Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with our colleagues the speech new Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell gave at

his inauguration in Richmond on January 16. I was moved by his speech, ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity,'' and believe the message is relevant to all Americans.

I submit for the Record the governor's speech:

Inaugural Address of Governor Robert F. McDonnell

``A commonwealth of opportunity''

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Lt. Governor Bolling, Attorney

General Cuccinelli, members of the General Assembly,

distinguished guests from around the world and across the

country, family and friends, my fellow Virginians, good

afternoon!

We gather today on the steps of our magnificent and newly

renovated State Capitol.

From this hill the land rolls gently down to the James

River, the waterway of the settlers in 1607.

From this place, the sweep of history has moved us forward

to today.

This is the cradle of democracy for Virginia and America.

Governor Thomas Jefferson designed this Capitol building.

Governor Patrick Henry came here for the laying of its

cornerstone.

I am humbled today to follow in their historic footsteps.

The General Assembly first convened in this new building

during the first term of America's first President,

Virginia's George Washington.

Behind me, in the Rotunda, are the busts of the eight

Virginians who became President.

It was here that Robert E. Lee, the son of a Virginia

Governor, was commissioned as Commander of the Commonwealth's

military forces as a young nation split into war.

It was here, just four years later, that President Abraham

Lincoln came to begin the process of reuniting our war-torn

nation, walking the streets of still smoldering Richmond.

And it was here, 125 years after Lincoln's visit that a

grandson of slaves, L. Douglas Wilder, took the Oath of

Office as the nation's first African-American Governor.

And it is here, today, that an average middle class kid

from Fairfax County, a grandson of Irish immigrants, is given

the enormous honor of becoming the 71st Governor of Virginia.

As it turns out, I succeed another descendent of Irish

immigrants, Governor Timothy Kaine.

On behalf of the grateful people of Virginia, I thank

Governor Kaine for his leadership and service to our

Commonwealth.

Today's Virginia is a thriving and diverse home of nearly 8

million people, with one in ten born outside the United

States.

A state of rich history and strong people, we do face many

challenges together.

We do not face the challenges of forming a new government

or securing a young nation, as did Washington, Jefferson and

Henry.

We do not encounter the devastation and destruction of

Civil War, as did Lincoln and Lee.

We do not struggle with the injustice of slavery and its

legacy of segregation as did Governor Wilder as a young man.

We do not march into bullets and artillery shells, as did

the Greatest Generation on the beaches of Normandy and the

islands of the Pacific. Two members of that generation, who

served in World War II, my father Jack McDonnell and my

father-in-law Frank Gardner, join us here today.

On behalf of a grateful Commonwealth I thank them, and all

military members and veterans, for their incredible sacrifice

and service to our nation that continues today.

The actions of those patriots that came before us had a

common purpose--to create and expand freedom and opportunity

for the generations that came behind them.

The creation of, and desire for, new opportunity has shaped

Virginia from its foundation.

It was in seeking the Opportunity of a New World that

Captain John Smith and 104 settlers braved the perilous

Atlantic to step onto the sands of Cape Henry in April 1607.

It was in securing the Opportunity of a New Nation that

Virginia patriots joined together with their fellow colonists

in the first fight for freedom and independence, and thus was

born a country of ordered liberty that, 234 years later, is

the beacon of hope for the world.

It was in seizing the Opportunity of equality and education

that a courageous 16 year-old girl named Barbara Johns,

memorialized behind this majestic Capitol at the Virginia

Civil Rights Memorial, stood up and walked out of Moton High

School in Farmville 59 years ago this spring.

New opportunity helped them meet the challenges of their

time.

Greater opportunity will help us meet the challenges of

ours.

Together we must create jobs and economic opportunities.

Provide new educational opportunities for all Virginians.

And enhance family and community opportunities by easing

government burdens on free people.

As Virginians, we believe that government must help foster

a society in which all our people can use their God-given

talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream.

Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where

opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity

is unequal, we must make it open to everyone.

Our Administration will be dedicated to building ``A

Commonwealth of Opportunity'' for all Virginians.

It starts with restoring economic opportunity to Virginians

in every corner of our Commonwealth.

Tens of thousands of our family members, friends and

neighbors have lost their jobs.

Thousands more worry they could be next.

As we confront the worst economy in generations, the

creation of new job opportunities for all our citizens is the

obligation of our time, so all Virginians who seek a good job

can find meaningful work and the dignity that comes with it.

Virginia has received high rankings over the years for

being a business-friendly state.

Those rankings speak well of our past. They do not

determine our future.

Competition for jobs is intense among the states, and

between nations. States are aggressively positioning

themselves to best appeal to job creators and entrepreneurs.

We must make this the best state in which to start and grow

a small business.

It is why we will reduce burdensome taxation and regulation

that impede job-creation.

And, it is why, even in these tough times, we will have the

foresight to invest today in ideas and policies that increase

economic prosperity tomorrow.

This economic crisis has touched every Virginian.

Declining home values and diminished retirement accounts

have wiped away in just a few months the accumulated savings

of many years.

As jobs are lost and consumer confidence remains low, state

revenues have declined, and an historic budget shortfall has

stretched into the billions. Thus, like so many households

and businesses across the Commonwealth, state government

needs to devise new ways to operate and find savings.

This austerity won't be easy, but it is necessary. The

circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and

restore the proper role of government. Without reform the

continued growth of government threatens our very prosperity.

We must properly fund the core priorities of government,

but--equally important--we must utilize innovation,

privatization, and consolidations to deliver government

services more effectively.

And as we enact these reforms we must remember this: that

government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but equality

of opportunity must be guaranteed for all.

All Virginians must have the same fundamental opportunities

to work hard, live free and succeed.

Access to a quality education is the foundation of future

opportunity. My Dad stressed to me as a child that to get a

good job, you need a good education. It was true then and

even more true today.

Virginians are blessed with many great schools with

dedicated, professional teachers like my sister Nancy in

Amherst, who work tirelessly to mold the minds and character

of the next generation.

To compete in this global economy every young Virginian

must have the opportunity of a world-class education from

pre-school to college.

A child's future prospects should be as unlimited as his

intelligence, integrity and work ethic can take him. No child

in Virginia should have her future determined by her place of

birth or zip code.

We will work with President Obama to expand high-quality

charter schools and institute performance pay to our great

teachers.

More money must go to the classroom and less into

administration, and new opportunities in science, technology,

engineering, math and healthcare must be created through our

schools and colleges.

And let us recognize that a high school degree is no longer

the finish line in a global economy. We must create

affordable new pathways to earning a college degree and make

a commitment to confer 100,000 additional degrees over the

next 15 years. We must make our community colleges national

leaders in workforce development and career training.

These are investments that will pay individual and societal

dividends for many years to come.

Barbara Johns was willing to risk everything for the simple

opportunity of a good education. Surely, sixty years later,

we can work together to provide that opportunity to all

Virginia children.

Our Administration will demand excellence, reward

performance, provide choices and celebrate achievement.

God has bestowed upon our Commonwealth an amazing wealth of

natural resources. Virginians have the intellectual capital

to use these resources to create new jobs, reduce our energy

bills, and make our nation more energy independent.

We will make Virginia the ``Energy Capital of the East

Coast'' by growing the natural gas and coal industries,

expanding the use of nuclear power, and promoting new energy

technologies like wind, solar and biomass.

And we will champion environmentally safe offshore energy

exploration and production, bringing with it thousands of new

jobs, hundreds of millions in new state revenue and billions

in new investment.

We must also seize the opportunity to improve our

transportation system by getting long overdue projects

underway, and utilizing innovative ideas to build the roads,

bridges, rail and ports we need.

A better transportation system will create new

opportunities for Virginians across the state.

These are policies focused on addressing the real problems

our people face, and delivering results.

I've had people tell me they fear that America may no

longer be the land of opportunity it has always been, and

that Virginia's history in playing a leading role in the life

of our nation may be just that--history. I say: They are

wrong.

Working together--Republicans, Democrats and Independents

alike--Virginia will continue to blaze the trail of

opportunity and prosperity.

And like the mechanic looking to the owner's manual to

troubleshoot the automobile, we should look to the Founders

and their writings for wisdom.

The Founders' capstone on the Constitution is the Bill of

Rights. No federal mandate nor program crafted by either

political party should undermine the central principle of

federalism, enshrined in the birth certificate of America by

those who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

The Founders recognized that the government closest to the

people governs best. More often than not, Richmond knows

better about the hopes and dreams of the people than

Washington. And Galax and Fairfax and Virginia Beach know far

better than Richmond.

As we enthusiastically pursue the vision of ``A

Commonwealth of Opportunity'', I ask all Virginians to

continue to seek your own opportunities to get involved in

the life of our Commonwealth.

Half a century ago President Kennedy challenged the

American people to ``ask not what your country can do for

you--ask what you can do for your country.'' Today, I ask all

Virginians to rise up to meet this timeless challenge.

We live in the most generous nation on Earth. So many

Virginians give sacrificially of their time, talents and

treasure, and rightly so. The Scriptures say, ``To whom much

is given, much will be required.''

Right now, much is required in the nation of Haiti. And I

urge all Virginians to donate to the relief efforts underway.

Here in our Commonwealth, I urge business owners to look

for opportunities to sponsor a little league team, help a

charity, and promote corporate responsibility in the

communities in which you live and work.

I urge all the leaders of our faith communities to expand

your selfless work of helping the homeless, feeding the poor,

and comforting the broken hearted.

I urge the young people of Virginia to use your talents and

energy to fully engage in the future of this Commonwealth.

I urge Virginians who came here from other lands to

contribute your culture, your history and your traditions to

our rich tapestry of life.

I urge every Virginian to take every opportunity to thank a

man or woman in a law enforcement or military uniform for the

preservation of our freedoms.

There is so much each one of us can do to leave this

Commonwealth a better place than we found it.

No government program can substitute for the incredible

good done through voluntary actions performed freely by

caring individuals every day.

And while government can help provide opportunities, it is

every person's responsibility to take advantage of them.

In recent weeks I've seen people exercising that

responsibility, and changing lives at: the Healing Place in

Richmond, the Carpenter's Shelter in Alexandria, Food Banks

in Abingdon, Norfolk and Richmond, the Boys and Girls Club in

Virginia Beach, the USO in Norfolk.

As a Commonwealth, we must do the same . . . and we will.

Standing here today, on the steps of our State Capitol, in

the inspiring shadows of the shared history behind us, we

embrace the limitless future opportunities stretching out far

before us. . . .

And now it is here, in this place, that we pledge to work

together to create ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity'' . . .

for all Virginians, and to add our steps to Virginia's

journey.

It was George Washington who noted, in his first Inaugural

Address, ``The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be

expected to remain on a nation that disregards the eternal

rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.''

It is right to help one another.

It is right to work together to get results and solve

problems.

It is right to provide opportunities for all.

Let us heed the words of the Father of our Country, employ

these eternal rules of order and right, and get to work for

the good of the people of Virginia.

Thank you and God Bless the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I saw the article in this month's Washington Post about the Obama administration's cutting a backroom deal with the Democrat leadership to create, by Executive order, a commission to deal with our Nation's excessive spending.

I am opposed to creating this panel by Executive order, and the American people will be opposed. Congress should be voting to create this commission, and it should be requiring that it act on the panel's recommendations.

What the President and the Democrat leadership have agreed to, which has only now come around to addressing the issue because they need political cover to increase the debt limit, is a fig leaf. This is the same group that has pushed our deficit to record levels and that has continued to write check after check from an account which already has a negative balance.

The American people will be cut out of the process. It is a backroom deal; and under this deal, the recommendations will be voted on by a lame-duck Congress, filled with retiring and defeated Members. This is wrong. Any action should be taken by a newly elected Congress, not one on the way out the door. Creating this commission by Executive order is the wrong way to go. We have to get this right. Too much is at stake.

I rise in opposition to the rule.

Today, the press is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit-cutting commission by Executive

order. There are also reports that instead of putting every spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending controlled by the Democratic-controlled Appropriations Committee would be exempt.

I oppose creating this panel by Executive order, and the American people will oppose this sleight of hand also. Press reports suggest that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission's recommendation up for a vote in Congress, but a vote that is not mandated as it would be if Congress passed similar legislation statutorily. More important, the vote that could take place under the administration's plan would happen after the midterm elections and before the newly elected Congress begins. It would be basically a lame- duck Congress vote. Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy but never be accountable to the American people. Is it right for an outgoing Member of Congress to consider proposals that could affect every single American, knowing that days or weeks later they will no longer answer to voters in the district they once represented?

Between the Democrats and the Republicans in both Chambers, over 30 Members have already announced that they are retiring or running for another office. It is not appropriate for outgoing lawmakers who may eventually lobby for a special interest that has a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission to then vote on that recommendation. Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly elected Congress, who will have to publicly stand by their vote on the commission's recommendations, Members who have been elected and are accountable to the American people. A deficit commission established through Executive order amounts to nothing more than political cover.

This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending that will conveniently help them survive the upcoming election cycle. All of a sudden, the Obama administration has found deficit-cutting religion. The same administration that pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus promising that unemployment would be held under 8 percent now wants to get our Nation's financial house in order. The same administration that promised an open and transparent process on health care reform, which is now being negotiated behind closed doors and could cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion, now wants credibility on spending issues.

The FY 2009 budget deficit registered at an unprecedented $1.4 trillion. I believe the American people understand the depth of our financial problems, recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked on, and won't be fooled by a fig leaf commission established by an Executive order.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the American people will be cut out of the process under this plan. The bipartisan commission process I've talked about, and many Members on both sides have talked about for 4 years, includes a legitimate public engagement mandating public town hall- style meetings throughout the country. Now there will be no input from the hardworking people in our neighborhoods and communities. That is not right, and everyone knows it.

If lawmakers were serious about the debt and the deficit issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would halt the budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and muster the political will to have an honest conversation with the American people about where we are, where we're heading, and what changes need to be made to get back on track. But an open process that allows the American people to weigh in will never happen through a commission established by an Executive order all done here in Washington.

This morning, Congressman Lamar Smith, our colleague from Texas, in a 1-minute speech on the floor offered a series of lessons to be learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said, All true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not have a voice in a deficit commission established through an Executive order.

He also said that common sense triumphs partisanship. A commission through Executive order negotiated by one party is the height of partisanship. Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have not been involved in this effort.

He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway?

In closing, Mr. Smith correctly, and I say correctly, noted that one- party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of power by a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. And to be fair, Republicans were just as arrogant at times. Hopefully we have learned a lesson and will never go back to those times.

Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the American people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. We would be wise in this Congress to heed that lesson.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today the press, Mr. Speaker, is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit cutting commission by executive order. I oppose this effort, and so will the American people.

In light of this news, the remarks that Representative Lamar Smith of Texas made on the House floor this morning ring truer and more urgent than ever. Representative Smith offered a series of lessons to be learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said all true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not have a choice in a deficit commission established by executive order. He also said common sense trumps partisanship. A commission through executive order negotiated by one party is the height of partisanship. He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway?

Mr. Smith correctly noted that one-party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of power on a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. To be fair, the Republicans in the majority were arrogant at times. And Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. They proved that when the people get mad enough, anything is possible, even in Massachusetts. Lawmakers in Congress on both sides of the aisle would be wise to hear that message loud and clear, yet the Obama administration doesn't seem to be listening.

There are a number of serious problems being exposed as details of the administration's executive order commission are revealed. Any commission should be authentically bipartisan, passed by the Congress. Press reports indicate that instead of putting every spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending would be exempt. How can we have an honest conversation about the Nation's financial health without looking at discretionary funds that accounted for more than 33 percent of Federal spending in '09?

The $447 billion omnibus appropriations bill that was considered by Congress and signed into law in December corresponded with the Democrats' budget blueprint that increased nondefense discretionary spending by 12 percent over the previous year. When all appropriations spending is combined, the Democratic majority will have increased nondefense, nonveterans discretionary spending by 85 percent over the last 2 fiscal years. The American household has certainly not seen their income rise by 85 percent in recent years.

Simply put, discretionary spending, with the spending set by annual appropriations levels of Congress, matter. A deficit reduction commission that is barred from looking at one-third of the Federal budget is a fig leaf. The bipartisan commission process I have talked about for nearly 4 years puts everything, entitlements, tax policy, discretionary spending, everything on the table for discussion by the commission members.

Moreover, the American people will be cut out of the process under the President's plan. The SAFE Commission plan I have advocated for includes legitimate public engagement, mandating public town hall-style meetings. But under President Obama's plan the public voice will be nonexistent. There will be no input from the hardworking taxpayers in our communities. This is not the right way to form public policy.

Perhaps the most glaring sleight of hand, one I believe the American people will recognize and refute, is that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission recommendations up for a vote in Congress, but only after the mid-term elections and

before the new Congress begins in 2011. It would be a lame duck vote.

Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy, but never be held accountable by the American people. Is it right for outgoing Members of Congress to consider proposals that could affect every single American knowing that days and weeks later they would no longer be answerable to the voters of the district they once represented?

Between the Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, over 30 Members have already announced they are retiring or running for another office, and this number will grow. During the lame duck session, some outgoing Members may already be looking for new jobs, which could well be lobbying special interest groups and other stakeholders that have a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission's recommendations. Yet the Obama administration is setting up a process that would allow these outgoing lawmakers to vote on the commission's recommendations and run the risk of blurring the lines between what is best for the American people and best for their future employer.

Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly elected Congress, which would have to publicly stand by their vote on the commission's recommendation. This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending for political cover to survive the upcoming elections.

A commission through executive order is political gamesmanship. It is a blatant effort by the administration to find political cover after advocating for the $787 billion economic stimulus, supporting health care reform being negotiated behind closed doors that could cost a trillion, and pushing other budget breakers that are wildly unpopular in the eyes of the American people.

In closing, the American people understand the depth of our financial problems. They recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked on since the Obama administration began, and they will not be fooled about by a fig leaf commission established by executive order. Just ask the people of Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish a 10-year term of office for any individual appointed to serve as the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, akin to the appointment process for the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI.

The failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner points to the need for strong, capable leadership at TSA. It is essential that the agency be independent of political influence and focus on its core mission: to protect ``the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.'' Given the continued threat from al Qaeda to U.S. and international aviation, it is essential that the TSA administrator has bipartisan support.

I believe a 10-year term for the administrator of TSA will help provide the agency with the qualified, long-term and independent leadership it needs at this time. Over the last 9 years since TSA's creation following 9/11, TSA has had six administrators--averaging terms of just 1.5 years. This is hardly the stable and committed leadership that the agency should have, given its critical role in ensuring the safety of our citizens and aviation infrastructure. It simply does not make sense for the position to change hands with each new administration or even sooner.

This bill further strengthens our Nation's homeland by ensuring stable leadership at the Department of Homeland Security and freeing that the TSA administrator to assure agency professionalism over political fidelity. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, in an op-ed for the USA Today, wrote that ``national security is too important to become a partisan issue.'' And I could not agree more.

That is why I wrote President Obama yesterday with three specific actions that I recommended he could take immediately, with strong bipartisanship support, to help prevent future terrorist attacks against America. First, I recommended that he immediately bring back the two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for a six-month period to conduct a formal review and follow-up to the 9/11 report. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kean would be charged with evaluating which of the commission's original recommendations have been implemented and to what end, and which have failed to be implemented and at what cost.

Second, I urged the creation of a Team B concept, separate from the review that would be conducted by the 9/11 Commission co-chairs. Historically, the phrase Team B refers to a group of outside experts brought together to analyze the threats posed by the Soviet Union to the United States and counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA and government, known as Team A. The Team B concept has been successful in previous administrations when fresh eyes were needed to provide the commander in chief with objective information to make informed policy decisions. I believe it can work now.

Third, I urged the President to support the legislation that I introduced today to establish a 10-year term of office for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, similar to what the Congress has done in the past for the appointment process for the director of the FBI. Bob Mueller has done an outstanding job, and that process has worked well.

Since TSA's creation following 9/11, TSA has had six administrators, six, averaging terms of just 1.5 years. The attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner points to the need for long-term, strong, and capable leadership that is outside of the political process.

In a separate letter to Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, I posed a series of pointed questions concerning the security situation in Yemen and the circumstances surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack. Specifically, I asked the administration how it plans to deal with the possible radicalization of some 55,000 Americans, 55,000 Americans that are currently visiting, living, or studying in Yemen, pointing out that these individuals can fly back to the United States with American passports.

The dangers of radicalization in Yemen are very troubling. The alleged Fort Hood terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan was radicalized by Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al Aulaqi. The alleged terrorist who killed a U.S. Army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas, was also radicalized by al Aulaqi. And now we have learned that the alleged Christmas Day terrorist was reportedly also in contact with al Aulaqi in Yemen. Convicted terrorist John walker Lindh was radicalized in Yemen while studying Arabic in 1998 and 2000, leading to his collaboration with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Last week, President Obama said, ``Now is not the time for partisanship, it is the time for citizenship--a time to come together, work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.'' However, working together demands that this administration work with Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, in good faith to provide information, answer questions, and consider solutions, and to develop a strategy to defeat al Qaeda, whenever and however we can.

The administration must live up to the President's challenge to involve Congress in the active participation on counterterrorism matters. This can only happen, however, if the legislative branch, Republicans and Democrats, are included in the process.

In closing, I urge my colleagues in the House to support bringing back the 9/11 team, Kean and Hamilton, for 6 months, create a Team B to consider innovative solutions to disrupt and defeat al Qaeda, and to make the TSA administrator position independent and nonpartisan, that will go for a long term, similar to what we currently do with regards to the FBI. These are good bipartisan steps to protect the homeland, and ultimately to defeat al Qaeda.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy, and yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 12, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: ``National Security is too important to

become a partisan issue.'' This sentence was the opening line

in a January 11 USA Today op-ed jointly authored by Lee

Hamilton and Thomas Kean, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission.

Last week, you, too, said, ``Now is not a time for

partisanship, it's a time for citizenship--a time to come

together and work together with the seriousness of purpose

that our national security demands.'' I could not agree more

with this sentiment.

No nation, including America, can hope to win this long

battle against al Qaeda and like foes if the war effort is

marked by partisanship. Sadly, not only has partisanship

infused the rhetoric surrounding national security

discussions, it has actually obstructed the critical role of

congressional oversight. Too often in recent months

partisanship has resulted in withholding of information,

unanswered letters and briefings denied by this

administration.

The stakes are too high and the cost of failure is too

great for petty politics to rule the day. The White House has

a moral obligation to actively and consistently reach out to

the minority party in Congress, to be forthcoming with

information and to provide access to all levels of

government.

Hamilton and Kean go on to write, ``We intend to monitor

the implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations

and report on new national security threats.'' I urge you to

encourage this effort by bringing back these two co-chairs

for a six-month period to conduct a formal review and 9/11

Commission follow-up. They would be charged with evaluating

which of the Commission's original recommendations have been

implemented and to what end, and which have failed to be

implemented and at what cost.

This past weekend, The Washington Post featured an op-ed by

Bruce Hoffman, respected professor of security studies at

Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the U.S.

Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center. Hoffman wrote,

``(W)hile al-Qaeda is finding new ways to exploit our

weaknesses, we are stuck in a pattern of belated responses,

rather than anticipating its moves and developing preemptive

strategies. The `systemic failure' of intelligence analysis

and airport security that Obama recently described was not

just the product of a compartmentalized bureaucracy or

analytical inattention, but a failure to recognize al-Qaeda's

new strategy. The national security architecture built in the

aftermath of Sept. 11 addresses yesterday's threats--but not

today's and certainly not tomorrow's. It is superb at

reacting and responding, but not at outsmarting . . . a new

approach to counterterrorism is essential.''

Distinct from temporarily bringing back the two 9/11

Commission co-chairs, I also urge the creation of a ``Team

B.'' As you may know, historically the phrase ``Team B''

refers to a group of outside experts, commissioned by the

Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970's and headed by

Richard Pipes, to analyze the threats posed by the Soviet

Union to the United States and counter the positions of

intelligence officials within the CIA, known as ``Team A.''

In your remarks last week following the review of the

attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, you rightly

referred to our enemy as ``nimble.'' Too often our response

to the evolving threat posed by al Qaeda, and others

sympathetic to their murderous aims, is anything but.

The Team B concept has been successful in previous

administrations when fresh eyes were needed to provide the

commander-in-chief with objective information to make

informed policy decisions. I believe it can work now, too,

and suggest that among the individuals, but not exclusively,

whose expertise and forward-thinking would be well-suited to

a Team B are: Bruce Hoffman; Andrew McCarthy and Patrick

Fitzgerald, both of whom were involved in the prosecution of

Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the first World Trade Center

bombings; Fouad Ajami, professor at the School of Advanced

International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University; Jean

Bethke Elshtain, professor of social and political ethics at

the University of Chicago; economist Judy Shelton, National

Endowment for Democracy board member; foreign policy

columnist and author Anne Applebaum; Andrew F. Krepinevich

Jr., author of Seven Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist

Explores War in the 21st Century; Elliot Cohen, professor of

Strategic Studies at SAIS; Philip D. Zelikow, diplomat and

author who worked as executive director of the 9/11

Commission; and Joshua Muravchik, formerly a scholar at the

American Enterprise Institute and presently a Foreign Policy

Institute fellow at SAIS.

The 9/11 Commission report was issued nearly six years ago.

Even if every recommendation had been implemented, which it

has not, our enemy has evolved since that time. Our current

intelligence infrastructure is at times overwhelmed by data,

information and the urgency of daily events, and as such is

unable to dedicate the time and resources necessary to think

outside the box and better comprehend this multidimensional

threat. ``Team B'' would possess the necessary expertise but

would be free from these daily pressures. The team would

represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which

focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but

which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to

break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains

our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to

strategically isolate them.

I also believe there is an urgent need to make the

Transportation Security Agency (TSA) administrator a long-

term position. Since TSA's inception following the 9/11

attacks, there have been six Transportation Security Agency

administrators and acting administrators. For a position of

this import to turn over with such frequency and to

automatically change hands with each new administration

simply does not make sense. I am introducing legislation that

mirrors the language used to establish a 10-year term and

Senate confirmation for FBI directors. I am hopeful that

members of both parties will see the merits of this proposal

and I urge your support for this change.

America is a great nation facing an enemy unlike any other

we have ever known. We must steel ourselves for the struggle

ahead, frankly assessing the nature and scope of the threat

we face and guarding against partisanship at all costs. The

people of this country deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support of Google's intention to consider pulling out of China due to a ``highly sophisticated and targeted attack'' on its corporate infrastructure and email service. Google is making a principled stand reminiscent of the companies that pulled out of apartheid South Africa and fascist Germany.

The Washington Post reported today that Google said it has evidence that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. They found that the gmail accounts of literally dozens of brave human rights advocates ``appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.''

This is unconscionable but is not surprising given China's long history of cracking down on free speech, human rights, and religious freedom. China is regressing. They are increasingly brazen in their human rights abuses.

This principled stand on the part of Google will surely give hope to the millions of Chinese people who yearn for freedom and who cry out for basic human rights.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House all information relating to the decision to dismiss an important voter intimidation case, United States v. New Black Panther Party. The case sought to enforce Voting Rights Act statutes against members of the New Black Panther Party that threatened Philadelphia voters--both verbally and physically--last year.

This case was inexplicably dismissed earlier this year--over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the department's own appeal office.

I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted.

As ranking Republican member of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I take oversight of the department very seriously.

I also strongly support voting rights protections. In 1981, I was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was criticized again by editorial pages.

Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss this case.

I have written Attorney General Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him.

I wrote the DOJ Inspector General to request a review of this decision. He deferred to the Office of Professional Responsibility-- which reports directly to the Attorney General.

I have written the Office of Professional Responsibility seeking information on its investigation. The Office has refused to share any information.

In fact, the only response I have received--from a legislative affairs staffer--was woefully incomplete and--in places--inaccurate.

Two months ago, I met with House Judiciary Chairman Conyers to ask for his assistance in obtaining this information, but he has yet to take any action. This is a shameful failure to provide necessary congressional oversight.

It is not only Congress that is being stonewalled by the Attorney General. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly sought this same information, in fulfillment of its statutory responsibility to ensure the enforcement of civil rights law.

After being similarly rebuffed, the commission filed subpoenas with the department for this information as well as to interview the career attorneys that handled the case.

However, we understand that the Attorney General has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas. The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the

law and complying with the Attorney General's obstruction.

At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.

I urge the House Judiciary Committee to report this resolution out favorably and to demand that the Attorney General answer the questions surrounding this case.

The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the Federal Government's commitment to protecting voting rights by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right.

This House must not turn a blind eye to the Attorney General's obstruction. He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission.

It is imperative that we protect the right of all Americans to vote-- the sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.

I submit for the record a copy of the resolution that I am introducing.

Resolution

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives all information in the Attorney General's possession relating to the decision to dismiss United States v. New Black Panther

Party.

Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to transmit

to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after

the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any

document, memo, or correspondence of the Department of

Justice with regard to United States v. New Black Panther

Party, or any portion of any such document, memo, or

correspondence that refers or relates to--

(1) any department communications with regard to the case

between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009;

(2) any communication with the defendants or the

defendants' attorneys between November 5, 2008 and November

15, 2009;

(3) any communication with third-party organizations or

individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009;

or

(4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the case.

Madam Speaker, last week I spoke at a moving exhibit at the Heritage Foundation which featured a collection of 50 paintings by Ukrainian artist and gulag survivor Nikolai Getman.

Mr. Getman spent eight years in a Siberian gulag. Following his harrowing experience he secretly undertook to chronicle his time in the Soviet forced labor system because he said he was ``convinced that it was my duty to leave behind a testimony to the fate of the millions of prisoners who died and who should not be forgotten.''

These 50 paintings are the fruit of 40 years of work on the part of Nikolai. They are a powerful testimony of one's man's triumph over totalitarianism. They ought not be relegated to the annals of history. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, those who seek to suppress freedom, be they in North Korea, China or Egypt, are still with us.

I submit my remarks from the Heritage Foundation event:

``Experience and the record had convinced me that communism is a form of totalitarianism, that its triumph means slavery to men wherever they fall under its sway, and spiritual night to the human mind and soul.''

These words were spoken by famed Communist party member, Soviet spy and ultimate defector, Whitaker Chambers.

In testimony before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, Chambers said that in spite of what he knew to be true of communism, he believed he was ``leaving the winning side for the losing side'' but that was ``better to die on the losing side than to live under communism.''

Of course we know that Chambers' fear proved to be untrue. That communism, as Ronald Reagan predicted, was destined for the ``ash heap of history.'' That the gulags of that era, depicted before us tonight, were destined to be relics of the past.

Ronald Reagan modeled how to confront repressive regimes like the Soviet Union. He spoke truth to power. He boldly pressed the Soviets to respect the fundamental human rights of their own people. He raised the cases of dissidents by name.

He did this because of a fundamental belief that the US. constitution was a ``covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind''

Reagan once said, ``Coersion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.''

Indeed freedom captivates the human spirit and ultimately triumphs over tyranny whatever form it takes.

Madam Speaker earlier today a news conference was held with Congressmen Donald Payne, Chris Smith and myself along with representatives from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), to draw attention to the desperate situation in Sudan. We heard compelling firsthand accounts of what transpired in Khartoum last week. Arrests, detention, tear gas and beatings of peaceful Sudanese protestors including several high-ranking Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) officials. These protestors had gathered in the streets to press Sudan's President Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP) to demand passage of important laws by the National Assembly.

Khartoum's actions are inexcusable, but why should we be surprised, given the head of state is an accused war criminal. We also know from widely reported information that the National Congress Party (NCP) is obstructing the establishment of conditions for free and fair elections. The world also still awaits reform of the national security law.

Against this backdrop of violence and intimidation by Khartoum, the NCP and the SPLM entered into intense negotiations over the weekend. While reports indicate that a tentative compromise has been reached, the outcome is still far from assured. And if the coming weeks don't yield the necessary results, the long-suffering people of Sudan will watch any real prospect of lasting peace and justice slip away. Will the U.S. stand by and allow this to happen?

For years the U.S. has been a leader on the world stage in advocating for the marginalized people of Sudan. This is an issue, unlike many in Washington, which has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. In January 2005, after two and half years of negotiations, the North and the South signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) bringing about an end to the 21-year-old civil war during which nearly two million people died, most of whom were civilians. I was at the signing of the CPA in Kenya along with Congressman Payne. Hopes were high for a new Sudan.

Sadly those hopes are quickly dimming as President Bashir becomes further entrenched and principled U.S. leadership on Sudan wanes. On the eve of the five-year anniversary of the signing, the CPA hangs in the balance as does Sudan's future.

President Obama's special envoy to Sudan, General Scott Gration, was appointed in March of this year. Many in Congress, myself included, had pressed for a special envoy in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan particularly at this critical juncture in the implementation of the CPA and with genocide in Darfur still ongoing.

While there have been times in the months following that I have been concerned by the direction that this administration appeared to be taking in Sudan, I refrained from any public criticism, not wanting to do anything that could jeopardize peace or progress on these critical issues. But I can be silent no longer.

The time has come for Secretary Clinton and President Obama to personally and actively engage on Sudan.

During the campaign, then candidate Obama said, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' He went on to say, ``The Bush administration should be holding Sudan accountable for failing to implement significant aspects of the 2005 Comprehensive

Peace Agreement (CPA), imperiling the prospects for scheduled multiparty elections in 2009.''

I could not agree more. Accountability is imperative. The CPA is not up for re-negotiation. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with this president and this president alone.

I have consistently received reports from people on the ground that this administration's posture toward Sudan has only emboldened Bashir and the NCP.

The December 12 Wall Street Journal editorial page put it this way, ``As a candidate, Mr. Obama stood with the human rights champions of Darfur and pledged tougher sanctions and a possible no-fly zone if a Sudanese regime infamous for genocide didn't shape up. His tone has changed in office . . . . the preference for diplomacy over pressure has encouraged the hard men in Khartoum to stoke the flames in Darfur, ignoring an arms embargo and challenging the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force there.''

Khartoum is savvy in the ways of Washington. This softening in the U.S. posture has not gone unnoticed.

In recent written testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, the top UN investigator said, ``In contrast to that leadership of 2004 and 2005, the United States appears to have now joined the group of influential states who sit by quietly and do nothing to ensure that sanctions protect Darfurians.''

This administration's engagement with Sudan to date has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP.

Having been to Sudan five times, I've seen the work of their hands with my own eyes. In June 2004 I was part of the first congressional delegation with Senator Sam Brownback to Darfur, soon after the world began hearing about the atrocities being committed against the people of that region. I witnessed the nightmare. I saw the scorched villages and overflowing camps. I heard the stories of murder, rape and displacement. In the summer of 2004, the Congress spoke with one voice in calling what was happening in Darfur genocide.

In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government against its own people, it is also important to note that Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's. I was troubled by Special Envoy Gration's comments this summer at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that ``there is no evidence in our intelligence community that supports [Sudan] being on the state sponsors of terrorism list . . .'' despite the findings of the 2008 State Department Country Reports on Terrorism that ``. . . there have been open source reports that arms were purchased in Sudan's black market and allegedly smuggled northward to Hamas.''

Last week marked the anniversary of the adoption of the 1948 Genocide Convention. In the aftermath of the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust the world pledged ``Never Again.'' But these words ring hollow for the woman in the camp in Darfur who has been brutally raped by government- backed janjaweed so that they might, in their own words, make lighter skinned babies. Were these horrors taking place in Europe would the world stand by and watch?

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which sits just blocks from here, bears witness to genocide and related crimes against humanity around the world. The museum's warning for Sudan stems from ``(t)he Sudanese government's established capacity and willingness to commit genocide and related crimes against humanity. This is evidenced by actions the government has taken in the western region of Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and the South that include:

Use of mass starvation and mass forcible displacement as a weapon of destruction;

Pattern of obstructing humanitarian aid;

Harassment of internally displaced persons;

Bombing of hospitals, clinics, schools, and other civilian sites;

Use of rape as a weapon against targeted groups;

Employing a divide-to-destroy strategy of pitting ethnic groups against each other, with enormous loss of civilian life;

Training and supporting ethnic militias who commit atrocities;

Destroying indigenous cultures;

Enslavement of women and children by government-support militias;

Impeding and failing to fully implement peace agreements.

These are hardly our partners in peace. And yet, we cannot claim that Khartoum has been unpredictable, that we did not know what they were capable of. Tragically, they have been utterly consistent for nearly 20 years. They have consistently brutalized their own people. They have consistently failed to live up to agreements. And they have consistently responded only to strength and pressure.

And so I say once again, time is running out. The urgency of the situation calls for intervention at the highest levels of the U.S. Government--specifically the Secretary of State and the President of the United States. The people of Sudan cry out for nothing less.

Madam Speaker, I rise to share with our colleagues the recent passing of John Warren Cooke, former speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates. He died on November 28, 2009, at the age of 94.

Born on February 28, 1915, in Mathews, Virginia, Speaker Cooke had a long history of service to Virginia, spending almost 4 decades in the House of Delegates from 1942 to 1980. After serving as the Democratic majority leader for 12 years, he became Speaker in 1968. He was well regarded on both sides of the aisle and considered a true gentleman.

After retiring from the Virginia House of Delegates, Speaker Cooke returned to his hometown to continue serving as the publisher of the Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal, as he had done since 1954.

Speaker Cooke's father, Major Giles B. Cooke, served on the general staff of General Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. As a 26-year-old, Major Cooke was on Lee's staff at Appomattox.

As the ninth generation of his family to serve in the Virginia General Assembly and one of the last living Americans with a father in the Civil War, Speaker Cooke will surely be missed by the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I submit an obituary for Speaker Cooke published in The Washington Post on December 2.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2009]

Courtly, Powerful Speaker of Va. House for 12 Years

(By Matt Schudel)

John Warren Cooke, 94, who served 12 years as the quietly

influential speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, died

Nov. 28 at his home in the Mathews County town of Gloucester.

The cause of death could not be learned.

Mr. Cooke, the last member of the Virginia legislature who

was the son of a Confederate veteran, was the Democratic

majority leader in the House of Delegates for 12 years before

becoming speaker in 1968. He exercised his authority with a

courtly demeanor and a gentle hand but was, as described in a

1979 Washington Post article, ``one of the state's most

powerful but little-noticed officials.''

He served in the House of Delegates from 1942 to 1980, when

Virginia was struggling with integration and changing from

its Democratic, rural roots to a more urban and Republican-

leaning state. Among other achievements, Mr. Cooke helped

bring a new bipartisan spirit to Richmond by appointing

Republicans to key committees for the first time in the

legislature's history.

Until 1969, Virginia's legislators had no offices and

conducted their business from their desks and briefcases. As

speaker, Mr. Cooke had absolute authority to appoint the 100

members of the House to committees as he saw fit. His

committee choices, usually based on seniority, could affect

the direction and tone of legislation and whether it reached

the full House for a vote.

Mr. Cooke, known as ``John Warren,'' was well liked and was

praised by his colleagues as ``the soul of fairness.''

A 1970 Post story said Mr. Cooke's ``geniality'' and

``quick dry wit'' served him well in politics: ``He guides

smoothly and skillfully, he is courteous, he is a gentleman

down to his toes--and he is very, very popular.''

Mr. Cooke was considered a possible gubernatorial candidate

in 1969 and 1973, but he bowed out of the races to remain in

the House, representing a Tidewater district north of

Williamsburg.

In 1972, as the Democratic speaker, he helped arrange a

compromise between contentious factions of the Democratic-

controlled legislature and Republican governor Linwood Holton

to institute a sweeping reorganization of the state

government.

John Warren Cooke was born Feb. 28, 1915, in Mathews, Va.

His father, who was 76 when his son was born, was an

Episcopal priest who had served on Gen. Robert E. Lee's staff

during the Civil War.

Mr. Cooke attended the Virginia Military Institute and

returned to his home town to work for the Gloucester-Mathews

Gazette-Journal. He was publisher of the weekly newspaper

from 1954 until March of this year and was president of the

old Tidewater Baseball League.

Survivors include his wife of 62 years, Anne Brown Rawn

Cooke of Mathews; and two children, Giles Buckner Cooke III

of Williamsburg and Elsa VanNess Verbyla of Mathews.

I want to thank Chairman Mollohan and Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their efforts. I will not be supporting the bill for the reasons that are in my submitted statement.

But I want to raise another issue that somebody ought to focus on in this Congress. This bill will allow people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York City and I believe personally it will endanger the citizens of New York City. And they're now going to come in and ask for up to $75 or $100 million to do that. That's money that you could put in food pantries or education.

Secondly, we have asked that this information be nonclassified so people can know where these people from Guantanamo Bay are going. Twenty-six of them--and it's classified and I can't say any more--are being sent to Yemen. Yemen. That's where the sheikh who had the impact on Major Hasan Nidal, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, that's where he operates. And al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is all over Yemen. So you are going to release people from Guantanamo Bay, who served with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was the mastermind of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, 30 from my congressional district. Khalid Sheik Mohammed beheaded Daniel Pearl. Think of Daniel Pearl's family. Think of Debra Burlingame and the family of others; and they're going to send them to Yemen. And then they're also going to send two others to a place that no one would believe that they're really going to send them.

By not adopting the amendments that we offered in conference, one, I believe this bill will endanger people in New York City; two, it will put pressure on New York City. You will see stories in the paper. As you vote for this bill, know that you will see stories in the paper of snipers on the rooftops, and tanks moving.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be in New York City for 4 years, 4 years or more--Moussaoui was in northern Virginia for over 4 years--and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will say things and do things that will be unconscionable. So as you vote for this bill, you are, in essence, allowing that to take place. It's crazy, absolutely crazy, to think that you can try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Guantanamo Bay with no cost and no danger to the American citizens, but then they're going to bring him and others into the U.S.

So Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets a civilian trial when a young 19-year- old person in the Army, man or woman, who does something wrong has to go through a military court system.

The bill spends too much. I believe that by bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the others here, we may very well endanger people and bring about another attack. And secondly, to spend all that money to protect Khalid Sheik Mohammed when he could have been tried down at Guantanamo Bay just doesn't make any sense. No one believes that that makes sense. And lastly, to send people to Yemen and other places I think will endanger this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the Commerce Justice Science division of this conference report, as I serve as the Ranking Member on that Subcommittee.

First, I want to thank Chairman Mollohan, Chairman Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their hard work on the CJS portion of the bill, and for their spirit of collaboration and cooperation on this conference agreement.

However, I believe the subcommittee was given an overly generous conference allocation. At $64.4 billion, the bill is almost a 12 percent increase above last year's level. In my view, this level of funding was well in excess of the amount necessary to produce a good bill.

The bill contains important funding to support NASA, fight terrorism and gangs, and to give our federal law enforcement critical resources.

The CJS division of this package places important limitations and reporting requirements related to the closure of Guantanamo and the movement of detainees.

However, I believe stronger language is necessary, and I regret that amendments I offered at conference to prohibit the transfer and release of detainees into the United States and to require unclassified reports were defeated on party line votes.

There were press reports just yesterday that a former Guantanamo detainee transferred to Saudi Arabia is now a kingpin for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and at large in Yemen. There are already 10 ex- Gitmo detainees on Saudi Arabia's list of most-wanted terrorists. The current transfer policies will likely result in many more similar stories.

Because my amendments were defeated, this bill will allow dangerous detainees to be transferred to the United States and to unstable countries abroad.

It will allow 26 Yemeni detainees to be returned to Yemen--the emerging al Qaeda stronghold in the Arabian Peninsula where radical cleric Anwar al Aulaqi--the advisor of Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Hasan Nidal--operates freely. I submit for the Record an article on al Aulaqi that appeared in today's Washington Post.

It will allow 2 other detainees to be released to a country worse the Yemen. I cannot share

the location because my amendment to declassify this information for the American people was defeated on a party-line vote.

It will allow Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be transferred to New York City and provide him a platform to spread his hateful message-- endangering our country.

I am disappointed that the CJS conference report was not brought to the floor as a stand-alone bill, as we were prepared to do weeks ago. Instead we are once again faced with a bloated, half a trillion dollar omnibus.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2009]

Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Attack Grew More Radicalized in Yemen

(By Sudarsan Raghavan)

Sanaa, Yemen.--The Yemeni American cleric at the center of

investigations into last month's massacre of 13 people at

Fort Hood, Tex., became more openly radical in Yemen,

following a path taken by other extremists in this failing

Middle East nation with a growing al-Qaeda presence,

according to relatives, friends and associates in Yemen.

In interviews, they said Anwar al-Aulaqi, 38, blamed the

United States for 18 months he spent in a Yemeni jail, a

little-known chapter in the cleric's life that some described

as a key path in his radicalization.

Aulaqi, who was born in the United States and spent time in

Yemen as a child, left for Britain in early 2002 after he

drew scrutiny from U.S. authorities. The United States

alleges that Aulaqi was a spiritual adviser to three of the

Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers while he was a prayer leader at the

Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church and at a mosque in San

Diego.

An examination of some of Aulaqi's sermons and lectures, as

well as interviews conducted here, shows that he increasingly

began to publicly endorse violence as a religious duty after

he returned to Yemen in early 2004, completing his

transformation from an imam who condemned the Sept. 11

attacks to an Internet preacher who views Americans as

legitimate targets.

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, who has been charged in the Fort Hood

shootings, first contacted Aulaqi by e-mail last December.

U.S. authorities intercepted some of the e-mails, but no

threat was perceived. The FBI has declined to comment on

Aulaqi, citing an ongoing investigation.

After the Fort Hood attack, Aulaqi issued a statement

calling Hasan a ``hero.'' In an interview later with a Yemeni

journalist, Aulaqi denied that he had ordered or incited

Hasan to carry out the attack but said Hasan considered him a

confidant.

Aulaqi's path to radicalization, at first, appeared

unlikely. The Aulaqis' descendants were sultans who once

ruled what is now Yemen's southern province of Shabwa, home

to the ancestral village where Aulaqi now lives with his wife

and five children. Aulaqi's father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, is a

former president of Sanaa University and agriculture

minister.

While in Yemen during his childhood, Aulaqi studied in a

secular high school in the capital, Sanaa, along with

children from other elite families, before returning to

Colorado in 1991 to attend college, said a close relative in

an hour-long interview. The relative spoke on the condition

of anonymity to avoid harming his family's efforts to

persuade Aulaqi to become moderate.

He said Aulaqi was an avid swimmer who enjoyed deep-sea

fishing. His ambition was to become college professor,

focusing on finding ways to address water shortages in

Yemen, the relative said. Like many Arabs, the relative

said, Aulaqi was angered by the U.S. assault on Iraq in

the first Persian Gulf War but didn't show signs of

radicalization afterward.

``He was very moderate. He was always against al-Qaeda

ideology,'' said the relative, adding that Aulaqi's contact

with the hijackers was a ``coincidence.''

After Sept. 11, Aulaqi grew frustrated and felt targeted by

U.S. authorities, the relative said.

``Sept. 11 changed a lot of Muslims,'' the relative said.

``And the invasion in Iraq in 2003 made him even stronger in

his beliefs.''

U.S. authorities have alleged that Aulaqi had become

radicalized while still in the United States, before the

Sept. 11 attacks, but they never found evidence to detain

him.

Beginning in 2002, when he left the United States for

Britain, Aulaqi lauded Palestinian suicide bombers on a Web

site and in lectures attended by ultraconservative Muslims.

He spoke at fundraising events hosted by Cage Prisoners, a

rights group in Britain, but did not incite violence or

express support for al-Qaeda, said Moazzam Begg, a former

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainee who heads the group. ``He

wouldn't have been so popular if his message was not moderate

and across the board,'' Begg said in a phone interview from

London.

In early 2004, Aulaqi returned to Yemen. At a lecture at

Sanaa University, he spoke eloquently about Islam's role in

the world. He railed against U.S. policies in Iraq. He

denounced Israel, according to those present at the lecture.

But he stopped short of calling for violent jihad.

``He was not inciting us to use arms,'' recalled Adil al-

Howlari, who now works as a journalist for the United

Nations. ``He was talking about how to use English to spread

Islamic values.''

Aulaqi eventually took classes and lectured at Iman

University in Sanaa. The university is led by Sheik Abdul

Majeed al-Zindani, an influential religious figure whom U.S.

officials have described as Osama bin Laden's spiritual

leader and placed on a list of global terrorists.

The university has a reputation as an incubator of

radicalism. John Walker Lindh, an American who fought with

the Taliban, is a former student. Other students allegedly

took part in numerous attacks.

Aulaqi's relative said the cleric had given four lectures

at the university about Islam's role in medieval Spain.

By 2006, Aulaqi's influence had widened into the world of

terrorism through his Web site and Facebook page, even though

most Yemenis had never heard of him. Starting that year,

investigators have found Aulaqi's sermons downloaded on the

computers of suspects in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in

Britain and Canada.

In mid-2006, Yemeni authorities arrested him. Aulaqi was

accused of inciting attacks against a man over a tribal

matter involving a woman. Aulaqi denied the allegations in an

interview with Begg last year and accused the U.S. government

of pressuring Yemen to keep him locked up.

In that interview, Aulaqi said he spent the first nine

months in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Around

September 2007, FBI agents interrogated him about the Sept.

11 attacks and other issues, Aulaqi told Begg. Although he

wasn't physically abused, Aulaqi said, a U.S. Embassy legal

attache swore at him. He was never charged and was released

in December 2007.

Yemeni officials have declined to comment.

After his release, Aulaqi's stance on using violence for

jihad grew more forceful. Last December, he penned a letter

calling for fighters and financing for al-Shabab, the Somali

Islamist movement with ties to al-Qaeda. And this January, he

published an essay titled ``44 Ways to Support Jihad.'' It

called, among other things, for Muslims to stay fit and train

in weapons to fight on the battlefield.

Mr. Speaker, in a speech at West Point earlier this week, President Obama explicitly designated Yemen as an emerging al Qaeda stronghold. The President stated, ``Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold--whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere--they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.'' How can the President reconcile these legitimate concerns about Somalia and Yemen while simultaneously releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees to these dangerously unstable countries?

Last month, the Obama administration secretly released another detainee to Yemen--information hidden from the American people under a provision in the FY 2009 spending bills explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of any information to the American people. If the American people knew who these detainees were, the acts of terror they have committed, or to which countries they were going to be released, they

would never stand for it. This is a dangerous precedent. Given that more than 74 Guantanamo detainees have returned to active terrorism, there's a real concern about the potential for these remaining detainees to return to a life of terror.

The American people deserve the facts. I encourage the public to visit The New York Times ``Guantanamo Docket'' Web site to review what scant information about these detainees was released by the previous administration. I know they will find these summaries deeply troubling.

Of the many unstable countries to which detainees may be sent, I'm most concerned about the impending release of 26 detainees to Yemen, a growing haven for al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf. It is my understanding that the administration is also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic understanding of world affairs would agree is unacceptable. Unfortunately, this information, again, has been classified.

As the President acknowledged, Yemen is one of the most unstable countries in the world today, and a country where al Qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, stated in an October Voice of America interview, ``In Yemen, we have witnessed the reemergence of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the possibility that that will become the base of operations for al Qaeda.''

A number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees have returned to Yemen to launch terrorist attacks, including one just 2 months ago. On October 13, Saudi police prevented an imminent suicide bomber attack as two al Qaeda terrorists slipped across the border from Yemen. One of these would-be suicide bombers, Yousef Mohammed al-Shihri, was a former Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He quickly left Saudi Arabia for Yemen, where he rejoined al Qaeda.

In September 2008, another former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, helped orchestrate the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operation. Yemen is also now home to the radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who influenced Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal M. Hasan and who U.S. intelligence believes to be a critical link to al Qaeda's efforts to radicalize Americans and Europeans.

I repeatedly urged the President to halt the release of detainees to dangerously unstable countries. It is counterintuitive, and dangerous, to return terrorist detainees to countries he acknowledges as al Qaeda sanctuaries. If this administration is not prepared to show good judgment on this issue, this Congress must take action to provide oversight and reconsider these irresponsible decisions. But this Congress has yet to hold a single hearing to raise these concerns and demand answers from this administration.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better judgment from this administration and better oversight from this Congress.

Madam Speaker, this Thursday the House Homeland Security Committee will hold an urgent hearing to investigate the admission of uninvited guests to the recent White House state dinner.

This security lapse certainly merits a full investigation, but it pales in comparison to the gross security lapse that the Obama Administration is committing in releasing scores of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to dangerously unstable countries--including Yemen, Afghanistan, and other al Qaeda strongholds.

Yet neither the Homeland Security Committee, nor any other committee, has seen fit

to hold a single hearing on the release of these detainees.

In fact, the majority included a provision in FY2009 spending bills explicitly prohibiting the disclosure of any information to the American people.

If the American people knew who these detainees were, the acts of terror they have committed, or to which countries they were going to be released, they would never stand for it.

This is a dangerous precedent. Given that more than 74 former Guantanamo detainees have returned to active terrorism, there is real concern about the potential for these remaining detainees to return to a life of terror.

The American people deserve the facts. I encourage the public to visit the New York Times ``Guantanamo Docket'' Web site to review what scant information about these detainees was released by the previous administration.

I believe they will find these summaries deeply troubling.

This Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to the American people to hold hearings, request information, and work with the administration to have an open dialogue over transfer and release policies.

This has not happened. And 10 months after the administration issued an executive order to close Guantanamo, we have no more information about this than we did when the President took office.

Of the many unstable countries to which detainees may be sent, I am most concerned about the impending release of 26 detainees to Yemen--a growing haven for al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf.

It is my understanding that the administration is also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic understanding of world affairs would agree is unacceptable. Unfortunately, this information has been classified.

Yemen is undoubtedly one of the most unstable countries in the world today--and the country where al Qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year.

The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, stated in an October Voice of America interview, ``In Yemen, we have witnessed the reemergence of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and the possibility that that will become the base of operations for al- Qaida.''

A number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees have returned to Yemen to launch terrorist attacks, including one just 2 months ago.

On October 13, Saudi police prevented an imminent suicide bomb attack as two al Qaeda terrorists slipped across the border from Yemen.

One of the would-be suicide bombers, Yousef Mohammed al Shihri, was a former Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He quickly left Saudi Arabia for dangerously unstable Yemen where he rejoined al Qaeda.

In September 2008, another former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al Shihri, helped orchestrate the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, killing 10 guards and civilians.

Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operations.

Yemen is also now home to radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who influenced alleged Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal M. Hasan and who U.S. intelligence believes to be a critical link in al Qaeda's efforts to radicalize Americans and Europeans.

I have repeatedly urged the President to halt the release of detainees to dangerously unstable countries. The consequences of such releases could cost American lives.

I implore this Congress to get serious about its oversight responsibility. The American people deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the birthday of a great American president, Zachary Taylor.

Zachary Taylor was born on a farm in Barboursville, Virginia, on November 24, 1784. His father had served with George Washington in the Revolutionary War and his family members were prominent planters. Zachary Taylor had a 40-year military career in the U.S. Army, serving in the War of 1812, Black Hawk War, Second Seminole War, and the Mexican-American War, where he earned the nickname ``Old Rough and Ready,'' because of his willingness to share his troops' hardships. Taylor became a national hero after facing overwhelming odds to triumph in a battle against the Mexican General Santa Anna at Buena Vista.

This extraordinary record of service to the Nation was further enhanced when Zachary Taylor was elected president of the United States in 1848. Under his administration, the Department of the Interior was created. Much of Taylor's administration was focused on the issue of the expansion of slavery, with the Compromise of 1850 coming shortly after his death.

Madam Speaker, I call the attention of the House to the life, legacy, and accomplishments of Zachary Taylor on the upcoming 225th anniversary of his birthday.