Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's concern relative to Russia and his desire to make sure that they do abide by the existing treaty. Certainly, I would acknowledge that they have invaded the country of Ukraine. They control a quarter of that country's industrial production, and as the gentleman has indicated, are very concerned about their violation potentially of the treaty that exists. My concern is that the gentleman's amendment is premature. He is absolutely correct that the authorizing committee in this body did pass legislation that you are trying to address with your amendment. The other body has not yet acted. Additionally, I would point out--and again, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct--that DOD is considering a range of options. You have enumerated at least three of them, I think, very correctly. Again, I think it is premature, given the fact that we are still, as a country, considering what options should be utilized to deal with this very serious question that the gentleman raises. Given the fact that we don't have direct authorization and we are considering options, while I agree with the intent, I would have to object to the timing of the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman concludes his remarks.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered deals with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I would suggest to my colleagues that the continued operation of the facility at Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material. I do regret that the bill and other relevant appropriations acts continue this or any attempts to close Guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives. Also, as we are debating an appropriation bill, and this committee has to pay for things, I think it is appropriate to discuss the cost of the detention facility at Guantanamo. We are now spending approximately $2.7 million annually per inmate, which is about 35 times the cost per inmate in a supermaximum Federal prison in the United States. The United States Government has transferred approximately 620 detainees from Guantanamo since May of 2002, with 532 transfers occurring during President Bush's administration and slightly in excess of 88 transfers occurring during the current administration. Nearly 500 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been--and I would emphasize this to my colleagues-- successfully convicted in the United States since 2001. It includes one former GTMO detainee who was tried in New York City, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; and others. All of them are incarcerated in our Federal prisons throughout the United States, and there have been no security incidents. Further, there are six Defense Department facilities where Guantanamo Bay detainees could be held in the United States that are currently only at 48 percent of their end capacity. I would ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment so we could move forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chair for yielding, and I associate myself with his remarks. Again, I am not unsympathetic to the position the gentleman has raised, but I do not think we are in a very difficult relationship, that we restrain our flexibility to meet the moment. For that reason, I join the chairman in his opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask how much time remains for both sides, please.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I will simply conclude by again expressing sympathy for the aim of the gentleman but pointing out that to appropriate money, we need authority. We do not yet have that, given the absence of action by the Senate and signature of the authorization into law by the President. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand the gentleman's concern is the lack of the copy of the amendment?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is my understanding as well.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing this to our attention. We look forward to working with you on this important issue as we move forward with the legislation.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's statement before the floor and for his bringing the issue to the Members' attention. As you frankly point out, not only for the constituency you represent but whether it was in any of our districts, as you also rightfully point out, this is a national problem. It tends to be forgotten because it is not seen visually by the average constituent. It is a very serious health and environmental problem, and I do appreciate your raising it during this particular debate.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I believe the committee would be delighted to accept your amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and rise in support of it. There is no question that every law enforcement officer in our country is in possession of a very dangerous job.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I do recognize the very tough and dangerous job that local enforcement officers have, every last one of them, and what an important job they do. I certainly have been active over my career in Congress working with the Department of Defense to transfer necessary equipment to law enforcement agencies. But I would agree with the assertion of the gentleman that we do have to make a distinction with some of these types of materials between civil law enforcement and military action.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I join in support of her amendment. As she indicated, more than 14 years have passed. The United States withdrew their large troop presence and marked the end of combat operations in Iraq since then. Security operations for Afghanistan were transferred to the Afghan National Security Forces in June of 2013. The basic mission of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has been to train those forces, including the Afghan Army. I think the gentlewoman made a very good point. She and I may not agree on what that resolution and authority should look like in the end, all the more reason for all of us collectively, both parties, to have a fulsome debate on that issue.