National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both Mr. Smith, the ranking member, and Mr. Thornberry, the chairman of this committee, for working very hard on this bill. Both of them are responsible leaders in this House and work well together to make sure that our national security is well served. I regret, therefore, that I will be opposing this bill for reasons that I will discuss.

Both have been fighting tirelessly for the defense authorization bill that gives our troops the tools they need to achieve their mission's objectives, enhance our national security, and bolster key U.S. partners. These are, of course, positive aspects of this bill.

I particularly commend my friend Gwen Graham for authoring an amendment that will help develop a joint U.S.-Israeli anti-tunneling system, which is included in this bill. Representative Marc Veasey had an amendment adopted in committee that asked the Pentagon to explore the effects of the DACA program on military recruitment. Congressman Gallego worked hard to get language included in the bill expressing the sense of Congress that DREAMers, undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, ought to be able to serve the country they love in our military and be rewarded for that service with a chance to stay here legally.

I think that is common sense. Some across the aisle have made it their mission to remove that language from the bill. I urge my colleagues to defeat that amendment, given how important these issues are and that the language in the bill does not force the Defense Department to take any action it does not deem to be in the best interests of the national security. The amendment striking this provision, as I said, ought to be defeated.

The bill contains provisions that continue to prevent President Obama, however, from finally closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Not only does that facility cost taxpayers $2.4 million per detainee. I know my budget hawks think, well, $2.4 million to keep one person in jail for a year, that makes sense. I disagree with you on that if you think that. But not only does it cost way too much, it is a blot against our country in the eyes of the world and in the hearts of so many of our own citizens here at home.

Furthermore, in his budget request, the President laid out a path to lift the sequester level, which is undermining our national security. Hear me. The sequester that this bill honors by exception is undermining the national security of America.

This bill, however, perpetuates the sequester for everything except that which some think is important. I share their view that national security is critically important. For 34 years in the authorization bills and on the appropriation bills, I have been a strong supporter of a robust national security, whether it was President Reagan or President Bush or President Clinton or President Bush or, yes, President Obama.

I do not yield to anybody on this floor in my support of national security over those three-and-a-half decades, but our national security is being put at risk because we are honoring sequester in this bill. Not only are we honoring sequester in this bill, we are, in fact--for the investments in education, in infrastructure, in the environment--undermining our country's well-being. For that reason alone, I will vote against this bill until we fix the sequester and take care of America's national security.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source