i have also been down to gitmo and seen down there in the area where the gitmo inmates, the detainees, the enemy combatants, the terrorists, the worst of the worst, where they get in their communal area just off of with where their little soccer field is, an area where they sit in the shade and just off of where their big screen tv is where they get their refreshments and their education in english language and the cultural education that takes place, just off of there, madam speaker, not to set the scene to distinctly, there is a bulletin board that's put up. it's a ply board. and on that ply board is the executive order. the president's executive order, dated january 22, 2009, the seven pages long, in the english version of it, and that's set on this ply board and then the arabic version is about the same number of pages and there's plexy glass over the top of it so these inmates, these worst of the worst, however many we have left down there, they can interrupt their soccer game or stop or if they're waiting their turn to play or whatever it might be, go over there and read and the

this news comes as more and more americans are growing opposed to the closure of gitmo. in fact, i would have to say this, mr. president, recently we've had more and more polls taken and it's now a 3-1 ratio that people don't want these people tried in the united states, they don't want to have them housed in the united stat states. so we have a real serious problem. not only are we talking about the 400 -- or the 245 detainees down there, we're also talking about an increase in the surge in afghanistan. and even though afghanistan does have two prisons, they won't take any detainees unless they're afghans. so if they're from yemen, they're from djibouti, they won't take them. so this is the problem we have right now. and the news -- the views of congress haven't changed. in 2007, the senate vote of 94-3 on a nonbinding resolution to block detainees from being transferred to the united stat states, declaring -- quote -- "detain eased housed at guantanamo -- detainees housed at guantanamo should not be transferred stateside into facilities in american communities and neig

what it doesn't prove is that should be done for all of the people at gitmo. in fact, not even the president suggests that. the president, in his speech a few weeks ago, acknowledged that many of the prisoners at gitmo now are infer goin never going a trial. they are being held until the termination of the hostilities that have caused them to be captured and imprisoned in the first place and they are like prisoners of war who can be detained until the war is over. here, however, they don't even have the rights of prisoners of war under the geneva accords because they do not adhere to the rules of war. they don't fight with uniforms for a nation-state and so on. they, in fact, are terrorists. is they are still allowed humane treatment but they don't is the same rights as prisoners of war. that means as the president acknowledged, as the united states supreme court has averaged, we have a right to hold them until the cessation of hostilities so they don't kill anymore people. you can't just turn them loose. now, the president, in his speech, made the point that

so what would happen if those currently at gitmo returned to the battlefield? mr. president, this document and the actions of those detained at guantanamo bay illustrate what some in this congress seem to have forgotten, we, as a nation, are still at war. they are trying to gil americans an destroy -- to kill americans an destroy our very way of life. the prisoners at gitmo realize this, our troops realize this, it is time that we here in washington, d.c., wake up and realize it as well. the facilities in gitmo are state of the art and are some of the most impressive that i've ever seen. and after touring the facilities down there, i believe that it would be next to, if not impossible, to recreate those facilities here in the united states. partially because of the fiscal location of the facility itself. guantanamo bay is also the appropriate place to conduct military commissions. the privacy and seclusion of the unique courtroom facilities that have already been built there allow classified information to be protected and allow privacy for the 9/11 families who ar

you know, americans want to know and they want to know now, what is the exit strategy for gitmo? in the dark of the night the first gitmo terrorist indicted for killing innocent americans was moved to new york. the white house approved this despite the fact that 65% of americans do not support closing guantanamo and sending dangerous and deadly detainees to u.s. prisons. you know, it's about time this administration started an open and honest dialogue on the future of gitmo and inform the congress before faring terrorists to america. the sneaky middle of the night move means that the administration doesn't want to publicly answer any questions on their exit strategy on gitmo. americans want, need and deserve to know exactly where these terrorists will go come next january, and we don't want them here in the united states. we don't need al qaeda recruiting and training hardened criminals in our prisons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: t

no waterboarding took place in gitmo or in this hemisphere. and i can't verify that there was any enhanced interrogation techniques that took place even in this hemisphere, lit alone at gitmo, by united states forces. so that's a long subject, and i won't go into that, madam speaker, except to the extent that when that declaration was made by the speaker of the house, the declaration that the c.i.a. was lying, that was an allegations of willfully committing felonies against the united states. this is an untenable position. we cannot have a situation where the most powerful member of the house of representatives and the person third in line to the presidency can declare our intelligence community to be willful liars and in violation of federal statute and decide that because the speaker doesn't want to talk about it anymore, we aren't going to talk about it either. i'm bringing this up because this is the only forum that exists right now. we could not force a vote on it. we couldn't shut off funds. we could not direct the speaker. we could not

marshal service to prepare an aircraft and a special group to fly the detainees on flights from gitmo to northern virginia for resettlement. quote, in a conference call overseen by the national security council, justice and pentagon officials have been warned that any public statement about gitmo transfers would inflame congressional republicans according to a law enforcement official who asked not to be named discussing internal deliberations. the "newsweek" report also confirmed by bloomberg news makes clear that attorney general holder had every intention of releasing these trained terrorists in our communities. i repeat, released in our communities, not held in our jails, but free in our neighborhoods and communities. this administration expects you to take it at its word as these detainees are not a threat. it is unacceptable. eric holder should have been prepared to come up and tell the congress and give the information on these individual cases. but to move these individuals who were in guantanamo bay on a friday afternoon when the congress was gone and the press was not watchi

we can argue about the i.m.f., we can argue about gitmo. we can argue about senate and house earmarks, we can argue about cash for clunkers or anything we want to argue about. those issues are all important. but we've got a new president. and that president has inherited a crisis at home. and a godawful mess abroad. i oppose the war in iraq. i am highly skeptical of the administration's plans in afghanistan and pakistan, not because i fault their plans, but because i don't think that either of those governments, either the afghan or pakistani government is in any way a reliable reed to lean on in dealing with that problem. i also am skeptical about provide funds for i.m.f. i chaired foreign operations subcommittee for 10 years. i shoveled more i.f. money through this congress than anybody i think in the history of this congress. but i'm concerned that if we provide i.m.f. funding at a time when our western european allies are not practicing economic policies which are sufficiently expansive, that it will in fact minimize the impact of that

there was to this gitmo prior to 9/11. and, yet, you had all of the various attacks that occurred throughout the world leading up to 9/11 and 9/11 itself. they didn't need another reason to hate america. they didn't need another reason to be able to recruit people. they have all the reasons that they can dream up. i think the key reasons are is that they -- they fundamentally disagree with our way of life and they believe that it is in their -- that they have an obligation through jihad to either get the infidels, that's all of us who don't agree with them, to bend at their will or do away with us. because they don't like our way of life. they don't like the fact that we have the culture that we have. they don't like the fact that we give equal rights to women. they don't like the fact that we have democracy. there are a lot of things that they hate about the western world generally and about our society in particular. these are obviously recruiting symbols and recruiting tools. so are we to do away with these things in or

people on the ground in different regions of the world indicate that gitmo has hurt our side. and starting over with detainee policy would be a good idea. do you share that view? >> yeah, i do. as i look at and have spoken with members of the military about the impact that guantanamo has had as a recruiting tool and as a thing that has alienated us from people, nations that should be our allies, i think the closure of guantanamo, the decision to close guantanamo by the president is a good one. >> i think secretary clinton shares the view that it would help us abroad that if we have a startover regard rg detainee policy. >> yes. >> and in every war detainee policy can hurt the war effort or help the war effort. the way you treat people in your capture does matter. the german people housed in the united states were i think well taken care of and it made us -- it easier to win over the german and japanese people over time. i think it's hard to start over here. i think the members on both think we need a plan. we need to view the guantanamo population. there are three buckets. tho

the continued existence of gitmo is a basic assault on our values and it undermines the success in our counterterrorism programs. president obama and i are not the only ones that believe this. secretary gates, admiral merl, the top defense officials agree that it should be closed as both president bush's secretaries of state and a variety of other bipartisan political officials. so this is a bipartisan position. we've already clearly communicated to the white house that they must submit a plan showing how they intend to proceed. the white house has agreed and i'm confident that their plan will show a reasonable path forward. the bill for us today -- before you today, mr. chairman, includes provisions to ensure that the congress will have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on that plan when it is submitted to preclude most activities prior to that. the bill does not permit this legislation before us tonight does not permit detainees into the united states during fiscal year 2010. it doesn't permit the transfer of detainees to the u.s. for detention or prosecution purposes until two mont

. >> one of the reasons we would contemplate closing get mull -- get smal gitmo -- the people one ground in different regions of the world indicate to me that it has hurt our efforts to bring people over our side. do you share that view? >> i do. i have spoken with members of the military about the impact that guantanamo has had as a recruiting tool. it has alienated us from nations that should be our allies. i think the closure of it is a correct one. >> i think secretary clinton shares the view that it would help us abroad if we had a start over. >> that is correct. >> i like to mention that detainee policy becomes important. it could help or hurt the war effort. the way people are captured in kept really does matter. i see a chance to start over here. the problem the american people have is that we need a plan. let us talk about how we view the guantanamo population. there are those that can be repatriated. some countries who are talking about repatriating them concerning. the saudia arabian rehabilitation per gram, what is your view about that? how successful is that program? >> they

he took three people that volunteered during 9/11 and helped find bodies, he took them to gitmo because the prisoners over there with so-called terrorists are getting better health care than american citizens. .. i went in one of those trips, health care services in cuba are not our model. we should not be looking toward cuba for that. i believe we have excellent health care professionals in this country. of course, i agree that we need to make it easier to become a physician or health care professional in one way or another, but i don't think we should look toward cuba. we need to do is fix the system here, and we have a foundation to do that. >> host: on the independent line from illinois. >> caller: thank you, this is my first time calling, it's great to be on. allied to approve the last caller about how our medical system is costing too much and i believe that anyone that has in them to go through college and make it as a doctor or attorney should have their education paid for them for free and i also believe that the doctors are getting paid way too much. on topical notes like mich

we'd like to touch on the issue of gitmo as well. i've been there a couple of times. those people are well treated. particularly when you consider they are enemy combatants. they are part of a group that declare war on this country. and throughout the history of mankind when a group declares war on another group and the group on which they declared war it humane enough to take prisoners then they are held until the group says they are no longer at war. here there are people in this country, in the administration who do not understand that these people still want to kill us. look at the pleading of khalid shaikh mohammed. his words, we are terrorists to the bone. you release those people, bring them in the united states. we already heard from one case that the supreme court majority is wanting to give them rights to which they are not or should not be entitled. and that's justice justice scalia said this opinion will cost american lives. that was a bold statement by scalia but he's right. we should not allow this to hurt american soldiers and american people and put in

potential, the potential for us to not be able to prevent with absolute certainty that terrorists from gitmo end up in the united states. there's no guarantee that that will happen. on the i.m.f., on the i.m.f. there's no guarantee, no guarantee in this measure that funding requests could not be made for countries like iran or venezuela. so, mr. speaker, these are the kinds of things that this troop funding bill is ending up addressing and it was made very clear by an overwhelming majority of the remarks that came from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. and that's why i urge my colleague to vote no on this rule so we can come back and pass in this house what 267 members last friday said that they wanted to have passed and that is a clean, a clean bill that funds our troops and ensures that we won't have terrorists in the united states, that ensures that we won't be dramatically expanding a wide range of other programs. so vote no on this rule. if by chance it passes i urge no on the conference report because we can do better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the spe

to intimidate them appeared in iraq only after they had been approved for use in afghanistan and at gitmo. susan crawford, a top bush administration official reached the same basic conclusion. let me conclude by saying this: president bush called for the closure of guantanamo. there were little or no -- few if no complaints from the republican side. now that president obama has made that same call, we hear this chorus of opposition. i think president obama has accepted a challenge. the challenge to make certain that these detainees are treated in a responsible way, that those who should stand trial will stand trial for their crimes and war crimes. that those who cannot be brought to section 3 courts in america should be tried before reformed military traoeupbls that have rules of evidence and procedure -- tribunals that have rules of evidence consistent with our values and laws. that some will be returned, like the uighur, if they pose no threat. and some will be kept in contention because they continue to be a threat to our nation. that is a responsible course of conduct. it deserves bip

. >> but should gitmo be closed? >> in my opinion, no. and the reason is two fold.e spent over $200 million to build a state-of-the-art facility, which everybody who has visited it, all of the people who go down say it's well run, clean, much better medical and dental care for example than any of them have ever gotten before in their lives. their religious needs are attended to. and it's safe for those folks in our military that are guarding them. so the first question is why do you have to close it? and secondly, there are big problems associated with then trying to figure out what you do with the people there. you're going to have to release some. and you're going to have to imprison the rest in the united states someplace. and there are a lot of problems associated with that. so the real question is why do it? the only answer is it's a symbol. of what? the terrorists don't need guantanamo to figure out that they don't like the united states. guantanamo didn't even exist before 9/11 and yet you had the attack on the coal the co bar twrours, the african embassy bom

the events surrounding iraq, the foreign affairs committee and intelligence security inquiry, the gitmo inquiry and if this is not as if the issues have not been addressed. they have been but it is important to look at this on the ground because we want to do it and sometimes we forget this is what we want to do is learn the lessons of they can be applied for the future. >> mr. speaker, we all well, this but the important issue is put differently and iraqis could not have lost their lives and we agree in mourning the loss of our soldiers, their injuries, but should we regret the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the iraqis? could i also say to him when he is arraigned prime minister netanyahu could he not point out it isn't just the expansion he is not putting up, the similar -- of the settlements are illegal and there is no state solution unless the settlements will be closed down and that is something that no one is talking about and we won't get peace without willingness to move on the settlements. i agree with us to said the membership of this inquiry is rather feeble, we do need s

suppose professor koh gives legal advice to -- that certain get mow de -- gitmo detainees should be released and return to the battlefield, as many have, should family members be able to hold professor koh legally responsible in a court of law? or perhaps professor koh gives advice for military actions in afghanistan or pakistan. if that results in collateral damage, would those victims have standing in court to sue professor koh? do we want a top legal advisor in the state department so compromised by the fear of being sued or prosecuted that he cannot be trusted to give honest, good-faith legal advice to the secretary of state or the president of the united states? perhaps most timely, given the civil unrest in iran and the senator from massachusetts was critical of the fact that i quoted in 2007 writing that pro -- of professor koh, but it is true from this writing and i'll read it in a moment. it appears that professor koh appears to draw a moral reequivalence between iran's political oppression and human rights abuses on one hand an america's counterterrorism policies on the other. in 2