Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Garamendi-Polis amendment to eliminate additional funding for a new, costly, unproven, and unnecessary missile defense site. Our amendment would cut $70 million that was added by the Appropriations Committee for an east coast missile defense system that the Pentagon says it does not want or need.

In a June 10 letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency and Lieutenant General Richard Formica, Commander, Joint Functional Command for Integrated Missile Defense, unequivocally stated:

There is no validated military requirement to deploy an east coast missile defense site.

Admiral Syring told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year that he would not be able to use additional funds for an east coast site this year because the Pentagon has only begun to study the concept. And the Pentagon already has the funding it needs for this study in FY 2014.

Furthermore, the technology is still unproven at this time. There have been no successful intercept tests for the past 5 years of the system that might be deployed on the east coast. The recent test failure of the ground-based mid-course system that would be deployed on the east coast is another reason not to rush forward with deployment.

In a time of budget deficits and looming sequester of funds, we cannot afford to spend money on a program that the military says it does not yet need and does not yet work. The Pentagon says the current system, based in Alaska and California, is sufficient to defend the entire continental United States against a limited attack from North Korea and Iran.

The CBO says an east coast base would cost approximately $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. Admiral Syring and General Formica said there are currently more cost-effective and less expensive alternatives to improving the defense of the U.S. homeland than an east coast missile site. It is a pure waste of money to deploy a missile defense site on the east coast before a need for such a site is identified and before the interceptors can be proved effective and suitable in operationally realistic tests. So we should not have this funding now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the question is, will we waste the money? We are told by the director of the Missile Defense Agency and the general commanding the Joint Functional Command that they cannot use the money. There is no validated military requirement to deploy an east coast missile defense site, and he would not be able to use additional funds for an east coast site this year because they have only begun to study the concept.

It may be that in the future we may want an east coast site. But to appropriate this money now is a pure waste of money because now they are simply studying the concept. They can't spend it; they probably won't spend it. Why waste the money? I urge people to vote for this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which would remove the existing limitations on transferring detainees out of Guantanamo.

Our Federal courts have a proven record of prosecuting terrorists, and our Federal prison system is already imprisoning hundreds of convicted terrorists in facilities here in the United States.

It makes no sense to have an external facility, especially one in Cuba, of all places. Guantanamo is a continuing stain on our national honor. It should be closed now. Of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo, 86 have been cleared for release; that is to say, they have been found guilty of nothing and judged to pose no danger. There is no reason and no right for us to hold them further.

The detainees will gain no additional rights by being held in the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that detainees have the same constitutional rights at Guantanamo as they do here. We cannot hold people indefinitely. People may not be terrorists and may be guilty of nothing. We must restore who we are and vote for this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source