This report is just the latest in a series of warnings about the security situation in Yemen. Earlier this week, Time magazine reported that ``two-thirds of the country is out of government control,'' and that ``al Qaeda is turning the lawless mountain areas of Yemen into a new staging area.'' According to press reports today, U.S. counterterrorism officials believe that al Qaeda's ``presence in Yemen threatens to turn the country into a dangerous base for training and plotting attacks.'' In September 2008, al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen attacked the U.S. Embassy with vehicle bombs, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operations. We have seen the consequences of these developments. Last August, a Yemeni al Qaeda loyalist detonated a suicide bomb in an attempt to kill Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He was able to gain access to the prince by pretending to be an al Qaeda defector before detonating the explosions. Despite this deteriorating situation, it was reported--and it's hard to believe--in Reuters on Monday in an article I'm submitting for the Record that at least one detainee from Guantanamo Bay has been released to Yemen--released to Yemen, where you can't control the country--and at least 26 others have been cleared to return, according to a list at the detention facility posted in Arabic and Pashto. What kind of policy is this that the detainees--some who have killed American citizens--at Guantanamo Bay have a list of those that are being released, but not one Member of Congress or the American people know anything about it and are kept in the dark. Most of these detainees were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002. They have spent 8 years living among the most dangerous terrorists in the world, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and who beheaded Daniel Pearl. In an attempt to meet this self-imposed deadline to close Guantanamo Bay next January, Eric Holder and the administration are prepared to release perhaps a third of its cleared detainees to Yemen, a dangerously unstable country that is clearly unprepared to accept and monitor and rehabilitate these detainees. Given that more than 15 percent of released detainees have returned to terrorism, this release will have a dangerous consequence for the American people. It's not beyond the imagination that there will be an article in the paper several months from now that somebody who was at Guantanamo, from Yemen, released by Eric Holder, goes back to Yemen and kills an American citizen or is involved in an act of terrorism. Combined with al Qaeda's growing strength and presence in Yemen, this release is concerning. As our State Department noted in its 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism, ``The security situation in Yemen deteriorated significantly over the past year as al Qaeda and Yemen increased its attacks against Western and Yemeni Government institutions.'' What is Eric Holder and the Justice Department--what are they thinking about? Surely, there must be a better solution, one that won't release detainees from Guantanamo who are involved in activities against American military, who have served time with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, to send them back to Yemen. Earlier today, I wrote Attorney General Eric Holder to urge that no additional detainees be released to Yemen or other unstable countries. The deadline to close Guantanamo Bay is no excuse to expedite the release of Yemeni detainees, especially if the country, as it is, is unprepared to take responsibility for them. The decision to release the detainees requires due diligence. It cannot be undone. While we may have a difference of opinion on how best to deal with the situation in Guantanamo Bay, I think, I hope, I believe that we can all agree that a rush release of terrorist detainees, people who have served with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should not be released back into Yemen when it is so destabilized. What is this Obama administration thinking? What is Eric Holder thinking? I urge Members of Congress to have hearings and for Eric Holder to cease and desist any returnees back to Yemen. [From Reuters, Sept. 28, 2009] Obama Team Clears 75 at Guantanamo for Release (By Jane Sutton) MIAMI.--An Obama administration task force has so far cleared 75 of the remaining 223 Guantanamo prisoners for release as part of its effort to close the detention camp, a military spokesman said on Monday. The review team is examining each prisoner's case to decide who will be held for trial and who can be sent home or resettled in other nations. President Barack Obama had set a January 22 deadline to shut the detention camp although Defense Secretary Robert Gates told ABC News in an interview broadcast on Sunday that ``it's going to be tough'' to meet the deadline. As the review team makes its decisions, military officials at Guantanamo post an updated list in the camps to let the prisoners know how many from each nation have been judged free to go. It was an opportunity to just provide better communication,'' said Navy Lieutenant Commander Brook DeWalt, a spokesman for the Guantanamo detention operation. ``There's a lot of information out there and you get a lot of things from a lot of different angles. It helps put it in a more succinct context for them.'' The prisoners are well aware of Obama's announcement that the camp would be closed and have heard piecemeal information from their lawyers and relatives during phone calls arranged by the International Committee of the Red Cross, he said. The list is posted in Arabic, Pashto and English. The latest list of 78 prisoners includes two Uzbeks sent to Ireland and a Yemeni returned to his homeland on Saturday, an indication that some progress is being made in thinning the camp population of those who are not considered a threat. ``We are not focused on whether the deadline will or won't be met on a particular day,'' White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. ``We are focused on making . . . the most progress that is possible.'' Some on the list are among the 30 ordered freed by U.S. courts but still awaiting transfer, including 13 Chinese Uighurs. The Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to accept most of them. Also on the list are 26 other captives from Yemen, nine from Tunisia, seven from Algeria, four from Syria, three each from Libya and Saudi Arabia, two each from Uzbekistan, Egypt, the West Bank and Kuwait, and one each from Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. Most were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan after U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to oust al Qaeda in response to the September 11 hijacked plane attacks on the United States.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, recent numbers from the White House Office of Management and Budget, featured in the ad behind me, predicts a Federal deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. Do we really think America is unsinkable? I urge you to visit defeatthedebt.com and learn more about exactly how serious the mounting debt and deficits are to every American. A television ad being run by the same group features an elementary school class citing the Pledge of Allegiance to America's debt and the Chinese Government that lends us money. When will we wake up to how serious this problem is and take it seriously enough to deal with it? This Congress and this administration are failing the American people. We need to come together and sponsor the bipartisan Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I have now written Attorney General Eric Holder on four occasions asking for an explanation of the dismissal of an important voter intimidation case, U.S. v. New Black Panther Party. To date, the answers provided are scant and, in at least one important regard, factually inaccurate. In 1981, I was the only member, Republican or Democrat, of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of The Richmond Times Dispatch. And when I supported the act's reauthorization in 2006, I was again criticized by editorial pages. My commitment to voting rights is unquestioned. It is imperative that we protect all Americans' right to vote. This is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. This New Black Panther Party case was brought in January by career attorneys in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division against the party and several of its members for deploying uniformed men to a polling station in Philadelphia on Election Day last November to harass and intimidate voters, one of whom brandished a nightstick to voters. The public, and every Member, if they care, can view the video of the incident as well as other examples of the party's intimidation in a clip from the National Geographic Channel documentary entitled ``Coming to a Polling Place Near You'' posted on the Web. And it can be seen at www.electionjournal.org. One of the witnesses of the Election Day incident, Bartle Bull, a veteran civil rights activist who served as Bobby Kennedy's New York campaign manager in 1968, has publicly called this ``the most blatant form of voter intimidation'' he has ever seen. He also reminded us that ``Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jackboots with billy clubs block the doors of polling places, and neither did Robert Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace.'' In July, The Washington Times reported that improper political influence by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli led to the dismissal of the case, a politicizing of career employees. This inexplicable dismissal came over the objections of the career attorneys on the trial team as well as the department's own appeal office, which advised that the complaint was ``sufficient to support the injunctions'' sought by the career lawyers, and that the ``government's predominant interest is preventing intimidation, threats and coercion against voters.'' Despite this guidance urging that the department pursue a judgment in this case, it was dismissed in May over the career attorneys' objections. However, this unjustified dismissal has not gone unnoticed. I have worked with the Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith to demand answers from Attorney General Holder. I am pleased that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has also taken note of this case. The Commission has an important statutory responsibility to ``investigate voting rights deprivation and make appraisals of Federal policies to enforce Federal voting rights laws.'' Congress instilled this independent oversight responsibility of the Commission in statute, and it says: ``All Federal agents shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.'' The Commission wrote to Attorney General Holder on June 16, June 22 and August 10 requesting answers on the dismissal of this case. It also voted at its September meeting to make its review of this case the primary focus of its 2009 independent report. Earlier today, the Commission sent a fourth letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, which I submit for the Record, reiterating its request for information and asking him to respond no later than October 14 or it will proceed with an investigation using its statutory authorities. I applaud the Commission. I call on Attorney General Holder to answer the questions posed in my letters dated June 8, July 17, July 22 and July 31, as well as comply with the Commission's request for information so it may complete its report. I also urge the Attorney General to allow Members of Congress to meet with the career attorneys in the trial team and appeal the body so that they may answer legitimate questions. Again, if Members of Congress want to see the case that Eric Holder has dropped, just go to www.electionjournal.org. It's the National Geographic channel. And you will see Eric Holder has to start answering the letters that the Civil Rights Commission sends and Members have sent. Finally, the trial team should be allowed to bring the case again-- per the guidance I obtained from the Congressional Research Service's American Law Division in its July 30 memo--to allow our nation's justice system to work as it was intended: impartially and without bias. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, September 30, 2009. Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Re: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Review and Report on the Implications of Enforcement Actions in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Civ. No. 09- 0065 SD (E.D. Pa.) (NBPP case) Dear Attorney General Holder: The Commission requests that you instruct Department officials to fully cooperate, as 42 U.S.C. 1975b(e) requires, with our overdue information requests in the above-referenced matter. To that end, we also ask you to identify an individual who will exercise the substantive authority to coordinate the Department's responses to our current and future requests. Pursuant to formal proceedings, the Commission initiated an inquiry into the implications of the Department's enforcement actions in the NBPP case as reflected in our letters to DOJ of June 16 and 22. We received a largely non-responsive letter from Portia Roberson in late July and none of the documents we requested. On August 7, the Commission voted 6- 0, with two members abstaining, to expand its investigation by sending a follow-up letter to the Department. On August 10, the Commission addressed its letter to you, explaining our need for the information. For example, we stressed our need for information on previous voter intimidation investigations so that we could determine whether the Department's action in the NBPP case constitutes a change in policy and, if so, what the implications of that change might be. At our most recent meeting on September 11, 2009, the Commission voted to make its review of the implications of the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report. The Commission was aware that the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) had initiated an inquiry into some aspects of the NBPP case to determine whether further review is warranted. Although a letter from Ms. Roberson of September 9 expresses the Department's desire to delay any response to the Commission until the OPR investigation is complete, you may rest assured that the Commission will be sensitive to OPR's internal ethics review as we move forward with our own inquiry. As the discussion at our recent meeting indicates, the Commission will work to accommodate any legitimate concerns the Department may have regarding specific requests for information once the Department begins its production. The Commission has a special statutory responsibility to investigate voting rights deprivations and make appraisals of federal policies to enforce federal voting rights laws. The Commission must form an independent judgment regarding the merits of the NBPP enforcement actions (regardless of how the decisions were made) and the potential impact on future voter-intimidation enforcement by the Department. Accordingly, Congress has provided, in a provision with no statutory exceptions, that, ``All Federal agencies shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1975b(e). It is important to note that many aspects of the Commission's inquiry have no connection with the matters subject to OPR's jurisdiction. As set forth in our August 10 letter, the Commission will seek to determine: 1) the facts and the Department's actions regarding prior voting intimidation investigations; 2) the underlying conduct in Philadelphia giving rise to the NBPP case; 3) whether the decision in the NBPP case is consistent with departmental policy or practice in prior cases or amounts to a change in policy or practice; 4) the extent to which current policy or practice as reflected in the NBPP case may encourage voter intimidation; and 5) whether that policy or practice is consistent with proper enforcement of section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. The Commission may also seek to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences. Thus, there may be some areas of potential overlap with OPR's internal review, including an examination of the decision-making process in the case. With regard to these questions, if there are concerns as to the timing or content of specific discovery requests, the Commission will work with the Department to resolve them in a prompt and satisfactory manner. In addition to my personal availability to speak with your representatives, the Commission has appointed a subcommittee of commissioners to focus on any discovery issue that might arise in our investigation. Accordingly, please identify the individual with substantive responsibility for the production of documents, scheduling of interviews and any possible depositions. If you have not done so by October 14th, however, it will be necessary for us to propound our interrogatories and interview requests directly on the affected Department personnel. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and prompt reply to these requests. Sincerely, Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman.