Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. These important provisions that are already included in the law have been included in the past several appropriations bills for several years running, and there is a reason that they are there. This wording represents a strong and enduring consensus in Congress that Guantanamo should remain open and that detainees should not be transferred to the United States for any reason. This is debated back and forth in agreement on both sides of the aisle.

Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for a number of U.S. communities, and it is impossible for any of us to know how many detainees might be brought there, where they might be held, and the impacts on communities and facilities that are holding them. It is also impossible to know what the cost might be, so we are asking for this unknown to be pursued without knowing the risks or knowing the costs.

Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally proposed, would be disruptive and potentially disastrous. We know former FBI Director Mueller had stated: To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system.

The last thing we need today in the face of ISIS is to convert more folks to extremism. The idea of bringing detainees for trials in the United States quickly collapsed as local jurisdictions voiced their strong opposition. We heard that across the United States.

As everyone here is aware, several detainees that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded Americans. The threat is real, and Guantanamo is already equipped to handle the detention and military trial of these individuals as appropriate. Any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the United States for any reason is simply the wrong policy. We have tread this ground time and time and time again.

I therefore oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to this amendment.

We see that today, Guantanamo is equipped to hold these detainees. The military tribunals there, if allowed to do so, are able to try these detainees. Again, they were captured under the rules of engagement as enemy combatants. Let's make sure that we are putting them in that situation to be tried as such.

Another element, too, is localities have spoken vocally to say, No, we do not want these detainees here, for a variety reasons. One is they are worried about security there. I know the argument is, Well, the facilities here in the United States can hold them. That is not the single issue. The issue is the communities' concern about what the outcomes of the movement of these detainees will be here today.

We see today radicalization across the United States from outside the United States by forces like ISIS. Think about the opportunity as those detainees are moved here and the notoriety that they will attain and how the press will cover it and that being used in addition to radicalize folks on the side of extremism. That is another issue that I believe needs to be addressed.

Again, GTMO is working. It is detaining these individuals, enemy combatants that have been picked up on the battlefield. It has been, I believe, the determination of this body through extensive debate that we shouldn't build facilities here specifically for that purpose and that GTMO is well suited to do the job.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment to restore the national sea-based deterrence fund. This amendment is critical to maintaining our Nation's nuclear deterrence and ensure a robust Navy shipbuilding budget.

It makes sense now to set aside funding for the Ohio class submarine replacement program. This makes sure that, down the road, we are not forced to choose between building a replacement ballistic missile submarine or a destroyer or an aircraft carrier.

The Navy already faces challenges in building enough warships to meet the global threats our Nation faces. Funding the national sea-based deterrence fund is the best solution to maintaining national strategic deterrence without hollowing out the Navy's shipbuilding budget.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source