Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, in closing, as we look at this bill, I know there is going to be a series of amendments at different times, and I think a lot of the amendments that will be offered will be from Members who are very sincerely concerned about the economic crisis that our country faces. There was an article today in Reuters. Let me read it to the Members here. It says: ``New York Reuters: Technical analyst Robert Prechter on Monday said he sees the United States losing its top AAA credit rating by the end of 2010, as he stuck by a deeply bearish outlook on the U.S. economy and stock market. ``Prechter, known for predicting the 1987 stock market crash, joins a growing group of market heavyweights in forecasting the United States will lose its top credit rating as the government issues trillions of dollars in debt to fund efforts to bail out the economy. ``Fears about the long-term vulnerability of the prized U.S. credit rating came to the fore after Standard & Poor's in May lowered its outlook on Britain, threatening the U.K.'s top AAA rating. That move raised fears that the United States could face a similar risk, with the hefty amounts of government debt issued in both countries to pay for financial rescues causing budget deficits to swell.'' So as Members offer these, I would just say there are some things there that are important in the country. We have got to get control of spending. But in other areas, our country is facing a crisis--in the area of science. Last year China and India graduated 700,000 engineers, and we only graduated 70,000, and 40 percent of our engineers are foreign students who are returning to their country. And, lastly, in the space program, we have 95,000 engineers working on the space program. But China has 200,000. And unless we do some fairly dramatic things, our factories will close and we will lose the edge in science and engineering. So we need to gain control of the entitlement spending, and I hope to be able to offer an amendment to the Financial Services bill. I'm going to offer an amendment that sets up a bipartisan commission to put every spending program on the table, every spending program in the government on the table, and give that bipartisan commission an opportunity to then go around the country holding public hearings, but to send a proposal up to Congress and require the Congress to vote on it. So I understand the frustration of many of the Members when they see this Congress failing to address the fundamental issues of spending in the Congress. And we also have the trustee's report showing that the Social Security system is beginning to go bankrupt faster, the Medicare system is going to go bankrupt faster, and young people have no confidence and believe that the Social Security system is not sound. We have a moral obligation to deal with that, and I hope that Congress will. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the amendment. As the gentleman says, Colombia is a strong ally and a partner in this hemisphere; and I support the Congress acting to implement U.S.- Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The trade agreement that has been negotiated would bring important economic benefits to the U.S. and level the playing field between our countries. It would create jobs. The unemployment rate that just came out is 9.2 percent. Not to do this would border on being crazy. The gentleman's amendment would serve the ongoing debate by generating information about the economic impacts here in the U.S. of our failure to adopt the agreement. So I urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act. Requesting Member: The Hon. Frank R. Wolf Provision: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force Address of Requesting Entity: 880 Harrison Street SE, Leesburg, VA 20175 Description of Request: In response to increasing gang activity in northern Virginia, a multi jurisdictional law enforcement task force was established in 2003 to more effectively respond to gang activity. As a result of the task force's efforts, criminal gang activity has declined by more than 50 percent. In order to sustain and maintain these impressive results, the task force requested $3 million in funding, which is included in H.R. 2847. Requesting Member: The Hon. Frank R. Wolf Provision: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northwest Virginia Regional Gang Task Force Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 49, Berryville, VA 22611 Description of Request: In response to increasing gang activity in the Shenandoah Valley, this task force was established to coordinate and share information with their counterparts at the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the entire northern Virginia region is a hotbed of gang activity. In order to better fight gang activity in this area, the task force requested $1 million in funding, which is included in H.R. 2847.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, as ranking member on the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee, which last week considered the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, I have a keen interest in and oversight responsibility for a host of counterterrorism and related initiatives. The bill which is expected to come before the full House next week includes $7.7 billion to support the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, whose top priorities include protecting and defending the United States against terrorism and foreign intelligence threats. The FBI was intimately involved in a 15-year investigation, which culminated last fall in the Holy Land Foundation and five of its former organizers being found guilty of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. A Department of Justice press release issued May 27, 2009, reported, ``U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its leaders following their convictions by a Federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.'' The sentences range from 15 years to 65 years in prison. According to the Department of Justice, ``From its inception, the Holy Land Foundation existed to support Hamas. The government's case included testimony that, in the early 1990s, Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas. The defendants sent Holy Land Foundation-raised funds to Hamas-controlled zakat committees and charitable societies West Bank and Gaza.'' Among the unindicted conspirators in the case is an organization which, over the last several years, has been granted access to the highest levels of the U.S. Government--an organization which is routinely elevated in the press as a voice of mainstream Muslim Americans. This organization is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. Tawfik Hamid, according to his bio, is an ``Islamist thinker and reformer and onetime Islamist extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, with Dr. Ayman al- Zawahiri, who became later the second in command of al Qaeda. On May 25 of 2007, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Hamid wrote the following, ``In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of [sic] American Islamic Relations.'' The observations of Mr. Tawfik, himself a Muslim, are particularly relevant in light of recent news reports. On January 30, 2009, Fox News reported that the FBI was ``severing its once close ties with the Nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas.'' Given that Hamas is on the current list of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, this was obviously a serious claim and one which, if true, would rightly inform a shift in FBI policy. However, the Fox News piece left me with some unanswered questions, questions which, given the seriousness of the report, necessitated further inquiry. Such questions of the executive branch are a common congressional practice and, in fact, are the responsibility of the legislative branch of government and are the intended purpose of our system of checks and balances. For 6 years, from 2001-2006, I served as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which has oversight of the FBI. This year, I resumed a leadership role as the lead Republican on the subcommittee. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring and supervision of Federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.'' A young Woodrow Wilson, before becoming President, put it this way. He said, ``Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration.'' Needless to say, I take very seriously the responsibility of congressional oversight, especially in matters with potential national security implications. In this spirit of oversight, I wrote to the FBI on February 2, seeking additional information and clarification regarding the Bureau's decision about its relationship with CAIR. For the Record, I submit a copy of the letter. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 2, 2009. Mr. Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington DC. Dear Mr. Heimbach: I write regarding the bureau's position on meeting with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Over the weekend I saw a FOX News report (enclosed) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off ties with CAIR ``amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas.'' Given that Hamas is on the current list of U.S. designated foreign terrorist organizations, this is obviously a serious claim, one which would rightly inform a shift in FBI policy. In response to this report, I request answers to the following questions: Has the FBI severed ties with CAIR? If so, how is the FBI planning to formally notify Members of Congress and other government officials of this decision? If FBI policy has changed with regard to CAIR, is there any indication that this decision is being revisited by the new administration? If so, what new evidence would justify a change in course? Is CAIR's national office still in contact with the FBI? The report quotes Assistant Director John Miller from the FBI Office of Public Affairs as saying: ``The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters.'' What specifically are the ``certain issues'' which you have raised with CAIR? Is there still informal contact with any field offices? If so, what is the distinction between formal and informal and why is there a distinction between field offices? To your knowledge, does CAIR receive financial contributions from foreign sources? If so, which ones and how much? I look forward to your timely response, and to working with you in the days ahead in my new role as ranking member of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. The Fox News piece, which prompted my initial interest, quoted the assistant director of the Office of Public Affairs at the Bureau as saying, ``The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters.'' I found this statement to be vague. While perhaps sufficient from a public affairs vantage, I believed it to be an insufficient explanation for Members of Congress, none of whom, to my knowledge, had been informed of this policy shift, and it was just that--a policy shift. The FOX piece noted later that the FBI has ``long been close to CAIR. The agency has previously invited CAIR to give training sessions for agents and used it as a liaison with the American Muslim community.'' I was one of several Members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, who wrote the Bureau in the days following this report. Some, such as Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, voiced their support for the Bureau's decision, which was a step further than my initial letter; but they, too, desired to ``understand the situation more fully'' as Senators Kyl and Schumer wrote. When I received a response from the FBI on March 9, only 1 of the 10 questions I posed was answered, which prompted me to send a second letter restating the original questions and pressing the FBI for a timely and detailed response. I submit a copy of that letter for the Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 9, 2009. Mr. Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC. Dear Mr. Heimbach: I was deeply disappointed with the FBI's response--hand-delivered to my office last Friday--to my letter of February 2 inquiring about the Bureau's position on meeting with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It took the Bureau more than a month to respond, and the letter I received provides only a partial answer to one of the 10 questions I posed. In 1998 I authored the legislation that created the National Commission on Terrorism. Regrettably its recommendations were not implemented until after the attacks on 9/11. I take seriously the responsibility of congressional oversight, especially in matters with potential national security implications. For six years I served as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FBI and count myself among the Bureau's strongest supporters. Having resumed a leadership role this year as ranking member on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, it is important to me that the FBI provide timely and detailed responses. And so again, I request answers to the following straight-forward questions: Has the FBI severed ties with CAIR? If so, how is the FBI planning to formally notify Members of Congress and other government officials of this decision? If FBI policy has changed with regard to CAIR, is there any indication that this decision is being revisited by the new administration? If so, what new evidence would justify a change in course? Is CAIR's national office still in contact with the FBI? The FOX News report I referenced in my original letter quotes Assistant Director John Miller from the FBI Office of Public Affairs as saying: ``The FBI has had to limit its formal contact with CAIR field offices until certain issues are addressed by CAIR's national headquarters.'' What specifically are the ``certain issues'' which you have raised with CAIR? Is there still informal contact with any field offices? If so, what is the distinction between formal and informal and why is there a distinction between field offices? To your knowledge, does CAIR receive financial contributions from foreign sources? If so, which ones and how much? I would like these questions fully answered by this Friday, March 13, and by someone who works on counter-terrorism, rather than a public affairs officer. Other members of Congress, both House and Senate, have expressed interest in and additional information about the Bureau's position as it relates to CAIR. I would think the Bureau would be embarrassed to send the insufficient response I received. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. Days after my second letter, CAIR launched a public attack against me, claiming in a March 12 press release that I ``abused'' my ``office'' by ``seeking to pressure the FBI to produce negative information'' about the organization. Those assertions are patently untrue and would not even warrant a response were they not symptomatic of what I believe to be a larger pattern of intimidation undertaken by CAIR--intimidation which is of great consequence given the national security matters at stake. As my letters to the FBI indicate, I was seeking to better understand the Bureau's position and access information about what led to this decision. It is a conclusion which--and I agree with my Senate colleagues--is absolutely appropriate based on reports I have read for years but which, again, marks a change in course for the Bureau and, as such, deserved further explanation. It is noteworthy that, on April 28, following my initial unsatisfactory reply from the Bureau, Senator Kyl received a more substantive response from the FBI to his letter. In the letter to Senator Kyl, the Bureau was more detailed in explaining and in validating the original news report regarding its relationship with CAIR. The letter reads, ``As you know, CAIR was named as an unindicted coconspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in the United States v. Holy Land Foundation, et al. ``During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and its executive director, and the Palestinian committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestinian committee and Hamas, which was designated a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI. ``The FBI's decision to suspend formal contacts was not intended to reflect a wholesale judgment of the organization and its entire membership. Nevertheless, until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.'' I submit a copy of the Bureau's response to Senator Kyl for the Record. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, April 28, 2009. Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kyl: This responds to your letter to Director Mueller dated February 24, 2009, regarding your interest in reports that the FBI has severed its liaison relationship with the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR). I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. For your information an identical letter has been sent to Senator Schumer and to Senator Coburn, M.D. As you know, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in United States v. Holy Land Foundation et al. (Cr. No. 3:04- 240-P (N.D.TX.). During that trial, evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current President Emeritus and its Executive Director) and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue of great importance to our country. Shortly after I returned from a trip to Algeria in 1998, where thousands had been killed from terror attacks in the wake of the two U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa where 267 people were killed, including one of my constituents from McLean, Virginia, who was serving at the Nairobi Embassy, I authored a bill creating the National Commission on Terrorism. The commission's report in June of 2000 provided evidence of the growing threat of international terrorism and the steps needed to combat the threat. A Congressional Research Service report described the main finding of the commission this way: ``It calls on the U.S. Government to prepare more actively to prevent and deal with a future mass casualty, catastrophic terrorist attack.'' Regrettably, the commission's recommendations were not implemented until after the attacks on 9/11 when 3,000 people were killed, including 30 from my congressional district. I was disappointed that both the Clinton administration and, later, the Bush administration did not take more seriously the recommendations of the commission. I take seriously the responsibility of congressional oversight, especially in matters with potential national security implications. Profound national security issues were, of course, thrust to the forefront on 9/11. Following the attacks, Congress granted the President the authority ``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks against the United States.'' In the ensuing war on terror, many individuals were captured and transferred to Guantanamo Bay. On January 22, 2009, in an attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge, President Obama issued an Executive order requiring that Guantanamo be closed no later than 1 year from the date of issuance. However, in the weeks and months following, the Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder, has failed to provide necessary information to Congress regarding their plans for implementing this order. It is important for the American people to know the full details on all of the detainees currently housed at Guantanamo Bay. They are not simply felons who are serving their time with the future of release; they are hardened terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. The detainees already released have had a high rate of recidivism. On March 11, The Washington Post detailed how a detainee recently released from Guantanamo Bay is now the operations commander of the Taliban forces that are attacking U.S. and NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. There also have been reports that 61 of the detainees who were processed and released from Guantanamo Bay were recaptured--fighting American forces. If those individuals were deemed safe to release from custody, yet they returned to terrorist activities, including killing Americans, what does that say about how dangerous the detainees at Guantanamo Bay still must be? A recent New York Times article indicated that one out of every seven low security prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay was recaptured, fighting American forces on foreign battlefields. What does this say about the threat from the medium and high security risk detainees still being held? I was also troubled to read that five Guantanamo detainees described themselves as ``terrorists to the bone'' and stated in a court filing that they describe their roles in the 9/11 attacks as a ``badge of honor.'' These dangerous individuals simply cannot be transferred anywhere near large civilian populations. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the architect of the 9/11 attacks, and he took pleasure in beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Ramzi Binalshibh was identified as one of the planners of 9/11, and he was supposed to be one of the hijackers until he was denied entry into the United States. Walid bin Attash is believed to be the mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in the year 2000. I am also concerned about the danger these individuals would pose were they to be placed in U.S. prisons or jails. These individuals are responsible for planning the deaths of thousands of Americans. In the case of El Sayyid Nosair, court tapes show that conspirators provided assurances that, in the event some were captured, the others would work to free them. In addition, during the year 2000 trial of Mahmud Salim, one of the terrorists accused of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, he stabbed New York prison guard Louis Pepe in the eye during a prison escape attempt. Al Qaeda saw the rights given to its members to meet with counsel as an opportunity to carry out a violent escape attempt. Mr. Salim was one of the original followers of Osama bin Laden, and was the highest ranking al Qaeda member held in the U.S. at the time. In addition to trying to escape from prison, al Qaeda members have communicated with confederates while in prison. It is my understanding that Nosair was involved in plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing while in custody in Attica State Prison. In addition, Osama bin Laden has publicly credited Sheikh Abdel Rahman with issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 attacks while he was in Federal prison, despite the high security confinement conditions imposed on him. It also emerged later that, with the assistance of his lawyer, Rahman was continuing to send instructional messages to the Islamic Group, his Egyptian terrorist organization. In 2004, NBC News reported that, despite their incarceration in maximum security conditions, convicted World Trade Center bombers were communicating by mail with the terrorists in Madrid, Spain. Many, many people died in that attack. There would certainly be strong reasons to believe that detainees currently held at Guantanamo who are known to have rioted and to have grossly abused prison guards would use their access to counsel and to investigators to convey messages to their allies. I am also concerned about the extra costs that will be incurred in preparing prisons and courthouses for possible trials. I understand that the courthouses in which prior terrorism cases were litigated and the prisons where defendants were held had to be ``hardened'' to accommodate terrorism prosecutions and the attendant threats they entailed for participants and the public. A recent New York Times article indicated that one out of every seven prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay and determined to be low security risks were recaptured on foreign battlefields, fighting American forces. What does this say about the danger posed by the medium and high security risk detainees still being held? There have been numerous documented accounts of al Qaeda members using violence in prison attempting to escape. Newsday and the Buffalo News reported that during the 1995 trial in New York of Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, terrorist confederates of Nosair were plotting to break him out of Attica State Prison in New York. An appeals court brief for the trial of Nosair detailed the lengths al Qaeda could go to break out of prison. The appeals court brief states: Mohammad Saad later described to Emad Salem a plan to break El Sayiid Nosair out of jail. He surmised that if he and Salem or others could get jobs with a contractor providing Attica Prison for sanitation or food services and if Nosair could get a prison job that would physically situate him in the appropriate area, they might be able to snatch Nosair and hide him in a nearby apartment until it became safe to move him. The brief goes on to discuss several conversations Nosair's friends had with him while he was in Attica. Another portion of the brief talks about plans to murder someone who antagonized Nosair's supporters during the trial as well as the trial judge. It also discusses Nosair getting angry that his friends were not trying to free him: ``The four had 5-hour meetings in the visitor's room during which Nosair railed at the evils of the United States and upbraided his callers for `sitting doing nothing' while he sat in jail for having done his part in jihad. When told of Saad's jailbreak scheme, Nosair recanted that there had only recently been a great escape opportunity when he had been escorted to the prison hospital by two guards armed merely with pistols.'' Nosair observed that the group should be targeting ``the big heads,'' including Judge Alvin Schlesinger, who had presided over the trial and meted out Nosair's sentence and New York City Assemblyman Doug Hikind. Nosair said the judge should even be kidnapped and held as a bargaining chip to trade for Nosair's release or killed. The same brief goes into detail on the details these operatives had covered in order to help escaped prisoners leave the United States. Two agents detained Ibrihim el-Gabrowny and attempted to frisk him explaining that they were there to execute a search warrant and that he should relax. El-Gabrowny because increasingly belligerent, ultimately struck both agents and was thus placed under arrest. On his person, the agents found an envelope containing a stack of documents which included Nosair's American passport, an Egyptian airport document bearing Nosair's photograph, five passports issued by the government of Nicaragua in July of 1991 depicting Nosair, his wife, and three children with false names assigned to each, five fraudulent Nicaraguan birth certificates exhibiting the same false names in which the passports had been issued, a Nicaraguan driver's license issued to Nosair and his wife in the same false names. An indictment filed in Federal court against Lynne Stewart in the case of U.S. v. Sattar discusses how the blind sheik killed tourists in Egypt in an attempt to force his release from prison. The indictment states: ``On or about November 17, 1997, six assassins shot and stabbed a group of tourists visiting an archeological site in Luxor, Egypt. Fifty-eight foreign tourists were killed along with four Egyptians, some of whom were police officers. Before making their exit, the terrorists scattered leaflets espousing their support for the Islamic Group and calling for the release of Abdel Rahman. Also the torso of one victim was slit by the terrorists and a leaflet calling for Abdel Rahman's release was inserted.'' On or about November 18, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group said: ``A Gama'a unit tried to take prisoner the largest number of foreign tourists possible with the aim of securing the release of the general emir of the Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Dr. Abdel-Rahman.'' The statement continued: ``But the rash behavior and irresponsibility of government security forces with regard to tourist and civilian lives led to the high number of fatalities.'' The statement also warned that the Islamic Group ``will continue its military operations as long as the regime does not respond to our demands.'' The statement lists the most important demands as ``the establishment of God's law, cutting relations with the Zionist entity Israel and the return of our sheik and emir to his land.'' On or about October 13, 1999, a statement in the name of Islamic Group leader, Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa, a.k.a. Abu Yasir, who was a co- conspirator not named as a defendant herein, vowed to rescue Abdel Rahman and said that the United States' ``hostile strategy to the Islamic movement would drive it to `unify its efforts to confront America's piracy.' '' In or about March of the year 2000, individuals claiming association with the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group kidnapped approximately 29 hostages in the Philippines and demanded the release from prison of Abdel Rahman and two other convicted terrorists in exchange for the release of those hostages and threatened to behead the hostages if their demands were not met. Philippine authorities later found two decomposed, beheaded bodies in an area where the hostages had been held and four hostages were unaccounted for. On or about September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, al Jazeera, televised a meeting of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahir. Sitting under a banner which read, ``Convention to Support Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman,'' the three terrorist leaders pledged ``made to free Abdel Rahman from incarceration in the United States.'' During the meeting, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, a.k.a. Asadallah, who is a son of Abdel Rahman, was heard encouraging others to ``avenge your sheikh'' and ``go to the spilling of blood.'' These are extremely dangerous individuals who would require extraordinary precautions were they to be held in a prison where they were on trial. The court documents that I have referenced tonight detailed the lengths these individuals are willing to go to set compatriots free. This list includes kidnapping and mass murder. It is imperative that the American people understand that these individuals will not be sent straight to a supermax facility, but will be held first in a local jail. Not only would this put significant strains on the local prison guard and staff; it would require huge expenditures to ``harden'' the facilities to the point where they were secure enough to house high-level threats. People living in northern Virginia during the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui will recall that his trial took 4 years and was only ended when he pled guilty to most of the charges against him. For terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a trial and appeals process could take much longer than 4 years. Every day these dangerous individuals are in our prison system, the more danger they pose to everyone with whom they come into contact. Prison guards and officials, judges, jurors, and inmates and families could possibly need extra protection from the threat posed by these individuals. Some have stated that detainees would be sent directly from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. supermax prison facility and the public should not be concerned. Yet, if detainees from Guantanamo Bay are transferred for trial in civilian courts, they would have to be held in a facility near that court near that venue. Often, these are local jails similar to the Alexandria jail that held Zacharias Moussaoui during the 4 years he was in trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. Such a move could mean that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and the man who brutally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, could be housed in Alexandria for the duration of his trial. Similar trials in the past have taken more than 4 years. Regardless of where these detainees are held, I believe it should be in a location that ensures the safety of both those guarding the detainees and American citizens. My primary concern is that their presence in a large civilian population could invite additional attacks and endanger the citizens. I take the oversight responsibility of Congress very seriously, and the fact that the Justice Department would take these actions without notifying Members of Congress is incredible. These detainees could pose serious threats to local communities and place an extraordinary burden on the cities where these individuals would be tried. I believe Congress and the American people have a right to know the history of individuals the administration is intent on bringing onto U.S. soil. The Guantanamo Bay prison facility is closing. Since the President has made that decision, we must know the facts to make informed decisions on the next step. My own view is that any trials or military commissions should be held on a military base far away from civilian population centers. Madam Speaker, much of the recent debate surrounding the closing of Guantanamo Bay has centered on a group of Uyghur detainees from China who are members of the al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, also known as ETIM. Last month, I became aware that Attorney General Eric Holder was planning on allowing these trained terrorists into the United States without informing this Congress or the American people. Newsweek magazine reported that on June 1: ``Administration officials were poised in late April to make a bold, stealthy move: they instructed the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare an aircraft and a Special Ops group to fly two Chinese Uyghurs and up to five more on subsequent flights from Gitmo to northern Virginia for resettlement. In a conference call overseen by the National Security Council, Justice and Pentagon officials had been warned that any public statement about Gitmo transfers would inflame congressional Republicans, according to a law-enforcement official who asked not to be named discussing internal deliberations.'' The Newsweek report--also confirmed by Bloomberg News--makes clear that Attorney General Holder had every intention of releasing these trained terrorists into our communities. I repeat: released into our communities. Not held in our jails, but let free in our neighborhoods and communities. This administration expects you to take it at its word that these detainees are not a threat. It is unacceptable. Eric Holder should have been prepared to come up and tell the Congress and give the information on these individual cases. But to move these individuals, who were in Guantanamo Bay, on a Friday afternoon when the Congress was gone and the press was not watching, is certainly wrong. As some of my colleagues may be aware, I have long been an advocate for the Uyghurs, a largely Muslim people in western China. The 8 million Uyghurs have long been the objects of brutal Chinese oppression. And I have advocated for the Uyghurs in China who were being persecuted by the Chinese Government. However, in the 1990s, a small number of Uyghurs began turning to terrorism to target the Chinese Government and innocent civilians. They formed the terrorist organization now known as ETIM. They moved to Afghanistan in 1998 at the invitation of the Taliban. ETIM is linked to a number of terrorist attacks in China during the mid-1990s, including several bus bombings that killed dozens and injured hundreds of innocent civilians, as well as threats of attacks against the 2008 Olympics in Beijing where people from around the world, including Americans, gathered. Over the past decade, the group has predominantly operated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and has developed close links with al Qaeda and the Taliban. On August 19, 2002, then-Deputy Secretary State Richard Armitage designated ETIM as ``a terrorist group that committed acts of violence against unarmed citizens.'' The group was designated by the State Department under Executive Order 13224, ``Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,'' which defines terrorist activities as ``activity that involves a violent act or act dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure.'' Later in 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing reported that two members of ETIM were deported from Kyrgyzstan after allegedly plotting to attack the U.S. embassy there. Following the attempted attacks, the United Nations designated ETIM as a terrorist group under Security Council resolutions 1267 and 1390, which provide for the freezing of the group's assets. In 2004, the State Department further added ETIM to the Terrorist Exclusion List under section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which prohibits members of designated terrorist groups from entering into the United States. Just 2 months ago, on April 20, the Obama administration, to their credit, added the current leader of ETIM, Abdul Haq, to the terrorist lists under Executive Order 13224 following U.N. recognition of Haq as an individual affiliated with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban. According to Stuart Levey, Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Abdul Haq commands a terror group that sought to sow violence and fracture international unity at the 2000 Olympic games in China. ETIM's relationship with al Qaeda has grown increasingly since it was invited by the Taliban to conduct training in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. In 2005, Abdul Haq was admitted to al Qaeda's Shura Council. Additionally, on November 16, 2008, an al Qaeda spokesman ``stated that a Chinese citizen named `Abdul Haq Turkistani' was appointed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of two organizations, al Qaeda in China and Hizbul Islam Li-Turkistan,''--and also confirmed by Abu Sulieman, a member of al Qaeda. It is abundantly clear that the Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are affiliated with the ETIM and trained under Abdul Haq in 2001. According to the detainees' own sworn statements to U.S. authorities, many acknowledged they had trained at an ETIM training camp in Tora Bora from June to November, 2001, and several confirmed that the camp was run by Abdul Haq. Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, it is clear that cooperation between ETIM and the Taliban increased. It is reported that the ETIM's leader prior to Abdul Haq, Hasan Mahsum, ``led his men to support Taliban and fight alongside them against U.S. and the coalition forces. On October 2, 2003, Hasan Mahsum was killed, along with eight other Islamic militants, by a Pakistani Army raid on an al Qaeda hideout in South Waziristan area in Pakistan.'' Additionally, in January, 2008, al Qaeda, in an Afghanistan publication entitled, ``Martyrs in Time of Alienation,'' identified 120 martyrs, including five Uyghur ETIM members who trained in Tora Bora, who fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. One is reported to have been killed fighting U.S. forces during the invasion in 2001. And Hasan Mahsum confirmed, prior to his death in 2003, that ETIM's members trained and fought with al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. In addition to their affiliation with a designated terrorist organization and association with al Qaeda leader Abdul Haq, these detainees fervently believe in the creation of a Taliban-style Islamic state in northwestern China and do not share American values of respect, tolerance, and religious pluralism. In fact, the L.A. Times recently reported that, ``not long after being granted access to TV, some of the Uyghurs were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.'' I am certainly no friend of the Chinese Government. I have long been critical of the oppressive treatment of Uyghur Muslims, as documented in the State Department's most recent human rights reports. But we ought to have no tolerance for terrorism in any form. Further, violent aims of this nature do not know national boundaries. Thousands of Americans, including the President and high-ranking U.S. Government officials and many American citizens, traveled to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a stated terrorist target for the ETIM. If their affiliation, associations, and recent behavior were not troubling enough, I am also concerned about their potential further radicalization over the past 8 years while held with al Qaeda members at Guantanamo Bay. Without a declassified threat assessment, how can the American people know for sure if the Uyghurs have not been further radicalized since their capture? How can we assess their potential threat once released into the U.S.? Will they attack Chinese targets within the U.S., provide intelligence to al Qaeda abroad, or even stage an attack on Americans at the direction of these terrorist groups? Reports indicate that the ETIM's philosophy has dramatically evolved as a result of their training and cooperation with al Qaeda and the Taliban over the last several years. According to terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, who is an expert on the ETIM, he said, ``In the post- 9/11 era, ETIM began to believe in the global jihad agenda. Today, the group follows the philosophy of al Qaeda and respects Osama bin Laden. Such groups that believe in the global jihad do not confine their targets to the territories that they seek to control. The ETIM is presenting a threat to the Chinese as well as Western targets worldwide.'' Without detailed information about each Uyghur detainee, including a threat assessment, the American people cannot be expected to tolerate trained terrorists being released into their communities. That is not the transparency nor sound judgment that Eric Holder promised he would bring to the Justice Department when he appeared before the House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee last month. If this administration and Eric Holder will not share this information with the Congress or the American people, how can we be expected to accept assurances that the Uyghur detainees they intend to release into the U.S. are not a threat? Anyone who trains to kill civilians in Tora Bora, whose leader is a member of al Qaeda's Shura Council, does not share our most basic values of tolerance and diversity, and who may have been further radicalized over the last 8 years, is most unequivocally a terrorist and should not be released in the United States. And yet, this Congress and the American people are left in the dark about the administration's plans to release these detainees. The American people deserve to know and they have a right to know who the Attorney General is asking to place into their communities. Eric Holder's failed attempt to secretly release these Uyghur detainees came in spite of ardent objections from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, who were overruled, apparently, by Eric Holder and the White House. Last month, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that he was concerned that detainees from Guantanamo could support terrorism or radicalize others, provide intelligence or financial support to terrorist networks, or even take part in terrorist attacks inside the United States. For Eric Holder to do this against the better judgment of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the bipartisan objection from this Congress is unacceptable. This flies in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition to the release of trained terrorists into the U.S., including Republican and Democratic leaderships in the House and the Senate. Last month, the Senate followed the House lead in removing funding for transferring detainees and demanding that this administration come clean with the American people about their intentions. The Attorney General expects this Congress to sit idly by after it announces it has released 17 Uyghurs held at Guantanamo Bay in the United States. Eric Holder won't allow career FBI agents to even brief Members on this issue. I have asked for briefings from career employees at the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and have been told by each agency that the Attorney General will not allow them to meet with me. What is the Attorney General hiding? Let me be clear, these Uyghurs are trained terrorists who were caught in camps affiliated with al Qaeda. Those who would use terror are terrorists, no matter their unintended target. I have consistently called on the administration to declassify and provide the American people with information regarding the capture, the detention, and a threat assessment of each detainee they intend to release into the U.S. Regardless of their intended targets of terror, the American people deserve to know whether they have been either further radicalized due to their exposure to al Qaeda leaders, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and see the assessments of the threat they pose today. I also worry about the impact the Uyghurs' release will have on our national security in the long run. What message does their release into the U.S. send to al Qaeda and other terrorist networks? How can the Attorney General guarantee that the released Uyghurs will not stay in contact with al Qaeda and provide them with intelligence from within the U.S.? If the Attorney General cannot or will not answer these questions, then he should not even consider releasing them into the United States. The administration has a moral obligation to share this information with the American people. Over the last month, both the House and Senate have stripped all funding for these transfers and inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental bill that would require the administration to provide the American people with a clear plan before any action was taken. Since March, I have written the President, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security asking for answers to these and other questions, and I still have not received a single response. I repeat, not a single response after 2 months to some of the most basic questions about the administration's plans. For weeks I have asked the FBI for briefings daily, only to be told that the Attorney General would not allow them to meet with Members on these issues. And although the President delivered a speech on May 21 at the National Archives on the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and other national security matters, we have had no more information about his plans to close Guantanamo than we did before. We still do not have the answers on which detainees Eric Holder is planning to transfer to the United States, where they will be tried, and how the administration intends to protect the American people. The Germans, who had tentatively agreed to accept some of the Uyghur detainees, have complained that the administration won't share enough information with them for an independent assessment of the detainees' security risk. According to the Washington Post, ``More trouble emerged when Washington stipulated that the Uyghurs would be barred from traveling to the United States.'' Last week, the Canadian Government refused to accept these same Uyghur detainees, citing serious security concerns. So as I close where I began, congressional oversight is imperative, no more so than on matters with profound national security implications, and yet this Congress and the American people remain in the dark about the administration's plans on this pressing issue. This is no time for vague assurances. This is no time to play fast and loose with critical information. This is no time for political games. The American people deserve more. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I think this will be better for Mr. Issa too so I don't get into his time, so I thank the chairman for letting me do this. And I thank you. I rise in support of the bill, and I just wanted to give you some reasons. One, I supported the bill in the last session. Two, our military today currently gets 6 weeks of parental pay leave. And the first person killed in Afghanistan was from my district, a civilian along side of the military, and so for the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, the DEA, the ATF they deserve basically the same thing. Secondly, I was the ranking member on Children, Youth and Family years ago. And Dr. Brazelton, the leading child pediatrician, came in and pointed at the initial moment of birth--and I have five children and 13 grandchildren and soon to have two more--at the initial moment of birth, when the mother breathes on the baby, the bonding process begins. It begins. Those early days, weeks are absolutely positively critical. And so, for me, on a family issue, and a family value issue, I think that's really important. The last thing is I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the leading people in this Congress, one of my heroes, two of the people that I looked up to more than anybody, one, Congressman Henry Hyde and former Congressman Dan Coats, who later went on to be a Senator, both supported parental leave. Let me read to you what Henry Hyde said. The words of Henry Hyde, during the debate on family leave, and it was not paid family leave, so there was a difference just as important. He reminded us that ``the family supplies the moral glue that holds society together, and it is a central institution that stands between us and social disintegration.'' And so, one, the military gets 6 weeks. Two, that bonding process is when the baby comes out, you want the mother to be there. It is critically important. And, thirdly, one of the giants from the beginning of this Hall that ever served, Congressman Henry Hyde, led the effort and made the most passionate case on why family leave should have been passed years ago. And with that I rise in support of the bill and thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman and thank Mr. Moran for the language that explicitly prohibits gambling. I appreciate that very much. I think the chairman and Mr. Moran have to get the credit for doing this because, in previous cases, we have seen major, major expansions. So, as people talk about this, this is Earth- shattering in some respects, and so I want to again thank the chairman and thank Mr. Moran. The Virginia tribes have consistently indicated that they oppose gambling, and I believe them. Yet, during the consideration of this measure in the last Congress, we heard rumors about an interest in challenging this gambling limitation in court. We have not heard those rumors today. The Virginia Indian tribes were the first to greet the settlers at Jamestown when they arrived 400 years ago. Without the Indians' friendship, the Jamestown settlement very likely would not have survived. The Americans owe the Virginia tribes a huge debt of gratitude. I also want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia for including language that explicitly forbids the establishment of tribal casinos. Current tribal leadership has consistently stated they do not want to pursue gambling. I believe them. However, I remain concerned that future leadership of the tribes will pursue establishing tribal casinos. Virginia does not have casino gambling, and because we do not, we have avoided the crime, corruption and scandal that sometimes comes with gambling. As the author of the legislation which created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that released its 2-year study in 1999, we know firsthand of the devastating social and financial costs of gambling: crime, prostitution, corruption, suicide, destroyed families, child and spousal abuse, and bankruptcy. In moving forward with this, I want to ensure that Congress continues this, and I want to ensure that this language does not change when it goes to the Senate. Under this bill, Congress intends that no Virginia Indian tribe or tribal member, if granted Federal recognition, would have any greater rights to gamble or to conduct gambling operations under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia than would any other citizen of Virginia. Further, it is Congress' expectation that the provision limiting the tribes' ability to engage in gambling conforms with the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. The State of Texas case. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a law prohibiting gaming by the tribe. In supporting H.R. 1385, Congress and the Virginia delegation, in particular, expect that the language restricting gambling operations by Indian tribes will be upheld if it is ever challenged. I would like to enter into the Record a letter I received from the Virginia tribal leadership, acknowledging the anti-gambling language in this bill and reaffirming the view of tribal leadership that the language prohibits gambling. Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life (Vital), New Kent, VA, May 18, 2009. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: Corn, or in the Virginia Algonquian tongue, hominy, represents the sustenance of the early American cultures. When the English came to Tsenacomoco, now called Virginia, our tribes traded corn, sometimes unwillingly, to the men of the Virginia Company. As historians will tell you, corn saved the colony in these early years. But corn also represents participatory government. Our elders tell us that corn was used when voting on matters of importance in the early years. Each eligible member was given a kernel of corn and a pea. Corn signified a ``yes'' vote and the pea, a ``no'' vote. Soon you will be given an opportunity to vote on HR 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, which extends federal recognition to the six Virginia Tribes comprising the Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life (VITAL): (1) the Chickahominy Tribe; (2) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division; (3) the Upper Mattaponi Tribe; (4) the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.; (5) the Monacan Indian Nation; and (6) the Nansemond Indian Tribe. On behalf of our Tribes, we ask that you use your kernel of corn to vote YES on HR 1385 when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. We are sure you have questions about this bill which is of such vital importance to us. If these Tribes have been in existence since first contact with the Europeans, why haven't they already been recognized by the United States? Quite simply, because our Tribes never waged war on the United States of America. The hostilities between our Tribes and the Europeans who came here in 1607 effectively ended with the Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677. This Treaty was signed between England and our Tribes. Predating the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years, our Treaty was never recognized by the founding fathers of the United States because it was not negotiated with them. Our Treaty of 1677 is still commemorated annually on the steps of the Governor's Mansion in Virginia but has yet to be recognized by the United States of America. If these Tribes have been here since first contact with the Europeans, has there ever been any federal recognition of these Tribes? Not officially by the entity called the United States and that is why we seek this federal acknowledgement now. However, hundreds of our sons and daughters have fought on behalf of the United States of America in many wars over the years. The ``dog tags'' of our military people, who have fought alongside Americans from across the country, have stated our race as ``American Indian.'' If these Tribes deserve recognition, why don't they utilize the administrative route created by Congress instead of seeking legislation? For five decades the official policy of Virginia, enforced through the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, stated that there were only two races, white and colored. Over the years our Tribes were subjected to paper genocide. Not only were we denied our race in the everyday requests for birth and marriage certificates, but the Commonwealth of Virginia went into its records and changed the race of our documented ancestors. This law was continually upheld by Virginia Courts until the final vestiges of the law were struck down in 1971. In addition, five of the six courthouses that held the vast majority of the records that our Tribes would need to document our history to the degree required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement were destroyed in the Civil War. As much as our Tribes would like to comply with the administrative rules to gain recognition, the combination of the official laws of the Commonwealth, the bureaucracy implementing those laws and the loss of our records create an insurmountable burden. We believe that since it was an act of government (Virginia) that denied us our heritage, it should be an act of government that restores it. But still there is a process that has been established; why should Congress be asked to make this decision? Of the 562 Tribes recognized by the United States of America, 140 were recognized by Treaties and other negotiations and only 16 were recognized by the administrative process (which has been in effect since 1978). Acts of Congress recognized the remaining 406 Tribes. We are not asking for your vote to do the extraordinary. We ask for your vote to recognize our heritage and our place in history. What about gaming? Won't this allow gaming by the Indian Tribes? Our goal is not now, nor has it ever been, to establish or utilize gaming. Our heritage is such that our affiliation with churches has been strong, having embraced collectively (and individually) the faith, beliefs and sacraments of several Christian denominations. Gaming is, however, an issue that concerns many of you. As such, HR 1385 has strong anti- gaming language. In fact, the language prohibits our Tribes from gaming even if it is allowed in the Commonwealth of Virginia for its citizens generally! With our deepest respect and admiration, we ask you to use this kernel of corn to vote YES on HR 1385. Sincerely, Wayne Adkins, President. Enclosure. Again, my concern is not with the Federal recognition of Virginia Indian tribes but with the explosive spread of gambling and with the potential for casino gambling to come to the State of Virginia. I also continue to have concerns about the broader Indian recognition process. Quite frankly, this Congress has not done enough to help Indian tribes. The process is broken. We have seen that in the past; but today, I'm supporting this bill because I believe it ensures that the State of Virginia's interests are safeguarded while still providing full recognition. Again, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank Mr. Moran. This is really significant. If only we had had this language in previous recognitions; I think a lot of the problems we have in this country with gambling and with corruption and crime would not have taken place.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 21, the President delivered a speech at the National Archives on the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and other national security matters, yet today we have no more additional information about his plans to close Guantanamo Bay than we did before. We still don't have any answers on which detainees he's planning to transfer to the United States, where they will be tried or how the administration intends to protect the American people. We still don't have any information on his plans to release into our communities trained Uyghur terrorists, and that is unacceptable. As I have said on numerous occasions, this issue isn't about closing Guantanamo Bay. My concern is that the order was given before a comprehensive plan was in place which sufficiently addressed national security concerns. I have sent three letters to Eric Holder since March asking specific questions about the disposition of the detainees. I still have not received a response. Last week, Military Families United, an organization representing America's Gold and Blue Star families, announced its opposition to the release of the Uyghurs. Rather than work with Congress, Eric Holder is preventing career officials with the FBI, CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies from briefing Members of Congress on plans to relocate detainees once Guantanamo Bay is closed. The Germans, who had tentatively agreed to accept the Uyghur detainees, have complained that the administration won't share enough information with them for an independent assessment of the detainees' security risk. According to The Washington Post, ``More trouble emerged when Washington stipulated that the Uyghurs would be barred from traveling to the United States.'' What is Eric Holder hiding from the American people and our allies? The administration has a moral obligation to provide information to the American people on any detainee they plan to try or to release in the U.S. Last week, Newsweek magazine reported that the Attorney General planned to secretly fly the Uyghur detainees from Guantanamo Bay and release them in Northern Virginia--without telling the American people or telling the Congress. Those Uyghur detainees are part of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, led by Abdul Haq who sits on the governing council of al Qaeda. The Obama Treasury Department designated Haq as an al Qaeda leader last month; and yet Eric Holder says, Well, we're still going to release them. Regardless of whether or not they have vowed to attack Americans, a trained terrorist is a terrorist. Their release is particularly troubling given the recent New York Times article, indicating that one out of every seven low-security prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay were recaptured on foreign battlefields fighting American forces. What does this say about the threat from the medium and high-security risk detainees still being held? What does it say when FBI Director Mueller tells Congress that he shares our concerns about transferring detainees to U.S. prisons? During a recent hearing, Director Mueller stated that detainees could support terrorism, even radicalize other inmates in high-security prisons, if sent to the United States. Other press reports indicate that officials within the Department of Homeland Security also opposed releasing detainees in the U.S. Aside from the Uyghur detainees, many other detainees at Guantanamo Bay who may be moved to the U.S. for trial are self-admitted members of terrorist groups that actively try to break out of prisons. Eric Holder would have you believe that detainees would be sent directly from Guantanamo Bay to a super maximum prison. In fact, detainees transferred for trial in civilian courts would have to be held in a facility near that venue and would only possibly be transferred to a super maximum prison if convicted. These are local jails similar to the lower-security Alexandria jail that held Zacharias Moussaoui during the 4 years he was on trial. Such a move could mean Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and the man who brutally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, could be held in Alexandria for 6 or 7 years. Above all, I'm concerned that the presence of these high-profile detainees could possibly cause major problems for the communities. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe that any trials or military commissions should be held on military bases far away from the civilian population centers. I would hope that Eric Holder is taking these concerns into account, but he has continued to deny Members of Congress access to this information.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member and the Speaker for their efforts to bring this important resolution to the floor. Twenty years after peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators gathered in Tiananmen Square and were brutally crushed, the human rights situation in China remains bleak. Not only does the government consistently silence dissent, repress religious believers and stifle opposition, but it is in the business of actively rewriting history, almost like the communist government did in Russia. Today's Washington Post features an op-ed, which I'd like to submit for the Record, which opens with an exchange that the author, Dan Southerland, had with a Chinese student a couple of years ago. Southerland, chief of the Washington Post's Beijing Bureau in the late Eighties, references his time as a reporter in Beijing on the now infamous June 4, 1989. He writes, ``but it soon became clear that June 4 meant nothing to her,'' a student. ``Chinese censors have managed to erase all mention of that tragedy from the country's textbooks and state-run media.'' The human rights situation in China is made worse by America's diminished commitment to raise these issues and be a voice for the voiceless. I'm saddened to say today that this has been true of successive administrations of both political parties. In her first trip to the region, Secretary of State Clinton failed to make even a cursory public mention of human rights, saying that, ``those issues can't interfere with economic, security or environmental matters.'' Now, why would the Secretary of State say that? A Washington Post editorial following her trip and similarly dismissive comments on human rights in Egypt said that Secretary Clinton is, quote the Washington Post, and I thank them for this editorial, ``sending a message to rulers around the world that their abuses won't be taken seriously by this U.S. administration.'' Nor were they taken seriously in the waning days of the last administration. Congressman Smith and I traveled to Beijing last July, just 1 month prior to the commencement of the 2008 Olympics. We brought with us a list of over 700 political prisoners to present to Ambassador Li, the current chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the National People's Congress, and pressed for the release of all political prisoners in China. One night during our trip we were scheduled to meet with several human rights lawyers for dinner. All but one person scheduled to meet us was detained or otherwise prevented from attending by the Chinese security forces. The one activist with whom we were able to meet was arrested later that evening, and he and his family continue to face harassment by security forces. Very little was done by the Embassy or the State Department in the last administration when that took place. Silence was their response, basically, to this problem. Now we see just this week, news reports indicate that Treasury Secretary Geithner desperately sought to assure China, our biggest creditor, that their billions of dollars in U.S. government debt were not a liability. Why didn't Geithner at least raise the issue of human rights? Couldn't he have just said something about it? Couldn't he have made a statement about it? Couldn't he have done something about it? And the answer? He did nothing about it. Perhaps if he's caught up or wherever he is in Beijing today he will correct the record and at least say something. Our own economic reality has effectively silenced our voice, a tragic loss for all those political dissidents who languish in the Chinese laogai, those house church Christians who worship secretly in their homes, the Tibetans--and I've been to Tibet. They have plundered Tibet. The Uyghurs who are being persecuted, the Muslims who are being persecuted by the Chinese Government. And the Catholic Church. There are 34 bishops in jail today in the Catholic Church, and yet no one speaks out on behalf of the Catholic Church. And lastly, the Falun Gong who have suffered so much. Since my first trip to China in 1991 with my good friend, Congressman Smith, the human rights situation has gotten worse, despite promises to the contrary during the debate to grant China most favored nation status. One of the worst votes that this institution has ever cast was to give this evil empire, if you will, in China the most favored nation trading status. It was during this trip that we visited Beijing Prison Number One. Chinese authorities informed us that approximately 40 Tiananmen Square protesters were in prison. Our requests to visit the demonstrators were denied. But instead, we found some demonstrators making socks for export to the United States whereby they were working on free and cheap labor to sell things to the United States.

Mr. WOLF. Unbelievably, 20 years after Tiananmen, our own State Department Human Rights Report indicates that the Chinese Government still has not provided a comprehensible, credible accounting of all those killed, missing or detained in connection with the violent suppression of the 1989 demonstration. But Tiananmen is not simply a commemoration of a past event. Dozens of people are still believed to be imprisoned in connection with the demonstrating at Tiananmen, and millions more Chinese citizens still hope for the end to their oppression. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan described the United States Constitution as ``a covenant we have made, not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' In closing, Madam Speaker, we have an obligation to keep the covenant. And I continue to pray, as many people prayed during the days of the evil empire in the Soviet Union, pray for the fall, the collapse of the Chinese, of the Russian Government, and the collapse of the Wall, many and millions are praying here in the United States and around the West for the fall, the fall of the Chinese Government, whereby there will be freedom, the government will be changed and the people of China, the good people of China, and they are good people.

Mr. WOLF. The good people of China will be able to live in freedom, and there can be a rally in Tiananmen Square, a prayer meeting in Tiananmen Square, where millions can come from every denomination and worship in peace and have freedom and justice and democracy. So we must remember, remember those who suffer. They are the heroes for China. And we will see this government change and we will see, in my lifetime, freedom in China. [From the Washington Post, June 2, 2009] Tiananmen: Days To Remember (By Dan Southerland) Two years ago I met a Chinese student who was entering graduate school in the United States. I told her I had been in Beijing during ``6-4,'' the Chinese shorthand for the massacre of June 4, 1989. ``What are you talking about?'' she asked. At first I thought she might not have understood my Chinese, but it soon became clear that ``June 4'' meant nothing to her. I probably shouldn't have been surprised. In the 20 years since that day in 1989 when Chinese troops opened fire on unarmed civilians near Tiananmen Square, Chinese censors have managed to erase all mention of that tragedy from the country's textbooks and state-run media. But for me, Tiananmen is impossible to forget. As Beijing bureau chief for The Post, I covered the student demonstrations that began in mid-April, tried to track a murky power struggle among top Chinese leaders and managed a small team of young, Chinese-speaking American reporters. What I remember best was the sudden openness of many Beijing citizens of all professions. They were inspired by throngs of students calling for political reform, media freedom and an end to ``official profiteering.'' People I believed to be Communist Party supporters were suddenly telling me what they really thought. Some who had been silent in the past even debated politics on street corners. In early May, Chinese journalists petitioned for the right to report openly on the Tiananmen protests, which on May 17 swelled to more than a million people marching in the capital. Journalists from all the leading Chinese newspapers, including the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, joined in. Their slogan was ``Don't force us to lie.'' For a brief period, Chinese journalists were allowed to report objectively on the student protests. But this press freedom was short-lived and ended May 20 with the imposition of martial law and the entry of the People's Liberation Army into Beijing. At first, Beijing residents manning makeshift barriers blocked the troops. But late on the evening of June 3, tanks, armored personnel carriers and soldiers firing automatic weapons broke through to the square. The death toll quickly became a taboo subject for Chinese media. Chinese doctors and nurses who had openly sided with students on the square, and who had allowed reporters into operating rooms to view the wounded, came under pressure to conceal casualty figures. One brave doctor at a hospital not far from Tiananmen Square led me and a colleague to a makeshift morgue, where we saw some 20 bullet-riddled bodies laid out on a cement floor. I later learned that the doctor was ``disciplined'' for allowing us to view that scene. A Chinese journalist I considered a friend tried to convince me that government estimates of fewer than 300 killed were correct and that these included a large number of military and police casualties. I later learned from colleagues of his that this journalist was working for state security. After comparing notes with others, my guess was that the actual death toll was at least 700, and that most of those killed were ordinary Beijing residents. It's almost incredible that the Chinese government has succeeded for so long in covering up a tragedy of this magnitude. But for those who closely monitor the continued repression of civil liberties in China--and the government's stranglehold on news deemed ``sensitive''--it's not surprising. Chinese authorities continue to intimidate reporters, block Web sites and jam broadcasts of outside news organizations. China is the world's leading jailer of journalists and cyber- dissidents. Chinese youths are among the most Web-savvy in the world. But Chinese search engines, chat and blog applications, as well as Internet service providers, are equipped with filters that block out certain keywords incorporated in a blacklist that is continually updated. China's censorship is multipronged, sometimes heavy-handed and sometimes sophisticated, allowing debate on some issues and shutting it down on others, such as Tiananmen. Censors hold online service providers and Internet cafe owners responsible for the content that users read and post. A small blogging service will usually err on the side of caution rather than lose its license because of a debate about June 4. Lines that cannot be crossed shift from time to time, leaving citizens uncertain and therefore prone to self- censorship. The good news is that the blackout isn't complete. We know from Radio Free Asia's call-in shows that some younger Chinese know just enough about Tiananmen to want to learn more. I work with several Chinese broadcasters who were students in Beijing on June 4. Many of them saw more than I did. And they are here to remind me--and many Chinese--of a history we should never forget.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, May 14 marked the one-year anniversary of the imprisonment of the seven member national committee of the Iranian Baha'is. According to CNN reports, the seven Baha'i leaders may now face charges of ``spreading of corruption on Earth'' which carries the threat of the death penalty under Iran's penal code. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom recently released their 2009 report which recommends that the State Department designate Iran a country of particular concern due to its gross violations of religious freedom. Such violations include the execution of over 200 Baha'i leaders since 1979, the desecration of Baha'i cemeteries and places of worship, and the violent arrest and harassment of members of the Baha'i faith. As the Administration seeks diplomatic engagement with Iran, I urge them to make human rights and religious freedom an integral part of the dialogue. Human dignity and freedom must not be made a sidebar as the Administration seeks to engage the Iranians.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Financial Times reported that Attorney General Eric Holder's Guantanamo Bay task force has recommended that the President release at least two Uyghur detainees into the U.S. This planned release comes in spite of ardent objection from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, who were overruled by Eric Holder and the White House. These Uyghur detainees are members of the U.S. and the U.N.-listed terrorist group, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, whose leader, Abdul Haq, was listed as a terrorist by Obama's Treasury Department. For Eric Holder to do this against the better judgment of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and despite Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid's statement yesterday that this Congress won't tolerate their release, is unacceptable. It flies in the face of the bipartisan congressional opposition to the release of trained terrorists into the United States, including Republican and Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate. To do so in spite of what is taking place, passing in the House, soon in the Senate, would be unacceptable.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. If Attorney General Ashcroft had prohibited FBI agents from coming to the Hill to speak to Senator Leahy, you would have heard about it on both sides of the Hill, on both sides of the aisle. And you should have heard about it. We are saying that before they move them, before they close it, we want to see a plan.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Simon and Garfunkel have a song that they sang in Central Park called ``The Boxer.'' And in it, it says ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' To a certain extent, the Congress is just hearing what it wants to hear and disregarding the rest. Eric Holder and the Justice Department was ready to release into our neighborhoods some of these people almost 2 weeks ago. I first wrote the Attorney General on March 13, 2 months ago, to ask a series of questions. And I share what my friend from Virginia said. We are shutting down Guantanamo. That is not the issue that you are dealing with here. You are dealing with what are you going to do and what plan do you have as you shut it down. On April 23 I wrote a second letter to Eric Holder of the Justice Department asking some other questions, just asking, what is your plan? How are you going to deal with the holding of it? What metropolitan areas will it be? I raised a number of concerns. And, again, no response. The other day we did another letter, the third letter. And when we were in the committee, some of the Members didn't know and said they could be removed and they could not be removed until they checked with the Congress, and that was not the case because Eric Holder was ready to move them out without making a report. What type of security will they go to? Let's just get a report. This administration needs to be upfront with the Congress. And if the Congress doesn't have this desire to know, then at least they ought to be upfront with the American people because I think the American people know. Do all the Members of Congress know the State Department listed the ETIM, which the Uyghurs are a part of, as a terrorist organization in 2002, the same year the embassy in Beijing indicated ETIM planned an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kazakhstan? Do all the Members know that this group's militants fought alongside al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan? Does the Congress know that a month ago the Obama Treasury Department, to its credit, targeted al Qaeda support network by designating Abdul Haq, the overall leader and commander of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, as a terrorist? Does the Congress know and should the American people know that Abdul Haq raised funds and recruited new members to further the terrorists' activities? Does anyone know that in 2005, Haq was put on the Sharia Council for al Qaeda? Does anyone know that in early January '08, Haq directed that this group commander attack various Chinese cities, particularly the Olympics? Frankly, I was disappointed that President Bush went to the Olympics. But there were a lot of American citizens there. So we are asking questions before they do this. And sometimes I think some people are trying to say that it is not about closing Guantanamo Bay or not. Guantanamo Bay, whether you like it or not, is going to be closed. What we are talking about is how do you dispose of and what do you do to the detainees? And, frankly, this Congress sometimes--we now sit on interrogation memos. No one wants to say that they knew anything. Well, the Congress ought to know everything. If you have the oversight responsibility, you ought to be willing to have it and hold it. So that is what we are saying, nothing more. And I appreciate Mr. Obey adding some good things in there. I want to pay tribute that he has. And I appreciate it. But I was foreclosed in the committee. And I thought we would have a unanimous bipartisan vote, and we were shut out. So we are just asking. Three letters, Eric Holder says, ``O, I will not answer the letters. And, lastly, no FBI agent was able to come to my office, or I understand other offices up here on the Hill, to give them a briefing. As I said earlier, that if Attorney General Ashcroft----

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I want to thank Mr. Dreier for the time. I rise in opposition to the rule. I had an amendment which dealt with the Guantanamo Bay issue. And let me sort of lay it out. There are several issues really involved. One, there are Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay that Eric Holder was prepared to release into the United States. This is not a Khalid Sheik Mohammed that we are transferring to release in the neighborhoods in the United States. Who are the Uyghur detainees? They are members of a group called the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement. Many of them have been trained in al Qaeda training camps in Tora Bora. Now, that is something that the American people should know. Also, their leader is a man named Abdul Haq. Haq is on the terrorist list of the U.N. The Obama administration also put him on their terrorist list last month. And yet Eric Holder is saying, and some people believe he was ready to do it 2 weeks ago Friday, to release them, to release them with Federal pay, if you will, so they can live on the environment, go to the shopping malls, do whatever, release them in the United States, without even telling the Congress anything. Now, Congress cannot be like Pontius Pilate and sort of wash our hands and say, you know, we don't want to be involved in this. We don't want to know. If something happens, it is your responsibility. The Congress, the United States Congress and the American people want us to be involved. That is why they sent us here. So that is the Uyghurs, Eastern Turkistan Islamic group, terrorists, Tora Bora, Abdul Haq. The other one is they want to move some of these terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed that Mr. Dreier mentioned to the United States. Now, he is the one, he is the one who beheaded--beheaded Daniel Pearl. He was the mastermind of 9/11 which killed 30 people from my district. Now, is it okay for Eric Holder to say, well, we are not going to give you a report? And it just so happens that no Member of Congress--Eric Holder has refused to allow the FBI career people to come up and brief the Congress. Now if Attorney General Ashcroft had prohibited the FBI from coming up to brief Senator Leahy, this place would be up in arms. But Holder is prohibiting the FBI up until maybe next week to come up and brief on this issue. Now, everyone said, well, we can hold him without any trouble. Okay. Great. But don't forget, Officer Pepe was stabbed in the eye by one of these guys at the World Trade Center--in the eye up in Attica. And don't also forgot the sheik, the blind sheik, Rahman, was proceeding sending information out with regard to his lawyer. And lastly many people forget but the terrorists who were in American prisons were in communication to the Madrid bombers, with the Madrid bombing. But Eric Holder said, we are not going to give you a report. And do you know what? The Congress said, we don't want a report. We don't really want to be involved. We really don't want to know. So you go ahead and do whatever you want to do. And lastly this: everyone in Guantanamo is medium to high security. The others have been released. Of the others that have been released, 61 have come back on the terrorist field, terrorist attacks against us and against our men and women in uniform. That is the low level guys. These are the medium and high. So what we wanted to do is say that Congress ought to be involved. We didn't get into whether or not you close Guantanamo Bay or not. We were not stopping that. We were just saying, let's give us a report. Let's let the American people know. If the Congress doesn't want to know, let the American people know about whoever may be released in their neighborhood. They will at least know. And lastly the Governors and the State legislators ought to participate. For that reason, this amendment should have been made in order whereby we could debate it to say, do you want these people to be released or do you want them to be retransferred? And should the Congress be involved?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an editorial that appeared in The Washington Post last week. The United States should not continue to give unconditional foreign military financing to the Egyptian government, as long as the regime continues to disregard the fundamental principles of human dignity. This undermines not only our values as a nation, but our credibility as a global leader on issues such as human rights and democracy. [From the Washington Post, May 7, 2009] No Questions Asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earned modest headlines in the United States this week for playing down the possibility of a ``grand bargain'' with Iran after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But al-Jazeera, the leading media outlet of the Arab Middle East, focused on an entirely different piece of news out of Mr. Gates' Cairo news conference. Asked whether U.S. aid to Egypt would be linked in the future to democracy or human rights, the Pentagon chief answered that ``foreign military financing'' for Mr. Mubarak's autocracy ``should be without conditions. And that is our sustained position.'' The Obama administration, which has rushed to embrace Egypt's 81-year-old strongman, would do well to consider why al-Jazeera--not known for pro-American sympathies--would choose to trumpet that report. The Obama administration's policy assumes that the Bush administration's attempts to promote democratic reforms in Egypt produced yet another case of damaged ties and bad public relations to remedy, such as Guantanamo Bay or the war in Iraq. So Mr. Gates, like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton before him, heaped praise on Mr. Mubarak while making clear that the new administration will not trouble him about his systematic and often violent repression of the country's liberal politicians, bloggers and human rights activists. Yet, as al-Jazeera well understands, Mr. Mubarak and his fellow Arab autocrats are widely despised across the region-- and the United States is blamed for unconditionally propping them up. In fact, Mr. Bush won credit from many Egyptians for pressing for democratic change; he was criticized because he failed to follow through. Now, Arabs around the region are learning that the Obama administration is returning to the old U.S. policy of ignoring human rights abuses by Arab dictators in exchange for their cooperation on security matters--that is, the same policy that produced the Middle East of Osama bin Laden, Hamas and Saddam Hussein. The pullback is not only rhetorical. Funding for democracy promotion in Egypt has been slashed from $50 million to $20 million this year. The State Department has agreed to Egyptian demands not to use economic aid to fund civil society organizations not approved by the government. As a result, U.S. funding for pro-democracy and human rights groups will drop by about 70 percent. Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee this week inserted $260 million in fresh security assistance for Egypt into a supplemental appropriations bill, along with $50 million for border security. No conditions were attached. What will all this appeasement buy from Mr. Mubarak? The Egyptian ruler continues to pledge to stop arms trafficking to Hamas in Gaza, and to fail to do so. He keeps a cold peace with Israel, withholds an ambassador from Iraq and, as Mr. Gates tacitly acknowledged, opposes any broad rapprochement between the United States and Iran. He is grooming his son to succeed him, a step that could entrench Egypt's autocracy for decades more--or maybe produce an Islamic revolution. Does all that really merit unconditional U.S. support?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Attorney General Eric Holder is about ready to make a decision to release violent terrorists who have trained in al Qaeda training camps who are now down in Guantanamo Bay into our neighborhoods--into our neighborhoods. Members of the Congress on both sides have asked the Attorney General to allow FBI agents and Department of Homeland Security personnel to come up and brief Members, and he will not allow it. How does this Congress provide the oversight when they're about ready to release groups like ETIM? Go on the video and see what this group ETIM is. They're about ready to release individuals into our neighborhoods, and Eric Holder is prohibiting career people from coming to the Hill. In some respects, Madam Speaker, this is a cover-up by the Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in support of the resolution and offer my condolences to Joanne, their children, and their families. Jack Kemp was a good man, somebody who I admired, followed, and tried to emulate in many, many areas. I would like to put two statements into the Record, one from the Weekly Standard that kind of spells out his life, and a eulogy by Chuck Colson who kind of sums Jack up better than anybody. Well done, our good and faithful servant. God bless Jack Kemp.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution honoring the life and accomplishments of our former colleague Jack Kemp. Like so many, I was deeply saddened to learn of Jack's passing this past weekend. I had the privilege and honor of serving in the House with Jack for eight years. He was one of the most genuinely optimistic and engaging persons I have ever known. He saw the best in people and believed with all his heart that every person on this earth deserved to be treated with dignity and respect. His work for human rights influenced me deeply. To his wife Joanne, his children and grandchildren, I send my heartfelt sympathy. In Jack's memory, I say, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that a column from the Weekly Standard by Mary Brunette Cannon as well as a BreakPoint commentary by Chuck Colson about Jack's life be inserted in the Record. [From BreakPoint Commentaries, May 6, 2009] My Friend Jack Kemp (By Chuck Colson) A Man of Virtue My friend Jack Kemp died this past weekend at 73. His obituaries list many accomplishments: seven-time all- star quarterback for the Buffalo Bills and the American Football League's most valuable player in 1965. Eight-term congressman from Buffalo, New York, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the 1996 Republican vice-presidential candidate. As our mutual friend Fred Barnes wrote in the Weekly Standard, it's hard to think of any congressman in recent memory who accomplished more, setting the stage for the Reagan Revolution and economic opportunity for all Americans. But as remarkable as Jack's accomplishments were, Jack the man was even more so. He personified all of the classic virtues--temperance, prudence, courage, and justice. But today I want to focus on one especially--courage. Jack was indomitable. ``Too small'' to play college football, never mind professional ball. He was cut five times before sticking with the Chargers. He became a star despite often playing hurt. He suffered a dozen concussions over his career, two broken ankles, and a crushed hand. Courage also marked his life after football. While he didn't hesitate to describe himself as a conservative Republican, many conservative Republicans were hesitant to call him one of their own. That's because his sense of justice sometimes put him at odds with his own party. While much of the party was winning over white Democrats in the South, Jack was embracing civil rights. Whereas many Republicans saw labor unions as the ``enemy,'' Jack, a co- founder and five-time president of the AFL Players' Association, fought hard for the interests of working Americans. Then, in 1994, when the GOP in his native California appealed to fears about illegal immigration, Jack opposed them. That cost him dearly with the national party. Many split ways with him at that point. Jack might well have been President--and would have been a great one--were it not for two things: He would never compromise his convictions, nor would he attack his opponents. Sadly, it's hard to resist those things and still get to the White House. His courage was on display to the very end. During the times I visited him over the last months of his life, I was taken by how he kept his spirit up even as the cancer devastated his body. Jack was a giant in our midst. He had a heart for the same kind of people Prison Fellowship serves--the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden. His wife, Joanne, has been a board member at Prison Fellowship for many years. He also shared our Christian commitment to human life, telling the New York Times how a personal tragedy made him ``more aware of the sanctity of human life, [and] how precious every child is.'' This and more is why Jack's death is such a great loss to me personally. Joanne and his four beautiful children--all Christians--are in my prayers. How proud of them Jack was. This family's Christian witness has touched countless lives. I've been humbled by being asked to give the eulogy at the National Cathedral this Friday. What a privilege to celebrate a life so richly lived in service to his Lord and nation. I thank God for my friend, whom I and a grieving nation will sorely miss.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I was the author of legislation in 1998 that created the National Commission on Terrorism, whose report and recommendations were, unfortunately, ignored by both the Clinton and the Bush administration prior to 9/11. Fast forward to today, and you can understand my concern when I hear that Attorney General Eric Holder is preparing to release trained terrorists into the United States. Several media outlets have been reporting that a decision is imminent on the release of Uyghurs presently detained at Guantanamo Bay. These detainees have been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 after being captured at terrorist training camps affiliated with al Qaeda. Information I have received indicates these detainees may be far more dangerous than this administration has led the American people to believe. These detainees have been taught how to kill and terrorize by the same terrorist networks affiliated with the attacks on September 11, the USS Cole, U.S. embassies in Africa and the brutal beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Yet Eric Holder is considering releasing them into the United States. Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have reportedly raised concerns about the release of these detainees, who are members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda. But yet Eric Holder will not release the information. Let me be clear, we are not talking about transferring these people to prisons in the United States. They would be released free and clear to roam through your neighborhood, shop in your shopping malls and go wherever they want to. And yet the Congress has not been briefed on this. We have called for briefings from numerous agencies but have been told by the agencies that the Attorney General's office will not allow them to come to the Hill. This is, in some respects, basically a cover-up. That's right, the Justice Department will not allow career FBI and other government officials, who understand the issue, to come to the Congress to tell the Congress who these people are and what information has been prepared. During his appearance before the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, the Attorney General promised he would not play ``hide and seek.'' Now he is hiding. He is hiding and keeping information from the Congress, and, more importantly, because the Congress doesn't appear to be doing anything about this, keeping the information from the American people. All information, Mr. Speaker, about the capture and the detention of the detainees should be declassified, including a threat assessment for each detainee who would be released into the U.S. The American people need to see this information, all of it should be released. Eric Holder cannot just pick and choose what classified information he wants to release, only that which justifies his case, and cover up and keep quiet the others. These people should not be released into the United States. Would you want to have trained terrorists living in your neighborhood? The answer is no, and I believe that Congress also is shirking its responsibility for not getting this information before a decision has been made.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition to any decision by the Attorney General to release the trained terrorists known as Uyghurs from Guantanamo Bay into the neighborhoods, that's right, in American neighborhoods. I believe this would be a terrible decision that can needlessly endanger American citizens. If Eric Holder proceeds down this dangerous road, he has an obligation, an obligation, to the American people to release all of the information about the capture, detention, and threat posed by each detainee. If the Attorney General believes these trained terrorists pose no threat, then why not release all of this information to the Congress and, more importantly than even to the Congress, to the American people. Also, Mr. Speaker, why will the Attorney General not allow career people in the FBI, DHS and CIA to come up and brief the Congress? It's time for Eric Holder to make a decision to release this information. These trained terrorists should not be released into American neighborhoods.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to name the U.S. Post Office located on 21st Street in Long Island, New York, as the Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building. I served in this body with Geraldine Ferraro, a former Queens County district attorney, and I join my colleagues in congratulating her and her family in a well-deserved honor and wish her well. As we deal with this issue, though, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a pressing matter of national security which directly affects the welfare of the American people which is not being addressed, and the American people deserve to know what is happening. Geraldine Ferraro represented the people of New York City, a city which was forever changed on a sunny September morning when two planes slammed into the World Trade Center killing thousands and awakening our country to the murderous aims of the terrorist network globally. Thirty people from my congressional district lost their lives that day. Countless books have been written since, which highlight miscalculations and missed opportunities on the part of the policymakers in the intelligence community who failed to recognize the severity of the threat our country is facing leading up to 9/11. We can no longer say we do not know the threat, and yet this administration is on the precipice of making a decision which, given what we know, is unthinkable. Press reports and other information I receive indicates that President Obama's decision regarding the release into the United States of a number of Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 is imminent. The detainees are trained terrorists. They were held at a facility which was home to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/ 11 who took pleasure in beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. There have been published reports that these detainees were members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a designated terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda. Now, just this April, the U.S. Treasury froze the assets of Abdul Haq, the leader of this group, the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, known as ETIM. This is the same group that the detainees are reportedly affiliated with. The Treasury Department targeted Haq as part of their efforts to shut down the al Qaeda support network. Upon making the designation, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence said, and I quote what our Treasury Department said: ``Adbul Haq commands a terror group that sought to sow violence and fracture international unity at the 2008 Olympic Games in China.'' Few have been more critical of the Chinese Government than I have. But terrorism is terrorism. American citizens were present at the Olympic Games. Terrorism knows no boundaries. It must not be tolerated anywhere. American career government officials risked their lives to capture these people. What if they had not been captured? Would they have then left this terrorist training camp and gone off to wreak terrorism somewhere in China killing innocent men, women and children of China? Yet the U.S. Congress and the American people are left utterly, and I'm increasingly concerned, in the dark. The administration will not allow any career person from the FBI, from the CIA, or from the Department of Homeland Security to come up and tell the Congress about these detainees. The American people, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve more. After learning that this decision was imminent, I requested briefings from a number of relevant agencies. But all have told me that Eric Holder, our Attorney General of the Department of Justice, is preventing them from speaking out, speaking to me or other Members, if you will, on this issue. Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Justice withholding this information from the American people? Why is proper congressional oversight, which American people expect of their elected representatives, now being thwarted? This is not the time to play games. The stakes are too high, not just with regard to this specific group of detainees; but speaking more broadly, our enemy is empowered by perceived weakness. What message are we sending when one branch of government stonewalls another on a matter with undeniable national security implications? Again, I call on the Justice Department to declassify and release all information regarding the capture, detention and threats posed by these detainees or others that they may consider releasing into the U.S. Any intelligence assessment of these Uyghurs must take into account not only their previous training at terrorist training camps, but their potential subsequent exposure and radicalization while they were at Guantanamo Bay. Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor who led the 1995 prosecution against Sheik Omar Adbel Rahman who was found guilty of planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, wrote just today that the administration is playing ``fast and loose with the declassification of information.'' Mr. Speaker, this information ought to be released to the American people before any decision is made. And with that I thank the Chair.