[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H941-H944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GUANTANAMO BAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for 30 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, the safety of Americans, the security of 
America, should never be jeopardized for any reason, but certainly not 
simply for the purpose of fulfilling a campaign pledge.
  The President recently released a plan about closing Guantanamo Bay, 
and it demonstrates to me--and I think to the American people--that his 
plan is misguided, as well as his priorities.
  The proposal to close Guantanamo proves that his priority lies in 
leaving behind a legacy rather than protecting the American people and 
American national security. As a matter of fact, it presents nothing 
more than another attempt to fulfill a campaign promise and distracts, 
based on the timing, from the administration's failure to defeat ISIS.
  Perhaps it explains why the administration missed a separate 
congressionally mandated deadline last week for a plan to counter 
radical Islamic extremism. So he missed that deadline but was on time 
for an incomplete plan to close Guantanamo and the detention facility 
for terrorists that remains on that post.
  Now, Congress is a coequal branch of government. It is coequal to the 
President, equal in power, equal in representation of America's 
interests, and it

[[Page H942]]

has come to a different conclusion than the President. We have 
absolutely strong and justified reasons for our concern.
  Mr. Speaker, last September, the Director of National Intelligence 
reported that 30 percent of transfer detainees are confirmed or 
suspected to be reengaging in terrorist activities. Thirty percent. 
They are not necessarily in some prison overseas; 30 percent of them 
are out running around conducting terrorist activities.
  The director's report clearly shows that the detainee transfer 
process is deeply flawed. It poses a real, significant, unnecessary, 
and unacceptable risk to the security of our Nation.
  Just this week, Spanish and Moroccan police arrested four members of 
a jihadi cell that sought to recruit for ISIS fighters, including one 
former Guantanamo detainee who once fought against Americans in 
Afghanistan. I mean, that is this week. I guess he is part of the 30 
percent or maybe it is 30-point something now, and I suspect it will 
just keep going up the more we release.
  The President claims that Guantanamo, GTMO, weakens our national 
security by furthering the recruiting propaganda of Islamist terrorist 
groups, essentially saying we can't keep these people in prison because 
it makes the terrorists mad and it makes them want to do more terrorist 
things.

                              {time}  1900

  I guess we shouldn't put gang members in prison either, because their 
gang buddies would then be mad and want to conduct more gang activities 
in their communities. Now, based on that logic, we should let all these 
people out.
  Al Qaeda has waged war against the United States long before 
Guantanamo, long before the detention facility was constructed in Cuba; 
right? It didn't exist when the World Trade Center was first bombed in 
1993, when the U.S. Embassies in East Africa and Tanzania and Kenya 
were bombed in 1998. It didn't exist when the USS Cole was attacked in 
2000, and it certainly didn't exist on 9/11 when Islamists attacked our 
country.
  Islamist terror organizations have been and will be at war with 
Western culture regardless of whether GTMO remains open or is closed. 
Of that, you can be sure.
  The President claims cost savings. His plan, he says, to move or 
transfer detainees abroad and to the U.S. would lower costs between 
$140 million and $180 million annually, which is absolutely nothing to 
sneeze at. I will let everybody know: I had a hearing today in Homeland 
Security where they wasted $180 million on human resources programs--
that is $180 million gone--and 300-some-odd-million dollars for 
employees at the Department of Homeland Security that are home on leave 
because of doing something improper, while they adjudicate the issue.
  While it is expensive, let's compare the cost, the immediate impact 
of not having these terrorists in prison.
  The 9/11 attacks cost our country over $230 billion initially. So we 
are looking at $140 million to $180 million annually to $230 billion 
initially, and that doesn't include the damage made to the airline 
industry or the additional costs that our whole country has had to 
endure due to increased security, whether it is at the airport, whether 
it is at the grocery store, or whether it is in your home. And it 
certainly doesn't include the cost to our freedoms.
  The President's proposal fails to provide the critical details 
required by law, the law that he signed. His proposal failed to provide 
critical details, including the exact cost and the location of an 
alternate facility. Where does he want to put it and how much does it 
cost? These are required by law, and he hasn't enumerated them. Yet he 
has had 7 years. This is a campaign pledge. He has had 7 years to come 
up with this information. Somehow this is Congress' fault? I don't 
think so. He is just simply unwilling or unable to state where he is 
going to keep these dangerous terrorists that are currently at 
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
  Common sense tells us that the administration is simply avoiding 
fueling a political outcry when he specifies where these individuals 
are going to be held, because where he has even implied where they are 
going to be held, there has been a significant outcry, and it has been 
bipartisan.
  Citizens of the United States don't want these terrorists in their 
neighborhood. They don't want them in their town. They don't want to be 
around them. That is exactly what the problem is with his proposal. The 
plan is just more politics and not any substance. It fails to satisfy 
the requirements mandated by Congress in the law that he, himself, 
signed.
  You might ask who is still at GTMO. I mean, it has been years now 
going on. Who is still there? I want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker, 
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, the terrorist attacks 
on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacking of United 
Airlines flight 93, that is who is there.
  Or Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi, who supported al Qaeda's terrorist network 
as a facilitator, financial manager, and media committee member. This 
support included the movement and funding of 9/11 hijackers to the U.S. 
to participate in terrorist attacks orchestrated by Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed. He is affiliated with a number of high-level al Qaeda 
operatives. That is who is in that prison. Do you want him in your 
neighborhood? Do you want them in your neighborhood?
  It is against the law to transfer these terrorist detainees to 
American soil. It is against the law. The President signed this law. A 
bipartisan majority in Congress has, year after year after year, 
reaffirmed restrictions on transferring these detainees to American 
soil.
  As a matter of fact, the provisions of this were first included in 
the annual National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, in a Democrat-
led Congress in 2009. So it is not partisan. In fact, the most recent 
NDAA passed with the same provisions with 370 votes in the House and 91 
votes in the Senate before once again the President signed the law 
himself. He is simply attempting to make this a partisan issue by 
seeking to contradict the will of the American people through their 
duly elected representatives.
  Ultimately, the plan is simply not safe. The American people don't 
want GTMO terrorists in their communities, in their backyard, and for 
good reason. These terrorists should be tried. They should be tried 
under the military tribunal provisions already laid out in the $10 
million-plus courtroom facility that the taxpayers already paid for. 
Many of us have visited it. It is sitting right there on the post. We 
are waiting for these detainees to go to that courtroom that we paid 
for and be tried. That is fine with us. That is fine with Members of 
Congress, and that is fine with the American people. We don't need to 
bring them to America to do that. Congress is going to uphold its 
promise that any plan that seeks to transfer these dangerous war 
criminals does not happen.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Perry), my colleague, for organizing this Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely important that the American people need 
to learn about the President's proposal and what impact it is going to 
have on our country.
  Folks, closing GTMO and transferring these dangerous terrorists to 
United States soil is a terrible and an illogical idea. Instead of 
putting America first, the President once again continues to weaken our 
national security by pursuing decisions apparently geared toward 
solidifying some form of his legacy. I am just not sure who he is 
trying to impress here.
  Did you know that as many as one in three--the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania said 30 percent and rising; with the latest figures I 
have, 33 percent--one in three former GTMO detainees have returned or 
are suspected of returning to terrorist organizations? One in three, 
Mr. Speaker. In baseball, that is a .333 batting average. That is good 
enough to get you into the Hall of Fame in many instances.
  Speaking of Hall of Famers, Mr. Speaker, the most infamous former 
GTMO detainee, one of their hall of famers, if you will, is Ibrahim al 
Qosi, once the cook for none other than Osama bin Laden himself.
  Al Qosi pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and providing material 
support

[[Page H943]]

to al Qaeda. Al Qosi was transferred from GTMO to Sudan, his home 
country, after 2 years. Well, since his release, he has become an 
influential leader within--you guessed it--al Qaeda in Yemen.
  What was the President thinking would happen? Well, the President's 
plan includes ``transferring the bulk of remaining detainees to other 
countries and moving the rest because they are deemed too dangerous to 
transfer abroad to an as yet undetermined detention facility in the 
United States.''
  Mr. Speaker, a recent poll from Rasmussen confirms that the 
majority--56 percent, in fact--of the American people widely disapprove 
of the President's irresponsible plan to close GTMO. For those who side 
with the President's plan and attempt to rationalize the fact that 
these dangerous and deadly terrorists will be in supermax facilities, 
let us not forget about the prison break that happened in one of those 
facilities in New York just last year.
  The two men who escaped weren't masterminds. They weren't terrorists 
of the first order like these guys are. Can you imagine what 
masterminds who plot terror, who love death and violence almost as much 
if not more than we love life and liberty, can you imagine what these 
masterminds of terrorism could do? Who knows how much help they could 
get from the outside, what their hall of famers could help them do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to find out what they can do with the 
aid of their hall of famers on the outside, and I don't think the 
American public is willing to find out, either. Fortunately, as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania said, Congress has already taken preventive 
measures by including language in the recent National Defense 
Authorization Act, the NDAA, that would bar Guantanamo detainees from 
being transferred to the United States, and the President signed this 
legislation into law.
  For the President to close GTMO, current law must be changed. Oh, I 
forget. He doesn't seem to be hampered by the idea of current law. New 
legislation would have to be written, Mr. Speaker. It would have to be 
approved by Congress and sent to the President's desk again. Let me 
just tell you: I, for one, will not support any measure that will allow 
these dangerous terrorists to be transferred to the United States. 
America and Americans are far too precious to take this kind of risk.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my 
friend, for hosting this Special Order hour tonight.
  I want to read something that was written by Michelle Jesse, where 
Secretary of State John Kerry testified in front of a Senate committee 
hearing, I think it was yesterday. It was pointed out to the Secretary 
that this very guy who was the cook of Osama bin Laden, al Qosi, had 
indeed gone back to terrorism and to trying to kill Americans yet 
again.
  I guess Mr. Kerry in seven simple words probably dismantled the 
President's argument about why it was a good idea, maybe unwittingly, 
maybe unknowingly. But when it was pointed out to him that that 
terrorist was back on the battlefield seeking to destroy Americans and 
kill Americans again, Mr. Kerry's simple response was: ``Well . . . 
he's not supposed to be doing that.''
  Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up.
  I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. PERRY. I thank my good friend from Texas and agree with him that 
30 percent is way too high. One is too many, but 30 percent is way--way 
too high.
  I yield to my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. We both are on the 
Committee on Homeland Security, so we are acutely aware of some of the 
terrorist dangers that are out there because we hear it in a lot of 
committee meetings, classified briefings, and other things.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress act proactively against a 
President who holds a personal legacy above the law. Law does not bend 
to legacy. Law is obeyed, respected, and even honored for the order it 
brings to our Nation.
  Disturbingly, this principle of our Founders seems to be at odds with 
a growing segment of politicians. That is why I introduced House 
Resolution 617. House Resolution 617 gives authority to the Speaker of 
the House to initiate litigation against any executive branch official 
should they file an illegal order by transferring detainees to U.S. 
soil. This commonsense approach provides a constitutional check on the 
President.
  Now, whether in Charleston, Colorado, or Kansas, he should not bring 
American families, neighbors, and communities into close proximity with 
some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world.
  Unfortunately, the President has forgotten about the people. He has 
forgotten that they don't travel in armored motorcades. They have no 
security details guarding their every step, looking around every 
corner.
  I know my constituents are fearful of this proposal by the President 
because the folks in Charleston, South Carolina, have been fearful. The 
Navy brig the President is proposing to bring these terrorists to is a 
very, very short distance from an elementary school.
  I would also call on the candidates for President of the United 
States when they are campaigning around South Carolina, ask them a 
question: Do they support housing terrorists in our neighborhoods--that 
is a legitimate question--near our children who are at schools or near 
our churches where we worship?
  Mr. Speaker, the language that prevents transferring detainees to 
U.S. soil was actually put in by a Democratic Congress and passed in 
bipartisan fashion ever since. It was further reaffirmed in last year's 
NDAA. It is against the law for the President to transfer detainees--I 
am going to stop using the word ``detainees''--terrorists. It is 
against the law for a President of the United States to transfer 
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States, to our soil.

                              {time}  1915

  That is in the law. It has been in the law since the Democrats 
controlled this body. We just reaffirmed it this year. This isn't a 
Republican or Democratic issue. It is bipartisan. It is against the 
law.
  Now, I visited GTMO. When I was a freshman in Congress 5 years ago, I 
went down there to see it for myself. Some of the biggest names on the 
terrorist roster are located there due to the brave efforts of our men 
and women in combat to capture these guys on the battlefield.
  We have released a lot of them. Thirty percent, as you heard the 
gentleman from Texas say, of the terrorists that we have released have 
returned to terrorism or we suspect they have return to terrorism. That 
is based on intel.
  Thirty percent is a large number of the number that we have released. 
Whether it is South Carolina, Colorado, Kansas, or any other State, no 
State should be a terrorist dumping ground for this administration.
  So let's follow the law. Let's follow the law passed in a bipartisan 
manner through the United States Congress. Let's force the President to 
follow the law.
  Because, if he doesn't, let's pass H.R. 1617 and give the Speaker of 
the House the legal grounds and the authority to file a lawsuit to put 
an injunction in place to keep him from violating the law, violating a 
law, by the way, that he signed.
  Mr. PERRY. I think sometimes it seems like the President would like 
Americans to be more concerned with the rights of terrorists than their 
own rights.
  I wonder about and think about all those MPs, all those members of 
the services that go down and do a tour at Guantanamo and have horrific 
things happen to them and still act professionally in the face of these 
terrorists every single day. That is who we should be thinking about, 
those people and the American people and their rights.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority 
whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for 
leading this Special Order to highlight, Mr. Speaker, what is at stake 
in this latest proposal by President Obama.
  As you can see from the passion that my friend from South Carolina 
just exhibited, this is an issue that rivets throughout the country. 
People understand what is at stake. People across

[[Page H944]]

America know that there are bad people around the world that want to do 
us harm.
  ISIS is on the move. They are not a JV team. They are not being 
detained. In fact, they are recruiting Westerners. In fact, they are 
recruiting Americans into the battle.
  So you look at Guantanamo Bay. And this is something that, for 
whatever reason, has become a rallying cry for the political left. They 
wanted to close it down.
  They wanted to bring those terrorists into the United States, to give 
them taxpayer-funded rights that the President can't even identify, but 
that everybody acknowledges they don't deserve. We don't need that kind 
of threat here.
  When you look at the President's proposal this week, I think he has 
made it clear that he has put the political priorities of the far left 
elements over the safety and security of the United States of America. 
This would put Americans at risk by bringing these terrorists into the 
United States.
  Just go look at what kind of people are being held at Guantanamo Bay. 
These are the worst of the worst. These are people who have plotted and 
actually carried out attacks against American servicemen and -women. 
They have killed Americans in the battlefield, killed our troops. These 
are the people who have carried out those attacks.
  So they are being held at GTMO, as it is called, because that is the 
best place to ensure that we don't have to see them again on the 
battlefield.
  Over 100 of those who have already been released have gone back into 
the battlefield, in many cases, to kill American soldiers. Why would 
the President want to give them extra rights? Why would the President 
want to bring them into the United States of America?
  So, Mr. Speaker, we rise today and highlight this to point out, 
number one, what the President's intent really is and what the 
President is trying to do. This is something the President has asked 
Congress to take up.
  Mr. Speaker, we are making it very clear it is not going to happen. 
This House will not allow these terrorists being detained at Guantanamo 
Bay to enter into the United States to undermine America's national 
security.
  They are over there for a reason, which is because of terrorist 
attacks they have not only plotted, but carried out, against Americans. 
So, Mr. Speaker, they belong in Guantanamo Bay. Under this House, they 
are going to stay in Guantanamo Bay and not be brought into the United 
States.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for this Special Order 
that he is leading.
  Mr. PERRY. I thank the majority whip for his passion and his remarks. 
While he talks about the battlefield, we are going to hear from 
somebody that has been to the battlefield.
  The other thing about these terrorists that are spending their time 
in Guantanamo Bay is that they turned America into a battlefield in New 
York City.
  I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania on his recent promotion to general and for all of his 
service not just here in Congress, but also in uniform.
  This week President Obama sent an incomplete plan to Congress to 
close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This plan would 
send terrorists back home overseas and even bring high-risk terrorists 
to detention centers here in the United States.
  There are still so many unanswered questions with regard to the 
President's proposal, for example, what happens when we capture the 
next 2 or 10 or 30 terrorists? Where are we going to question them? 
Where are we going to detain them? What is the exact placement inside 
the United States for those detainees currently in GTMO? Also, what 
legal protections and rights will detainees have if we bring them into 
the U.S. and into our civilian court system?
  Make no mistake. These detainees at GTMO are the worst of the worst 
of the worst. All the variables left out of the President's plan shows 
that this really isn't a plan. It is a political campaign pledge from 8 
years ago.
  The facility at Guantanamo Bay has not only served as a place to keep 
some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, but also as a 
tactical and strategic facility where intelligence is gathered to 
prevent potential attacks against our country and ensure U.S. national 
security.
  While the President was speaking this week, it was reported that a 
former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay was one of four terror suspects 
affiliated with ISIS who was arrested for his alleged role in plotting 
terror attacks in Spain. Just one week earlier another former prisoner 
at Guantanamo was pictured in a number of videos that called for jihad 
against the Saudi Kingdom and the Western world.

  These two cases are not just coincidence. Just a few months ago the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that one-third 
of freed Guantanamo prisoners are either suspected or confirmed of 
returning to terrorist activities. One-third.
  The President is willing to compromise the security and safety of 
American lives for the sake of his own legacy. Bringing dangerous 
terrorists to U.S. soil is a dangerous political move that could not 
come at a worse time, as groups like ISIS continue to spread across the 
Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world. Again, Guantanamo is a 
key strategic and national security asset.
  For the sake of our national security, I will do everything in my 
power to ensure that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay remains 
open. I would rather have terrorists in GTMO or dead than in U.S. 
detention facilities or back on the battlefield.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERRY. Folks, there you have it. The case has been made. At this 
point, it is essentially irrefutable. You can't see what the upside is 
to bringing these people to the United States and closing the facility.
  Al Qaeda, ISIS, radical Islamists, are not going to stop. They are 
never going to stop. It certainly has nothing to do with where people 
are detained. It has nothing to do with that.
  They hate the West. They hate America. That is not going to change 
anytime soon. Allowing these people, these terrorists, to live within 
our community is not going to solve any part of that equation.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has had 7 years to come up with a plan, 7 
years for specifics, and, yet, he came this week and provided none of 
those specifics.
  Earlier this year I asked the President about the details and about 
the transfer already conducted of these terrorists to other countries: 
What are the details? What has American given? How much has it cost us?
  I didn't realize at the time that we have already transferred 
detainees to 55 countries around the world. We have no idea, as 
American citizens, from the most transparent administration in 
history--so-called by the administration--what the details of those 
arrangements are, but we do know this. These terrorists have been 
transferred to the likes of Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Iran, and Iraq.
  What kind of judgment is that, Mr. Speaker? We are sending terrorists 
from a detention facility to terrorist nations, nations where terrorism 
thrives, and expecting them not to reengage, expecting them not to join 
the fight.
  They are going to join the fight and they are coming after us. The 
President needs to quit being selfish and needs to be responsible with 
the security of his country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________