Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this is the manager's amendment. I agree completely with what the chairman just said, technical corrections that we ought to support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I take the chairman's point, but it is one that really doesn't make any sense from a legislative standpoint. Anybody who has ever voted knows that you can like portions of a bill and still vote against the bill. I don't think there is a legislator alive who hasn't ever been in that position. So this idea that if you get something, anything, however small in the bill, you are then somehow morally obligated to vote for it, goes against every aspect of legislating that I have ever seen. It is our constant challenge as legislators that we have pieces of legislation before us where there is a lot in it that we like and there is some in it that we don't like. And you have got to decide. So I reject the argument that if you get something in this bill, you have to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this amendment?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me just say I agree completely with the comments of the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and can't say it any better, that, if you are willing to put your life on the line for your country, then your country ought to accept you; and it truly is your country. Second of all, the United States military is not a jobs program. If you are willing to show up and put your life on the line, then that ought to be honored, and you ought to be accepted. The notion that these people are taking jobs from Americans is, frankly, one that doesn't make any sense. We are asking people to serve in a very difficult job to defend our country. If people in this country are willing to do this, we ought to, at a minimum, accept them. I will even go further than that. The undocumented population in this country is a population that, for too long, has been ignored and shoved into the shadows. We all imagine that they are somehow different from the rest of us, but I guarantee you everybody in this room knows someone who is undocumented, and the overwhelming majority of them are law-abiding people who have jobs, raise families, contribute to our community. They deserve an opportunity to be part of the country that they have unquestionably claimed as their own. Now, Mr. Gallego's amendment that we put on in committee is one small piece of doing that, to give them the opportunity to serve in the United States military, and then be given legal status. I think we need to do a lot more than that. I think we need comprehensive immigration reform so we can bring the undocumented population out of the shadows, give them a path to citizenship. I support Mr. Gallego's amendment. I oppose the effort by Mr. Brooks to strip it. I think it is the least our country can do for someone who is willing to fight and potentially die on our behalf, to give them legal status, to treat them as the Americans that they truly are. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. No terrorist has escaped from a U.S. prison either, just to be absolutely clear about that. I am not sure which prisons this gentleman is talking about, but no one has escaped from a U.S. prison either; no terrorist has escaped. I believe we have the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Then I have just one further speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take out of the bill all of the things that are in it that make it impossible to close Guantanamo Bay prison. This is a debate we have had many times. The provisions are typically banning any transfers to the U.S., banning any construction in the U.S. of any facilities to house the folks being housed right now at Guantanamo. It strips out those two, and it also asks the President to give us a detailed plan on how he would go about closing Guantanamo and what he would do with the inmates that are there now, and it requires a 90-day notice period to Congress before any action could be taken on that. And it is basically the same argument that I just made as to why we should close Guantanamo. It was opened in the first place as a way to try to get around the U.S. Constitution. Basically, the thought was, since it wasn't in the continental U.S., habeas corpus and other constitutional protections wouldn't apply. But the Supreme Court a number of years ago said that it is effectively under U.S. control, so all the same rules apply. One argument that is frequently trotted out is that somehow, if they were brought to the U.S., they would suddenly have constitutional rights that they don't have in Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that. They have ruled that it is effectively under U.S. control, and they have the exact same rights to habeas corpus and all other rights that a criminal or a law of war prisoner would have. So if we brought them to the U.S., it would not be a problem. My two basic arguments are, number one, we have an alternative to Guantanamo. It is not like there is no option. There are now, I believe, 122 inmates--I forget the exact number--who have been cleared for transfer back to another country. But it is somewhere roughly half of that amount, we would be looking at between 50 and 60 inmates that would need to be transferred to the U.S. And we have the facilities here. As I said, we already house some of the most dangerous terrorists we have ever arrested and convicted. We have the facilities. We have the ability to hold them safely here. So there is an alternative. The current situation in Guantanamo Bay has a number of negatives. The high cost, as I have mentioned several times, almost $3 million an inmate; and then the international eyesore that Guantanamo Bay is--not just to the terrorists. I don't care about them. I don't care what they say, how they feel about us holding people at Guantanamo. But to our allies in Europe, to people in the Arab world who want to help us defeat the scourge of Islamic extremism, this is an international eyesore that we should close, and we should make the transfers as soon as we possibly can. This amendment makes that possible. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that the only flaw in that statement is the part about them being released in the U.S. That is not going to happen. And yes, if that were the plan, I would be absolutely opposed to it; but again, there are over 300 very dangerous terrorists held in the U.S. right now, today. We have proven we can do it here. We are not going to bring them here and release them. That is not what I am arguing for. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that the OCO spending, which is the problem, is in the bill. We are not just opposing this because of stuff that isn't in the bill. The OCO workaround that busts the budget caps without busting the budget caps is in the bill. It is a substantive part of it. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to it.