John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I am not opposed to it.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would urge Members to oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no'', and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy.

Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If I could also point out, actually, the ATF did the right thing here. I strenuously disagreed with the ammo ban and had a chance to meet with the head of the ATF, as I was the new chairman of the CJS Subcommittee, and walked him through the problems he was going to face on this House floor with amendments and problems with their budget and their spending plan this year. He is a patriot, former marine, and a lifelong law enforcement officer. He understood they had kind of gone beyond the bounds of the statute, so he agreed to drop the ban on .223 ammunition after I had a very good heart-to-heart meeting with him, and so ATF did the right thing. I think we should encourage good behavior. I want to recognize and I want to thank the new head of the ATF for doing the right thing and not going after law-abiding Americans' constitutional right to possess and use perfectly lawful .223 ammunition and focus on enforcing the statute, which is designed to protect police officers from armor-piercing bullets that can be fired from pistols. ATF did the right thing here, but I think the gentleman has a good amendment. That money is going to a good cause. The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is a good one. I share my colleague's support for the amendment. I want to encourage Members to vote for it, but I want to be sure the Record reflects that the ATF did the right thing in dropping the ammo ban, and I don't expect we are going to see another attempt by the ATF to attempt to ban .223 ammunition because the new chairman of the CJS Subcommittee will be on them immediately.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern. My constituents and all of us were upset with the ATF's attempt to ban .223 ammunition, but they did the right thing: they withdrew the ammo ban after I had a heart-to-heart with them. By doing the right thing, I think we should reward good behavior. I am monitoring them very closely. We have spending plan language in our bill that allows the subcommittee to have ongoing oversight over not only the ATF and Department of Justice, every agency under our jurisdiction has to submit a spending plan to us that is then subjected to careful ongoing oversight throughout the year; and if we cut ATF by $250 million, they are not able to do all the important work that they are now engaged in, and it would really devastate the agency. There are a lot of dedicated law enforcement officers in that agency that are doing their very best to fight gangs and violent criminals. We have visited with the folks at ATF. They are not concerned about law-abiding citizens or a gun dealer who is following the law. They are focused on the criminal element in the country. So I would encourage Members, and I would be happy to work with you and share with you the ongoing oversight work that I am doing. I encourage you to visit with the new ATF Director. He is a very impressive man: a marine and a lifelong law enforcement officer who did the right thing here. The agency is devoted to protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights. As the new chairman, if I ever detect any deviation from that, I assure you this son of the South is going to make sure our Second Amendment rights are protected. I would encourage Members to oppose the amendment. I just don't want to see the ATF devastated. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure everyone in the House understands that what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is attempting to do is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals captured on battlefields overseas who are being held in Guantanamo Bay. Never before in American history have we ever given foreign nationals-- enemy combatants captured overseas on a battlefield--constitutional rights, the most precious rights we have, that were fought for, bled for, died for by our forefathers on so many battlefields all over the world to preserve these precious rights reserved for the people of the United States of America. Mr. Nadler wants to extend the protections of this Constitution to the killers and the psychopaths who have killed so many Americans overseas. I could not disagree more strenuously. I know the House disagrees strenuously. We have voted on this repeatedly. And the House and the Congress have repeatedly affirmed this language, which says very clearly, ``none of the funds appropriated''--this is the language Mr. Nadler seeks to strike: ``None of the funds appropriated . . . in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States . . . Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces . . . and is or was held on or after June 24, 2009 . . . at Guantanamo Bay.'' During World War II, a group of Nazi saboteurs who landed on beaches in Long Island and in Florida were captured fairly rapidly by local police officers and local militia and were handed over to the U.S. military. Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing, and they immediately held these Nazis as military detainees. They were accorded a trial under the Code of Military Justice and executed, as they should have been, I think within about 60 days. This is not really an issue with the American people, who I hope, Mr. Chairman, are out watching tonight because there could not be a more dramatic contrast between the majority in the House that is representing the will of the Nation in seeing that our laws are enforced and the enemies of the United States are hunted down wherever they may hide. I had a constituent tell me Hamas stands for ``hiding among mosques and schools.'' Wherever these people may hide--they hide behind women and children. They will not face our soldiers on the battlefield. When we have met them on the battlefield, we have defeated them decisively. Where the men and women of the United States military find these people and hunt them down and kill them or capture them--if we have captured them and they have information that could save American lives, we bring them to Guantanamo Bay, and we have saved countless lives by holding them there. We, in this appropriations bill, make clear that we will not give these killers, these cowards, these terrorists, these foreign fighters on foreign battlefields the precious rights reserved for the people of the United States by this Constitution. And it is that simple. If you want to give terrorists, foreign fighters on foreign battlefields constitutional rights, you should vote with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Vote against Mr. Nadler's amendment if you believe that the rights guaranteed by this Constitution are reserved for the people of the United States and that if you are an enemy combatant, a foreign national fighting the United States, you are going to be dealt with severely and accorded the Code of Military Justice, as it should be. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is whether or not our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are going to be used to build a prison facility in the United States to house the terrorists and killers and cowards held in Guantanamo Bay. That is the question before us.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, if I could, Mr. Chairman, point out that President Obama has already said he wants to close Guantanamo Bay and bring these people into the United States. The 19th terrorist was captured in the United States, and therefore he was entitled to constitutional protection because he was in the United States. But the only thing standing between Barack Obama giving these terrorists and killers constitutional rights is this language in this appropriations bill which says none of the money in the United States can be used to transfer these killers into the United States. As soon as they touch our soil, they will be given constitutional rights. And that is exactly what Mr. Nadler wants to do with his amendment is give these precious constitutional rights to these killers and these cowards that have been captured on foreign battlefields, these foreign nationals who have never been afforded the protection of the United States Constitution, which is reserved for the people of the United States. They deserve what they have got. They are lucky to be alive. They are lucky to be in Guantanamo Bay. And I urge Members to vote against this amendment to ensure that these people are given what they deserve, and that is, whether it be life in prison or whatever lies ahead of them, that they will never again threaten the people of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' against Mr. Nadler's amendment, to ensure that constitutional protections are only afforded to the people of the United States or those persons who are actually within our boundaries when they are captured or they commit a crime. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to all the Members of the House and those listening here this evening that the section Mr. Nadler attempts to strike is the only thing standing between President Barack Obama and his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay and transfer all these killers, these cowards, and these foreign nationals captured on the foreign battlefields either attempting to or having already killed American soldiers. This language that Mr. Nadler is attempting to strike prohibits, says: None of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used to construct or acquire or modify any facility in the United States to house any individual transferred into the United States from Guantanamo Bay. So, Mr. Chairman, we have got two provisions in this bill: no money to transfer anybody from Guantanamo into the United States--and that amendment, which will be a record vote, will be decisively defeated by the House in a minute--and then this amendment which Mr. Nadler is offering. We have put language in this bill for the last several years to make sure that President Obama cannot use Federal hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a prison facility or modify it to house anybody transferred from Guantanamo. Now, this is very clear-cut. This is very simple. Obviously anybody held, if you are in a military tribunal, you get due process. That is not the issue. What Mr. Nadler is attempting to do with this amendment, again, is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals captured on foreign battlefields engaged, and we are still at war with these people. We are still at war. And Mr. Nadler is attempting to extend constitutional protections fought for and died for by our ancestors to enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields--never been done, absolutely unprecedented, and, frankly, unbelievable. I cannot even imagine the cost, the sacrifice, the burden on American taxpayers, the threat to American safety, for what? So these foreign nationals, these psychopathic killers in ISIL are going to respect us and like us because we give them a trial and gave them constitutional protection? Yeah, that is going to happen. Mr. Chairman, we are at war with a medieval mindset that is determined to destroy our way of life and our liberty. They are hostile to everything that our Founding Fathers fought for. These people would destroy this Constitution that we have had for over 200 years, worked so hard to preserve and protect. I cannot think of anything more destructive or damaging to the morale of our troops, to the morale of our Nation, and to all of those families who lost loved ones in the war on terror than to bring in these killers and cowards in the United States and grant them the protections guaranteed to American citizens in the United States Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues we have $8.5 million in the bill for studying ocean acidification. I share your concern. It is a vitally important issue. And the thrust of our work in NASA, as you know from reading the bill, is we have prioritized those missions in the bill that are the top priority of the Planetary Decadal Survey. We have encouraged NASA to follow the recommendations of the best minds in the scientific community. Every 10 years they get together and prioritize the earth science missions, heliophysics missions, astrophysics missions, those missions aimed at the outer planets, and the Europa mission has been the single highest priority of the Decadal Survey last decade and this decade. The past administration and this one continue to resist the best recommendations of the best minds in the scientific community. I can't think of a more exciting question that science could answer as to whether or not there is life on another world, and that is going to be answered by this mission to Europa. I agree strongly that we need to research ocean acidification, and that is why there is $8.5 million in the bill for it.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not supposed to the gentlewoman's amendment because it is a good amendment and I support it.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, the full committee chairman.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have, as I said earlier, scarce resources this year. We have to prioritize the very precious and scarce hard-earned taxpayers dollars that we are entrusted to look after, and we have prioritized funding within NOAA for forecasting in the future. As I was telling Mr. Blumenauer earlier, Mr. Polis, we have made sure that NOAA has got a record level of funding for weather forecasting and most of the things that Mr. Blumenauer was mentioning, in terms of forecasting drought, identifying where floods are going to occur. Looking forward, we have made sure that NOAA's got all the money they need for forecasting in the future, and we have to, I think, do everything we can to avoid cutting other parts of NOAA that would impair the weather forecasting or the development, maintenance, and operation of the weather satellites which could help NOAA inform people of severe weather. We, on the Gulf Coast in particular and on the Atlantic Coast as well, depend on NOAA to give us accurate forecasts of the paths of hurricanes. Hurricane season this year, they are predicting--because of the increase in computing power of supercomputers, they are able to predict it looks like it is going to be--the hurricane season this year is not going to be as severe. That capacity of NOAA to use supercomputing power to look that far into the future is of vital importance, so we have made sure that they have got a record level of funding for forecasting. We also do not want to reduce NOAA's capacity to support maritime navigation or to appropriately manage their fisheries. We just have limited resources, is the problem, Mr. Polis; and I just have had to prioritize NOAA's funding. We have put weather forecasting at the top of the list because of its vital importance for the economy and for the safety and security of the American people. I understand you are planning to withdraw the amendment, and I would certainly look forward to working with you. As Mr. Blumenauer mentioned a number of worthwhile endeavors that NOAA is engaged in, if you feel there are areas we need to work together on to get NOAA focused on to do a better job of forecasting in the future or other concerns, I would be happy to work with you.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. I want to thank my good friend and colleague from New Mexico. He is absolutely right. We have increased funding for the space operations account by $129.5 million, and we will make sure that that funding is adequate to support the space communications components with that increase.

Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to working with you as we move forward in the process. I understand you are planning to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because our Federal prison system is already between 30 and 50 percent overcrowded. We have not built a new prison in the United States since 2009. It is vitally important that we have got these prisons in place to keep our most dangerous criminal offenders off the streets. The amendment that the gentlewoman has offered would immediately prevent the Bureau of Prisons from expanding its capacity and do severe damage to their ability to reduce overcrowding, which is a threat to the staff, a threat to the inmates, and a threat to the public. The gentlewoman's amendment--I understand she is concerned--to support the Manufacturing Extension program, we cannot do so at the expense of public safety.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.