Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to express the deepest concern for the fact that unemployment rates have risen to 13.7 percent in the Inland Empire. There are those who believe that the solution to almost every problem facing America involves more government spending here in Washington. I am committed to the fact that just the opposite is the case. We must do everything that we possibly can to create a taxing system that encourages private sector growth.

The sooner we get back to the point of creating job opportunities in the private sector and recognizing that growth of government for the sake of government is not the answer, the sooner we will solve this problem. The jobs for San Bernardino and Riverside County lie in the private sector. So let's create an environment of opportunity and hope for those who are looking for jobs for the future.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The item under consideration would meet the goals set by this Congress as part of our efforts to deal with the ongoing economic crisis. This measure is directly targeted to improving infrastructure and creating new jobs.

In an effort to keep the United States competitive in an increasingly high-tech world, Congress is committed to expanding technology-based job training and cutting-edge communications connectivity. Such efforts are evidenced in the broadband funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and funding for technology research and development in the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009. The benefits of such investment are evident in this project, known as the Connected Communities Program in the City of Loma Linda and the City of Grand Terrace.

California communities are facing some of the worst problems in the nation of public infrastructure funding and an economic crisis. The devastating effects of the mortgage crisis continue driving unemployment. In the last year, unemployment in my district has almost doubled from 6.7% to 12.9%, far surpassing the national average. The technology sector is one of the few bright spots--in my District, the number of jobs in technology and health care are projected to double in the next five years.

In an effort to capitalize on growth in the technology and health sectors, the Cities of Loma Linda and Grand Terrace began a comprehensive effort to connect homes, business and teaching institutions to a community-based advanced fiber-optic network. This program complements the national effort to upgrade connectivity infrastructure and promote creation of highly skilled jobs. From employing and training skilled network technicians to attracting cutting-edge small business, the network has successfully approached the national and local economic development goals. The program has stalled, however, and the communities are hard-pressed to find the funds to complete it. Credit markets and investment dollars have dried up because of the drastic economic downturn in Southern California. Small cities like Loma Linda and Grand Terrace have been especially impacted, and are faced with being unable to finance the very infrastructure that can help lead to economic recovery. This request will complete the program and provide fiber-optic connectivity to 95% of the community.

It is my belief that this proven program will play an integral role in the economic recovery of my District and southern California. I ask my colleagues to support the Connected Communities project and defeat this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis

Bill Number: H.R. 3170

Project Name: Loma Linda and Grand Terrace Connected Communities Infrastructure

Account: Small Business Administration

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Loma Linda; City of Grand Terrace

Address of Requesting Entity: City of Loma Linda, 25541 Barton Road, Loma Linda, CA 92354; City of Grand Terrace, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313

Description of Request: Establish a fiber optic infrastructure expansion pilot program between the City of Loma Linda and the City of Grand Terrace's new business park. The pilot will demonstrate how updated and expanded internet access can promote small business, create jobs, enhance local competitiveness and provide green alternatives. The pilot supports innovative solutions to the devastatingly high regional unemployment rate of 12.8%. Because private loans are unavailable as a result of the credit crunch, the region will benefit from this use of federal dollars as the initial investment for future expansions. The success of this pilot will attract both stimulus funding and private investment. Such a program can serve as a model for further economic development in other similarly distressed areas across the country.

Amount: $900,000

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an extraordinary individual, M. Pope Barrow, Jr., who is leaving the House after 40 extraordinary years of public service. It is the rare individual who commits himself to such selfless work and Pope has done so with great distinction.

Pope Barrow was appointed to the Office of Legislative Counsel of the House in 1968 and has served under eight successive Speakers. During this time, he has served as the Legislative Counsel for 12 years and Deputy Legislative Counsel for 4 years. Over the years, he has been involved in drafting practically every major piece of energy and environmental legislation passed by the House of Representatives. As a result, he has been instrumental in the creation of the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and omnibus energy bills too numerous to mention.

Pope has worked extensively on legislation addressing public land law, mining law, as well as measures focused on parks, trails, and wild and scenic rivers. He also played a major role in writing the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, which was sheperded through the House by Phil Burton and the Alaska Lands Act working with Mo Udall and John Seiberling. Pope also played a major role in drafting the California Desert Protection Act, which created the Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, and the East Mojave Preserve in my own congressional district.

It's worth noting that at a time of increased partisanship in the House, Pope Barrow has provided a consistently steady hand in maintaining the professional, non-partisan nature of the Office of the Legislative Counsel. It is also my understanding that he has literally transformed the Office of the Legislative Counsel through personnel additions and technological innovations to meet the incredible increased demands placed upon the office.

Beyond his professional legislative work, Pope is an avid outdoorsman who has literally kayaked and sailed the world. I am told that he has kayaked rivers in Chile, Canada, Alaska, California, Washington, Idaho, West Virginia, New York, Maine, Tennessee, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and many other locations, including hundreds of times running Great Falls in Virginia. He has also sailed the entire East Coast up to Nova Scotia and down to Key West, the San Juan Islands, San Francisco Bay, the Bahamas and Virgin Islands, the Windward Islands, the Leeward Islands, from St. Martin to Bermuda, off the coast of Croatia and Italy, and across the Atlantic Ocean from Martinique to Portugal. It is reported that these sailing adventures were not entirely without incident. During one such adventure in the 1970s Pope and his dad lost one boat at sea off the coast of Florida and floated to shore in a bad storm. He has apparently been paying more attention to marine weather forecasts since that time.

Most importantly, Madam Speaker, Pope Barrow is a gentleman who dearly loves his three children and genuinely cares about the people with whom he works and the institution of Congress that he has called home over the last 40 years. Over the years, he has been a mentor to many and an inspiration to all of us who have had the pleasure of working with him. I ask that you join me and our colleagues in recognizing Pope for his commitment to meeting the needs of Members and staff and for his tireless service to the House. We all wish him calm seas and a steady breeze at his back as he begins the next chapter in his life.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following: in regards to Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Desert Hot Springs

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mission Springs Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 66575 2nd Street, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240

Description of Request: This project will construct a municipal wastewater collection and treatment system that will eliminate individual wastewater disposal systems that overlie the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs aquifers. To accomplish this, the district needs to replace roughly 4000 individual sewage disposal systems that lie in a very concentrated area over the primary inflow of the groundwater that supplies nearly 400,000 people.

Amount: $100,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Hi-Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse

Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hi-Desert Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 55439 29 Palms Hwy, Yucca Valley, CA 92284

Description of Request: The mission of Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner. The Hi-Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse Facility will protect the groundwater quality in the area and provide reclaimed water to be used directly for irrigation and commercial purposes that are normally supplied by potable water. Using reclaimed water to meet non-potable demand will off set the demands for potable water.

Amount: $100,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Seven Oaks Water Conservation Study

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 300 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, California 92408

Description of Request: The rains of the winter of 2005 demonstrated beyond question that water conservation at Seven Oaks Dam can provide a major supplemental source of water for an increasingly water starved region. Unfortunately, by holding water behind the dam the water is degraded so far as to be unusable. Work is being done to determine the appropriate method to improve water quality while continuing to conserve behind the dam.

Amount: $800,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Transfer Authority: Seven Oaks Water Conservation Study

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Provisions

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 300 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, California 92408

Description of Request: The rains of the winter of 2005 demonstrated beyond question that water conservation at Seven Oaks Dam can provide a major supplemental source of water for an increasingly water starved region. Unfortunately, by holding water behind the dam the water is degraded so far as to be unusable. Work is being done to determine the appropriate method to improve water quality while continuing to conserve behind the dam.

Amount: $1,500,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Santa Ana River and Tributaries Ecosystem Restoration

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Yucaipa

Address of Requesting Entity: 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California 92399

Description of Request: This project will study a flood control and environmental restoration project in Yucaipa, California. This community is located just north of Interstate-10, a major transportation hub that is threatened by 100-year level flooding. The study will look at the viability of detention basins, flood channels, and habitat to reduce the threat downstream.

Amount: $1,000,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Santa Ana River and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, CA

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Big Bear Municipal Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 40524 Lakeview Drive, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

Description of Request: This project will implemental aquatic habitat restoration in Big Bear Lake. The removal of nutrient laden sediment that has accumulated since the Lake was constructed in 1884 is critical to improving the Lake's water quality, controlling nuisance aquatic plant growth, enhancing the wildlife habitat and maintaining boating and fishing access. The Lake is on the State of California's 303d list of impaired water bodies with listings for mercury, nutrients, and aquatic plants.

Amount: $800,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Upper Mojave River Well Field

Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mojave Water Agency

Address of Requesting Entity: 22450 Headquarters Drive, Apple Valley,

Will the gentleman yield?

It had not been my intention to speak on this measure in order to save time, but you're making a point that's really very fundamental. I would like to commend both of you, the chairman and the ranking member, for the fabulous job here.

But, most importantly, some years ago I had the opportunity to Chair the VA Appropriations Subcommittee. During those years, we were most concerned that, while there was bipartisan support on the House floor and funding rose for veterans, that the various organizations that support funding and veterans here in Washington were not helping us much out there where the people really get their service at the veterans hospitals. There has been a radical change in our ability to make sure that service is being delivered effectively. And it's due to the work of the two of you and the bipartisan effort here that we have had this success. So thank you.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following projects that were included in H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Bill Number: H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010

Project Name: Mojave Water Agency Non-Native Plant Removal

Account: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mojave Water Agency

Address of Requesting Entity: 22450 Headquarters Drive, Apple Valley,

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend Frank Reyes, an exceptional educator who has helped the San Bernardino Community College District become a national leader in programs designed to meet a diverse student body.

Frank Reyes has been involved in education in San Bernardino County for more than three decades, beginning with receiving a bachelors and masters degree from California State University, San Bernardino, and culminating in his current position as Executive Director of Governmental Affairs for the 16,000-student San Bernardino Community College District.

Prior to joining the district management team, Frank worked as a counselor, professor, Director of Community Services and Director of the Counseling Department. He has shown a dedication to his hometown, and the students there, which has paid huge dividends for the community college district. He is part of the team that has helped keep costs down, while improving the campuses and their quality of education. This has helped make the two colleges--Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, and Valley College in San Bernardino--among the most diverse in the Nation.

In his current role in administration, Frank has been extremely successful at winning competitive government grants for the community college district. After a major earthquake in 1992 made nearly all of the buildings at the Valley College campus unsafe, Frank led a team that secured Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to build a new library, health and human services building, administration and student services building. Most recently, the campus has added a 37,000-square- foot campus center, a new art building and modern gallery.

I was proud to work closely with Frank in bringing funding to deserving projects for the colleges. Thanks largely to his hard work, the Federal Aviation Administration provided $12.6 million for a new state-of-the-art fire academy that focuses on commercial aviation fires. Located at the San Bernardino International Airport, the facility attracts students from all over the country for real-life training on a jet fuselage. Most recently, I was delighted to work with Frank in winning the donation to Crafton Hills College of the swimming pool used in the 2004 Olympic Trials, which will be part of a recreation facility used by both the students and the community.

Frank has developed a national reputation for education excellence, serving on the International Development Team in Spain in May 2006, as well as the Defense Department's partnership with the Hispanic Associations of Colleges and Universities (HACU). Frank was also selected to be part of the U.S. Delegation to China in February 2006. The delegation continues its work on business, education and cultural exchanges. He has been a national leader with HACU, ensuring a significant federal funding increase for schools with significant Hispanic student bodies.

His community involvement beyond the colleges has been widely recognized--he has been listed in the Inland Empire Magazine as one of The Most Influential Hispanics and was named Latino of the Year by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. He has been Chairman of the Board for the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Foundation for two years, and is an active Board member of the Hands of Mercy, an organization which builds loft houses for the indigent.

Madam Speaker, after three decades of service to the students and people of San Bernardino County, Frank Reyes is retiring from the community college district. Please join me in thanking him for his hard work and dedication, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Thank you very much for yielding me the time. I really rise for a couple of reasons to speak generally about this bill.

First is to say that the two people who are providing the leadership for this bill are as fine of members of the Appropriations Committee as there are. Chairman Price is one of those people who digs into issues, does his homework. He treats people in a fair and balanced way. Beyond that, he's a fabulous person to be associated with in the Appropriations Committee.

Hal Rogers, on the other hand--let's see, what can I say about Hal Rogers? A wonderful Member from Kentucky, who also in this arena knows as much about this subject as anybody that I know.

One of the things that's disconcerting to me about this bill, for it is one that perhaps addresses the most important area of responsibility we have, that is, protecting our homeland. Combine this bill with our national security measure and that is our national defense and America's ability to protect freedom in the world. But, indeed, it's interesting to note that at a subcommittee meeting recently, I spent some time dealing with another bill, an area that the public isn't always so supportive of, namely, the foreign assistance or foreign aid bill.

And it came to my attention in this process and exchange that the foreign aid bill that will be coming to the floor very soon is approximately $10 billion more than our Homeland Security bill. Think about that.

We're in a condition where people, to say the least, here at home are pressed to the wall, all kinds of concerns besides the economy, concern about our security here at home. And they don't always stand up intently to say we've got to be sending our money overseas in the form of foreign aid. In this arena, the Homeland Security bill has almost $10 billion less in it than the foreign aid bill. Now, it's a very interesting commentary, to say the least.

Beyond that, let me mention to both the chairman and the ranking member, California, of course, has lots of border. Later on, I will have an amendment relative to border security. But, indeed, I know many of the Members who are listening to this discussion today are worried about their own borders in their home territory.

If we cannot advance technologically and by way of funding our ability to protect our homeland and be dead serious about it, projecting over a 10-year period, then we're making a very big mistake in this House.

The work that's done by our chairman and our ranking member has produced a very fine product. They really have balanced, within the limited means that they have, the priorities that I think I would apply myself. But, indeed, I want the Members to know that there is still a lot of work to do.

And, one more time, congratulations to both Hal Rogers and to our chairman.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, as I proceed with this amendment, I want to one more time associate myself first with the remarks of my ranking member regarding the manager's amendment but, in turn, express my deep respect and appreciation for the two gentlemen handling this bill. Chairman Price and my colleague from Kentucky have worked very professionally together and I think this House would be served well if we extend it to all of our subcommittees.

The amendment which I have at the desk is a relatively simple amendment. I rise to restore some balance to what otherwise is a thoughtful and very constructive bill.

My amendment takes a small fraction of funding, increases recommended for administrative expenses, and adds 200 new Border Patrol agents out of that transfer of funding, agents that will serve on the front lines of the bloody drug war raging in Mexico and produce increased security across our borders from entry by way of smugglers and people who are coming here for other sorts of contraband activities.

My amendment seeks to increase the resources for those who are charged to keep our Nation safe and secure as well as ensnare money and illegal weapons flowing southbound; resources that will fulfill the promises repeatedly made by President Obama to both the American people and the courageous Mexican Government in their fight against the cartels.

In fact, it was just 2 weeks ago that the President unveiled a new strategy on securing the southwest border and fighting the cartels, a strategy that calls for sustained enhancements to border security and counternarcotics activities.

The President's budget request calls for only 44 new agents. That's right, only 44 new agents. Contrast that with the 2,500 additional agents this Congress funded just last year; 44 new agents in this bill, 2,500 additional agents last year. How can we support such a flattening of this crucial security asset? How can we risk a reduction in the size of the Border Patrol when our border security needs are so great and the agent attrition rate is now creeping up to about 11 percent?

The decision to fund what is essentially a current services budget for Border Patrol comes in conjunction with a request for more than a 30 percent increase in administrative, policy, and bureaucratic functions at DHS. Talk about getting your priorities all wrong. Think about that, 11 percent versus 30 percent. Clearly a higher priority ought to be given to border security by way of more personnel.

At a time of such obvious need in the face of a bloody and all too real drug war, now is the time to follow through on border security, not plateau and rest on our laurels.

As Ranking Member Rogers has often pointed out, Chairman Price has done a laudable job scaling back the President's request for more bureaucrats and made some rather prudent enhancements to operations in this bill. However, the Border Patrol agents are not increased above the request, and I think it is something this Chamber should weigh in on heavily.

So my amendment seeks to add 200 agents while asking the DHS administrative offices to get by on no more than a 14.8 percent increase, an increase that is more than sufficient and one that many of us probably think is too high during the current fiscal climate.

My amendment simply asks what's more important: resources to provide our operators and watch guards in the field or added bureaucracy? We have all read the terrible stories of the brutal murders in North Mexico. Let's follow through on our commitment to secure our borders, stop the advance of the cartels' influence, and improve on our homeland security.

I urge the Members to support this amendment.

I'd be happy to yield.

I appreciate very much my colleague's speaking on my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following: in regards to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Joshua Tree National Park Visitor's Center

Account: National Park Service, Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Twentynine Palms

Address of Requesting Entity: 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California 92277

Description of Request: The Joshua Tree National Park Visitors Center annually hosts nearly one and a half million visitors in a cramped, obsolete facility where it is impossible to display the cultural history of the area, provide needed community and informational services, or even provide appropriate information to visitors to the Park. These funds would allow for an improvement and expansion of the Center to provide the space to display the fabled Campbell Collection of Native American artifacts, as well as a wide array of other objects of interest to both the visiting public and to researchers.

Amount: $300,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Big Bear Department of Water and Power for Big Bear Lake Water System Infrastructure Improvements

Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power

Address of Requesting Entity: 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, California 92315

Description of Request: This project would provide improved water pressure at peak demand periods and improved water quality resulting from the replacement of steel pipes with PVC. Although the City of Big Bear is located in an area prone to wildfires, much of its water supply infrastructure is unable to even meet minimum requirements for fire flow. Engineering studies have identified 181,800 feet

of pipeline that must be replaced to meet current standards.

Amount: $500,000.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: The City of Calimesa for Storm Drain Improvements

Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Calimesa

Description of Request: The funding provided would be used by the city to manage storm flows that currently flow in natural channels that degrade water quality and disrupt traffic endangering individuals and property. The City in conjunction with Riverside County will improve the channel and form what will be the backbone for a citywide drain system.

Amount: $500,000.

I appreciate very much my colleague's yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to say just a few things about the way these two people are working together. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and my friend Robert Aderholt have done a fabulous job on this bill. Not the most expensive bill of the 12 that are around but probably one of the very most important bills, for it decides whether the legislative branch works effectively or does not work effectively. I want the Members and our public to know that these two people have done a fabulous job in putting us on a course that I think makes sense.

I especially want to express my appreciation for concern about the buildings that are the places where we must work and operate the legislative branch. Those are institutions in the place that are in serious difficulty because of lack of repair, et cetera. They are on a course that will make sure that we extend their life and their service to all of our people in an effective way.

Further, the Capitol Visitor Center has been mentioned by several, but let me suggest that it's a fabulous new addition to the Capitol, but there is an institution developing there as well. We do have a way in Washington to create new bureaucracies almost no matter what, and there are those who believe that they're the only ones that know how to show off the CVC and the Capitol to our public. The long history of Members' staffs developing expertise as well and representing us well by taking our constituents through these facilities is a very important part of our process.

I want to congratulate the ranking member, but especially the gentlewoman, for language in the bill that very specifically tells those who run the CVC that this is a people's institution and the people's elected representatives ought to play the most significant role in the way it is run.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my colleague yielding. We had a discussion on the floor yesterday where you were essentially asking me this question: How can we get a handle on reasonably controlling the time, et cetera? And you and I have had back and forth regarding that whole discussion.

I appreciate your concern about the schedule here. But my goodness, when you have the number of amendments that we had filed on this bill, and we knew many of them would fall off, you and I discussed that between each other. But then the first amendment, to have that taking us back to the Rules Committee is incredible, and I can't quite believe you'd do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to attempt to be of some service to the Obama administration and others in the House that may be concerned about a decision he made not too long ago. And I'd ask unanimous consent that we put Executive Order 13492 in the Record at this point.

Yes, I do.

It is amendment No. 118.

Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this executive order put in the Record at this point.

Presidential Documents--Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009-- Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained At the Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities

By the authority vested in me as President by the

Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in

order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals

currently detained by the Department of Defense at the

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Guantanamo) and promptly to close

detention facilities at Guantanamo, consistent with the

national security and foreign policy interests of the United

States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as

follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) ``Common Article 3'' means Article 3 of each of the

Geneva Conventions.

(b) ``Geneva Conventions'' means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of

the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12,

1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition

of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at

Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners

of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) ``Individuals currently detained at Guantanamo'' and

``individuals covered by this order'' mean individuals

currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities

at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of

Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy

combatants.

Sec. 2. Findings.

(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals

whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or

treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at

Guantanamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500

such detainees from Guantanamo, either by returning them to

their home country or by releasing or transferring them to a

third country. The Department of Defense has determined that

a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo

are eligible for such transfer or release.

(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have

been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained

for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns

raised by these detentions, both within the United States and

internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the

individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of

the facilities in which they are detained would further the

national security and foreign policy interests of the United

States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the

facilities without promptly determining the appropriate

disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately

serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt

and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at

Guantanamo should precede the closure of the detention

facilities at Guantanamo.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantanamo have

the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of

habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness

of their detention.

(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the

executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of

the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of

all individuals currently held at Guantanamo, and of whether

their continued detention is in the national security and

foreign policy interests of the United States and in the

interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated

with detentions at Guantanamo require a comprehensive

interagency review.

(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate

disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently

detained at Guantanamo.

(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantanamo may

have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted.

It is in the interests of the United States to review whether

and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.

(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the

executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the

circumstances of the individuals currently detained at

Guantanamo who have been charged with offenses before

military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act

of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military

commission process more generally.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantanamo. The

detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by

this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no

later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any

individuals covered by this order remain in detention at

Guantanamo at the time of closure of those detention

facilities, they shall be returned to their home country,

released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to

another United States detention facility in a manner

consistent with law and the national security and foreign

policy interests of the United States.

Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantanamo Detentions.

(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of

each individual currently detained at Guantanamo (Review)

shall commence immediately.

(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with

the full cooperation and participation of the following

officials:

(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;

(2) the Secretary of Defense;

(3) the Secretary of State;

(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(5) the Director of National Intelligence;

(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time

employees of the United States, including employees with

intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal

expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the

concurrence of the head of the department or agency

concerned.

(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review

participants shall include the following:

(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney

General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in

coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all

information in the possession of the Federal Government that

pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantanamo

and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of

any such individual. All executive branch departments and

agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the

Attorney General to provide information in their possession

or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney

General may seek further information relevant to the Review

from any source.

(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine,

on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect

to the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo, whether

it is possible to transfer or release the individuals

consistent with the national security and foreign policy

interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how

the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or

release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State,

and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to

effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals

for whom release or transfer is possible.

(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United

States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantanamo

not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to

determine whether the Federal Government should seek to

prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may

have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute

such individuals before a

court established pursuant to Article III of the United

States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in

turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such

determinations.

(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any

individuals currently detained at Guantanamo whose

disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of

this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means,

consistent with the national security and foreign policy

interests of the United States and the interests of justice,

for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate

authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.

(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the

United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal,

logistical, and security issues relating to the potential

transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo to

facilities within the United States, and the Review

participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation

that may be appropriate.

Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall

expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and

diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary

and appropriate to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual

currently detained at Guantanamo shall be held in the custody

or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or

other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility

owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of

the United States, except in conformity with all applicable

laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of

Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the

conditions of detention at Guantanamo to ensure full

compliance with this directive. Such review shall be

completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall

be implemented immediately thereafter.

Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense

shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during

the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this

order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military

commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the

Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of

such military commissions to which charges have been referred

but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all

proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military

Commission Review, are halted.

Sec. 8. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of

the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any

detainees not covered by this order.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with

applicable law and subject to the availability of

appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any

right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at

law or in equity by any party against the United States, its

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,

or agents, or any other person.

Barack Obama,

The White House,

January 22, 2009.

As we all know, Mr. Chairman, the President signed Executive Order 13492 to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility in January. More than 4 months later, there is still no evidence of a plan to carry out this order and no consultation with the Congress. Yet the administration is raising to move detainees, all the while withholding information from the Congress and the public.

First, let me say that last week a suspected plotter of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa arrived in New York for a high-threat trial.

Second, last week, the government of Palau announced that it would accept some of the Uyghur detainees. Press accounts linked this announcement to some significant level of assistance on the part of the American government to Palau.

The Uyghur detainees are affiliated with a listed terrorist group and received weapons training in camps in Afghanistan run by leaders affiliated with al Qaeda. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about any group that's been trained under those circumstances.

Finally, last week, the Department of Justice announced that four of the Uyghur detainees have been resettled in Bermuda, a visa waiver country.

The Congress and the American people found out about these actions and efforts after the fact.

And there is more. Three detainees have already been transferred to Saudi Arabia, one to Chad and one to Iraq. And we are hearing rumors about possible deals with Yemen, Italy and Albania.

All of this has been done without an assessment of the risks to the American people at home and abroad or without an assessment of the risk to our U.S. forces by such releases. The Guantanamo detainees include the perpetrators of some of the most horrific terrorist acts against Americans, including 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the Embassy bombings in Africa.

Director Mueller of the FBI attested to Congress 3 weeks ago that bringing detainees to U.S. soil poses risks to national security, including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking attacks in the United States. Additionally, the Department of Defense has reported that at least 14 percent of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region. To say the least, we ought to be concerned about the release of people of that kind who threaten our interests anywhere in the world.

This administration is ignoring or is disregarding those risks, and it is stonewalling the Congress. We need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or to resettle anymore detainees at the expense of an increased risk to Americans. We need to help the President simply fulfill his campaign promise.

The President has been very busy since his inaugural. There is little question he has been down many a pathway, and he has even found that some of those pathways might very well have been mistakes. Well, this is a case where I believe a decision was made without its being carefully thought through, let alone knowing the serious implications of the actions to be taken. We are attempting by this amendment to help the administration rethink that decision that they have made.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

In exchange with my colleague, I was interested in his commentary regarding the number of amendments in the past on this bill and other bills like it. I too am very concerned about the time difficulty that we are having. I'd much prefer to have us get back to regular order where we'd have open rules on these bills.

But at this point in time, because of the requirements of the majority, the preprinting requirements, et cetera, there are a lot of Members who are very frustrated by this bill, and they'd like to make some serious changes, but they find themselves in a position where they can't provide amendments.

We can continue this exchange. There is, as a result of the change in the rules and the way we can provide amendments, there had been as many as 127 amendments preprinted on this bill, 104 of them by the minority who feel they've essentially been cut out of the process. And because of that, and because of the importance of the issues that are a part of this bill, I cannot agree to a time limitation.

I think the time limitation you were discussing was like for 8 hours or something. I'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands, and you might have a new ranking member.