[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 10, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H657-H658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  GTMO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most oft-repeated campaign 
promises from President Obama's 2008 campaign was his determination to 
close the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
  Congress, a coequal branch of government representing each citizen 
and reelected every 2 years, hasn't come to the same conclusion as 
President Obama about the status of GTMO moving forward. Because of 
this, we have blocked funding for its closure year after year after 
year.
  We have strong reasons for concern. Last September, the Director of 
National Intelligence reported that 117 transferred detainees are 
confirmed to be reengaging in terrorist activities, with another 79 
suspected to have done so. Disturbingly, this amounts to a full 30 
percent of transferred detainees either confirmed or suspected of 
reengaging in terrorist activities.
  The Director's report clearly shows that the detainee transfer 
process is obviously deeply flawed and poses a significant unnecessary 
and unacceptable risk to the security of our Nation and, quite frankly, 
the world.
  The high percentage of reengagement clearly exposes the fact that we 
have just simply failed to properly identify the threat posed by 
transferred detainees and provide necessary safeguards to protect our 
citizens--safeguards that should have been in place before one single 
transfer ever took place.
  Given the dire national security implications posed by these detainee 
transfers, I, along with 23 of my colleagues in this House, sent a 
letter last week to President Obama requesting to see the terms of 
agreements made with countries where detainees have and will be 
transferred.
  There are 55 countries, by the way, including the likes of Yemen, 
Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Iran. Yemen, really? Libya is a 
failed state--which we may have had a great part in creating--and we 
are sending terrorists there to be detained? Think about it. What 
incentive would it take for you to bring a terrorist to your country? 
to your neighborhood? to your home?
  In particular, I am interested in the agreements' provisions to 
mitigate the inherent danger posed by detainee transfers. Specifically, 
what were the provisions aimed at preventing reengagement? Were there 
any? How did we ensure accountability by the home countries? What did 
these nations do to prevent contact with known terrorists, especially 
in countries that are full of terrorists, like Yemen or Somalia? How 
did we ensure these countries offer no form of aid and assistance to 
terrorist organizations?
  The President says detaining these people is a recruiting magnet. 
Well, I wonder if we shouldn't detain gang members in our country. It 
is a right of passage to go to prison if you are in a gang. Should we 
let them all out, too? According to that logic, incarcerating them 
creates more of them.
  He also says that detaining them indefinitely, without a trial, 
violates America's principles. You know what? He is right. You ought to 
ask yourselves as taxpayers: Why did we pay millions of dollars for a 
state-of-the-art court facility for sensitive and top-secret 
information during a trial, and yet no one has been put on trial? It is 
right there next to the detention facility. I walked through it myself. 
Why can't the military tribunals take place so we can find out what the 
deal is with these people and have them incarcerated correctly or set 
them free? It doesn't happen at all.
  President Obama declared to America in 2013 that his administration 
is ``the most transparent administration in history.'' I will take some 
issue with that. Despite that fact, the President has clearly not lived 
up to this standard recently.
  I sincerely hope that the President will give his promise of 
transparency higher priority than the priority given to unilaterally 
closing GTMO as part of a final-year, legacy-driven agenda. It is

[[Page H658]]

not about his agenda. It is about the security of our Nation. It should 
be about the security of the world. These folks should not be let out. 
They should be given due process. They certainly shouldn't be sent to 
countries that are terrorist in nature.
  Finally, the American people should know what the deal is. How much 
is this costing? Are we sending arms to these countries? What are the 
arrangements? There are 55 countries. Why would they take these 
terrorists?

                          ____________________