Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2892.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2010. This agreement provides $42.78 billion for the Department, $2.64 billion, or 7 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 level.

I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and counsel and help in making this a better bill, and also his staff for working so closely and constructively with us. I want to highlight the work of all staff on both sides of the aisle who have helped us present such a strong legislative product to the Congress.

This is a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security, as it has weathered its first leadership transition with the new administration, in the midst of a global economic recession. I commend the Department's new leadership on its strong efforts to enhance our Nation's security posture and its willingness to reach out to Congress to make adjustments and to promote change when needed.

This conference report, carrying the seventh annual appropriation for the Department since its inception, addresses the needs and challenges that this still-young Department faces. It also represents a considered approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal responsibility.

Madam Speaker, one can make an argument for increasing funding for many of the programs contained in this report. When discussing homeland security, worst-case scenarios often abound, as do advocates for fixating on one threat while downplaying others.

Our obligation, by contrast, is to take a balanced, realistic approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to set priorities and make prudent investments in smart, effective security. I believe this conference agreement supports the Department's efforts to focus on the highest priorities for protecting our country and to prevent, prepare for, and respond to legitimate threats, whether natural or man-made.

To conserve time, Madam Speaker, I will highlight just a few items in the proposed agreement, items I believe are of interest to all Members.

First, the conference agreement provides the resources to support the readiness of our State and local partners, our first responders out on the front lines. This includes $810 million for firefighters, $887 million for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and $340 million for emergency managers. It also includes over $900 million to strengthen FEMA's operational response capabilities and to enhance the agency's emergency management mission.

The conference agreement includes $1.5 billion for more effective efforts by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to identify and remove illegal aliens who have committed crimes, a priority we share with the President and Secretary Napolitano. Of this total, $200 million furthers development of the Secure Communities Program, which offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work closely with State and local law enforcement, while maintaining the distinction between the traditional Federal role of enforcing immigration law and the local role of prosecuting criminal violations.

The conference agreement includes $800 million for infrastructure and technology to secure the border, with an emphasis on developing technological surveillance and improving tactical communications so our Border Patrol can make smart use of its resources to police an expansive border. It includes $40 million to minimize adverse environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations, and maintains strong oversight requirements to ensure the Secure Border Initiative delivers as promised.

The conference agreement provides a total of $7.66 billion for the Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation security and efficiency. Two areas of note are over $1 billion available to deploy explosives detection systems at airports throughout the country that have less capable and slower screening systems, and $122 million for air cargo security so TSA can meet the August 2010 deadline for screening 100 percent of cargo in the hold of passenger planes.

This conference agreement continues to take steps to increase the Coast Guard's contribution to national security, including protection of our waterways and those who use them and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Overall, this bill includes $10.14 billion for the Coast Guard, $170 million more than the administration requested. Most of this increase is to purchase materials for a new national security cutter and to complete the refurbishment of a heavy icebreaker that will help secure America's interests in the Arctic. It also boosts support for the existing fleet, making investments above the administration's request for backlogged vessel maintenance.

The conference agreement includes nearly $400 million for DHS cybersecurity programs, 26 percent above fiscal year 2009, to ramp up our protections for governmental computer networks and to bring on more professionals with cybersecurity expertise. In addition, DHS will be able to initiate new efforts to help those responsible for critical infrastructure and other private networks, reducing their vulnerability to cyberattacks.

Also, the conference agreement includes $11 million to promote legal paths to U.S. citizenship by expanding the successful immigration integration program of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The conference agreement includes $1.1 billion for departmental operations, up $90 million or 17 percent above fiscal year 2009, to improve DHS management and make it more cost-effective, to secure sensitive information, and to ensure that contractors are overseen by trained government professionals, not by other contractors.

The agreement provides $221 million to continue efforts to safeguard international commerce and to prevent the use of cargo containers to carry or deliver weapons. This includes an increase of $12.5 million, or 8 percent, above fiscal 2009 to build on the Secure Freight Initiative and Container Security Initiative, as well as funding to sustain programs targeting high-risk cargo and shippers. DHS is also required to submit a realistic strategy for achieving effective cargo and supply chain security.

To ensure that DHS can adequately protect public safety in its efforts to identify and prepare for biological or agricultural threats, the conference agreement requires DHS to conduct a thorough risk assessment to determine requirements for safe operation of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility scheduled for Manhattan, Kansas.

It calls for the National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent evaluation of the Department's safety, planning, and mitigation efforts in connection with this project.

In addition, the conference report extends authorizations for the E- Verify program and for visas for physicians serving in rural areas, religious workers, and investors, each of these by 3 years. These are all short-term solutions until comprehensive immigration reform can be considered by the authorizing committees and by the Congress.

Finally, I want to discuss two items that have been raised repeatedly, the release of photographs and videos of individuals detained by U.S. Armed Forces since 9/11, and restrictions on the administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to the United States or elsewhere in the world.

On the first topic, the conference report codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos for a period of 3 years.

On the second topic, the conference report establishes strict safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, planning, and forethought.

It prohibits current detainees from being released into the United States or any U.S. territory. It allows the transfer of a detainee to custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing

the risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the notification provided to the governor of the receiving State 14 days before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.

Our bill also prevents current detainees from being transferred or released to another country, including freely associated states, unless the President submits to the Congress 15 days prior to such transfer the name of the individual and the country the individual will be transferred to, an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to mitigate such risks, and the terms of the transfer agreement with the other country, including any financial assistance.

It requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing the disposition of each current detainee before the facility in Guantanamo Bay can be closed. It bars the use of funds to provide any immigration benefits to Guantanamo detainees, other than to allow them to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution, and it mandates the inclusion of all detainees on the TSA No Fly List. These are provisions that have been supported on a bipartisan basis in Appropriations Committee markups and on the floor of this House.

Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today represents hard work in a cooperative and bipartisan spirit. It invests in critical government efforts designed to keep the American people safe. I strongly support the proposed agreement, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15OC09.005

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our valued colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another fine member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another valued subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.

(Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our hardest working subcommittee members, Mr. Farr of California.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is available on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes at this point to the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee with whom we work very closely, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to urge colleagues to support this carefully worked out conference report. And since no debate is permitted on the motion to recommit, I do wish to say a few words about the motion and strongly urge its rejection.

The motion to recommit would derail $42.8 billion in Homeland Security investments, investments in critical efforts to protect the American people from the threat of terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and to secure our borders, ports and skies.

The motion to recommit would reopen the compromises made with the Senate that allowed us to provide $2.5 billion in additional resources for our homeland security efforts.

My colleagues should make no mistake, this motion to recommit will dissolve our conference and kill the bill. Now, that should be reason enough for voting against the motion, but let me talk about the substance of the motion as well, because I do want to make certain that Members understand what we're dealing with.

The motion to recommit would dismantle the agreement that we on the majority side had with the minority in our full committee, which was passed by a large bipartisan vote in the House as a whole. In listening to our colleagues debate today, you would hardly understand that. But as a matter of fact, they readily agreed, eagerly agreed, in the markup in the Appropriations Committee that of course there should be an exception for bringing detainees to this country for prosecution if that was determined to be the best way of dealing with their case. I think it's fair to say that no matter what President was in the White House, he or she would insist on this flexibility, and we should insist on it for them.

This motion to recommit would guarantee, I'm afraid, no progress in resolving the status of detainees for a year. It goes against the basic American principles of due process and access to a fair trial. It goes against America's basic interests as well, the interest in closing down Guantanamo--and that, I remind colleagues, is an objective articulated by President Bush as well as by President Obama--our interest in closing down Guantanamo and in bringing related cases to an orderly conclusion.

The motion to recommit unreasonably and unwisely exalts these detained individuals above the most savage prisoners in the U.S., saying we just can't handle them, we just can't handle these dangerous people in our court system. This, I would say, emboldens the terrorists, perhaps even helps their recruiting efforts. We have tried, convicted, and punished people who are the worst of the worst in this country repeatedly, and we can do so again.

Similar provisions, Madam Speaker, were rejected by this body just last week in a motion to recommit the Defense authorization bill, and they should be rejected today.

Now, we heard a lot of arguments today about ``Mirandizing'' prisoners and reading them their rights on the battlefield. That is a red herring, unrelated to this bill. Legal protections are a matter for the courts; they are a matter for other committees in this body. Our conference report does not reach these matters.

We have assurances, as a matter of fact, from General Petraeus that U.S. military forces are not and will not Mirandize detainees. The Department of Justice has said there has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. There have been specific cases in which FBI agents have done this at Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of some evidence, but there has been no overall policy change.

In fact, the whole issue of Mirandizing terrorists on the field of battle shows a lack of understanding of what ``Miranda rights'' are. Miranda warnings are given prior to interrogation for collecting evidence from a suspect in a crime. They are a protection against a suspect's making self-incriminating statements. They are not a part of arrest or detention procedures. The courts have held that they do not prevent questioning about identity and that they do not apply in cases where public safety is threatened, such as on the field of battle or at the site of a terrorist attack. We don't interrogate on the field of battle. It's a red herring.

By the way, we're also not reaching the question of the future of military tribunals, but the ranking member's motion to recommit would very definitely shut off access to U.S. courts. We need to ask ourselves whether that is something we want to do in cases where that may be the most appropriate venue for prosecution.

My colleague seems to think that three convictions by military tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive record. One of those was by a guilty plea. It's not an impressive record. By contrast, a recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved as of June 2.

Is that an option that we simply summarily want to close off?

I've already indicated, Madam Speaker--and I won't repeat--the layered protections that our bill contains with respect to the movement of detainees, the transparency it requires and the accountability it enforces. This bill contains multiple protections, and I stress again that they're based on an earlier bipartisan consensus. They reflect not just the wording in our bill but the language in several of the appropriations bills.

This move today to recommit this bill makes me wonder just how much our colleagues have really meant it when they have urged us to consider this bill quickly and to act with dispatch. We heard this through much of September.

The Guantanamo provisions that they asked for were included in the bill. We brought the bill with those provisions intact from the conference. They've been clamoring for weeks to get this bill to the floor, to pass it as a free-standing bill. But all of a sudden as the conference proceeded, again they cried, ``Stop.''

Now they're objecting to provisions that they, themselves, endorsed in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor. They're objecting to our good faith safeguards on the movement of detainees to other countries and to the transparency requirements. They're simply saying, ``Stop.'' Once again, ``Stop.''

Well, we can't afford to stop, Madam Speaker. We're already into the fiscal year. We have no reason to stop, and we cannot afford to stop. We will not hold up the $1.5 billion in this conference report to identify and to remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes. We will not delay $800 million to secure our borders. We will not delay $4.2 billion for Homeland Security grants to ensure our first-responder community is well-prepared to meet all hazards. We will not delay funding for our Coast Guard, for our Secret Service, for disaster assistance, or for cybersecurity.

We will, in fact, pass this bill today. We've worked with our colleagues. We've debated the priorities. We've operated in good faith. We've accommodated interests by Members throughout this body. Now it is time to get on with it, to get past the political games, to get past the ``gotcha'' amendments and motions, and to fund Homeland Security. This body has a responsibility to legislate. Let's get the job done.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and to vote enthusiastically for this conference report.

Madam Chair, I rise today to discuss an issue vital to American air superiority.

First, I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their tireless efforts in support of those who bravely defend us at home and abroad.

While there is much to applaud in this bill, I am very concerned about any steps to remove advanced procurement funds for the F-22A Raptor. Currently, H.R. 3326 contains $370 million for long lead supplies needed to procure 12 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. Preserving this funding, Madam Chair, is absolutely critical.

Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary Gates have expended great capital in recent weeks to ensure that the F-22 program ends at 187 aircraft once and for all. However, their position is not driven by military requirements but, rather, by budget constraints.

The facts are that the F-22 has a flyaway cost of $142 million--this is a 35 percent decrease since its inception--and the next F-22 will actually be cheaper than the next Joint Strike Fighter.

Madam Chair, is this how we should determine how best to defend our Nation and to ensure American air superiority, or should we rely on the results of over 30 air campaign studies that have been conducted over the last 15 years, which validate a requirement for far more than 187 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-15 A-D Eagles?

We should also listen to those who fly these fighters, Madam Chair. A June 9, 2009, letter from General John Corley, the commander of Air Combat Command, states, ``At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.''

Madam Chair, General Corley goes on to state, ``There are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.''

I would like to submit this letter for the Record, Madam Chair.

Department of the Air Force,

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Langley Air Force Base, VA, June 9, 2009.

Hon. Saxby Chambliss,

Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for your letter and the

opportunity to comment on the critical issue of F-22 fleet

size. At Air Combat Command we have held the need for 381 F-

22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our

Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed,

asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my

opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current

national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-

term.

To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187

F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.

Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with

Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be

obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.

While OSD did not solicit direct input from Air Combat

Command, we worked closely with our Headquarters in ensuring

our views were available. We realize the tough choices our

national leadership must make in balancing current

warfighting needs against the fiscal realities our Nation

faces.

The F-22, a critical enabler of air dominance, plays a

vital role and indispensable role in ensuring joint freedom

of action for all forces and underpins our ability to

dissuade and deter. Thank you for your continued support of

the US Air Force and Air Combat Command.

Sincerely,

John D.W. Corley

General, USAF Commander.

I also would like to submit for the Record a letter that I sent to President Obama and to Secretary Gates. It's signed by 199 of my House colleagues. It concludes that continued F-

22 production is in the national economic interest of the United States.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 21, 2009.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: The Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense

Authorization act requires your certification on continued F-

22A Raptor production by March 1, 2009. We strongly urge your

certification of continued production of this vital program.

Continued F-22 production is critical to the security of

our nation. The F-22 is the nation's most capable fighter and

the world's only operation 5th generation fighter aircraft in

full-rate production. It is the weapon system we need to

respond to potential adversaries who are increasing their air

combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers

of aircraft. Several nations have announced that they are

developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, 5th

generation fighters that will reach production within the

next five to ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and

highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20 and S-

300/400 are proliferating worldwide.

Our nation has committed to procuring a total of just 183

F-22 aircraft. We are convinced that this number is

insufficient to meet potential threats. After accounting for

test, training, and maintenance aircraft, only about 100 F-

22s will be immediately available for combat at any given

time. Given that over 30 air campaign studies completed over

the last 15 years have validated a requirement for far more

than 183 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-

15 A-D Eagles, it is clear that such a lean F-22 fleet is not

consistent with America's national security interest.

The F-22 is a model production line. Since full-rate

production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased by 35

percent. If this certification is delayed, layoffs will begin

as this critical supplier base shuts down. Once we begin to

lose the F-22 industrial base that was created with billions

of dollars of investment over many years, it will quickly

become virtually impossible to reconstitute a production

capability.

The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of

economic activity to the national economy. As our nation

faces one of the most trying economic times in recent

history, it is imperative to preserve existing high paying,

specialized jobs that are critical to our national defense.

Over 25,000 Americans working for more than 1,000 suppliers

in 44 states manufacture this aircraft. Moreover, it is

estimated that another 70,000 Americans indirectly owe their

jobs to this program.

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, MD (GA-11); The Honorable Kay

Granger (TX-12); The Honorable Neil Abercrombie (HI-

01); The Honorable John Dingell (MI-15); The Honorable

Danny Davis (IL-07); The Honorable Chet Edwards (TX-

17); The Honorable Todd Tiahrt (KS-04); The Honorable

Thomas Price (GA-06); The Honorable Norman Dicks (WA-

6); The Honorable David Scott (GA-13); The Honorable

Bill Young (FL-10); The Honorable Jack Kingston (GA-

01); The Honorable Mac Thornberry (TX-13); Honorable

Hank Johnson (GA-04); The Honorable Ellen Tauscher (CA-

10); The Honorable Sanford Bishop (GA-02)

The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan (NM-03); The Honorable Brian

Higgins (NY-27); The Honorable Gresham Barrett (SC-03);

The Honorable Christopher Carney (PA-10); The Honorable

Timothy Bishop (NY-01); The Honorable Bill Shuster (PA-

09); The Honorable Dean Heller (NV-02); The Honorable

Jim McGovern (MA-03); The Honorable Shelley Berkley

(NV-01); The Honorable John Barrow (GA-12); The

Honorable John Larson (CT-01); The Honorable Phil Hare

(IL-17); The Honorable John Sullivan (OK-01); The

Honorable Ander Crenshaw (FL-04); The Honorable Adam

Putnam (FL-12); The Honorable Mike Rogers (AL-03); The

Honorable Michelle Bachmann (MN-06); The Honorable Doug

Lamborn (CO-05); The Honorable Mary Bono Mack (CA-45);

The Honorable Mike Rogers (MI-08); The Honorable Larry

Kissell (NC-08); The Honorable Anna Eshoo (CA-14)

The Honorable Mike Simpson (ID-02); The Honorable Steve

LaTourette (OH-14); The Honorable Alcee Hastings (FL-

23); The Honorable Greg Walden (OR-02); The Honorable

Corrine Brown (FL-03); The Honorable Collin Peterson

(MN-07); The Honorable Robert Andrews (NJ-01); The

Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21); The Honorable

Mark Souder (IN-03); The Honorable Rick Boucher (VA-

09); The Honorable Joe Barton (TX-06); The Honorable

Chris Smith; (NJ-04) The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-

50); The Honorable Gary Miller (CA-42); The Honorable

Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23); The Honorable Tom Latham (IA-

04); The Honorable Jerry Moran (KS-01); The Honorable

Peter Viscolosky (IN-01); The Honorable Jo Bonner (AL-

01); The Honorable Donald Manzullo (IL-16); The

Honorable Don Young (AK-At Large); The Honorable Peter

Roskam (IL-06)

The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25); The Honorable

Dave Camp (MI-04); The Honorable Kevin Brady (TX-08);

The Honorable Paul Broun (GA-10); The Honorable Chris

Murphy (CT-05); The Honorable Parker Griffith (AL-05);

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes (MD-03); The Honorable

Steve Scalise (LA-01); The Honorable John Carter (TX-

31); The Honorable Pete Olson (TX-22); The Honorable

Connie Mack (FL-14); The Honorable Eric Cantor (VA-07);

The Honorable Peter King (NY-03); The Honorable Zack

Space (OH-18); The Honorable Patrick Kennedy (RI-01);

The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05); The Honorable

Tom Price (GA-06); The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo

(GU); The Honorable Ted Poe (TX-02); The Honorable Bill

Posey (FL-15); The Honorable Jim Marshall (GA-08); The

Honorable Louie Gohmert (TX-01)

The Honorable Henry Brown (SC-01); The Honorable Jim

Langevin (RI-02); The Honorable Debbie Wasserman-Shultz

(FL-20); The Honorable Kristen Gillibrand (NY-20); The

Honorable Rob Bishop (UT-01); The Honorable Dean Heller

(NV-02); The Honorable Michael Arcuri (NY-24); The

Honorable Robert Brady (PA-01); The Honorable John

Barrow (GA-12); The Honorable Michael Burgess (TX-26);

The Honorable Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); The Honorable

Mike McCaul (TX-10); The Honorable Artur Davis (AL-07);

The Honorable Joe Wilson (SC-02); The Honorable Jim

Himes (CT-04); The Honorable Joe Courtney (CT-02); The

Honorable Dan Boren (OK-02); The Honorable Patrick

McHenry (NC-10); The Honorable Charlie Wilson (OH-06);

The Honorable Kenny Marchant (TX-24); The Honorable Sue

Myrick (NC-09); The Honorable Wally Herger (CA-02)

The Honorable Harry Teague (NM-02); The Honorable Chellie

Pingree (ME-01); The Honorable Steve King (IA-05); The

Honorable Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03); The Honorable Paul

Hodes (NH-02); The Honorable Sam Graves (MO-06); The

Honorable Leonard Boswell (IA-03); The Honorable Duncan

Hunter (CA-52); The Honorable John Adler (NJ-03); The

Honorable Gus Bilirakis (FL-09); The Honorable Michael

McMahon (NY-13); The Honorable John Linder (GA-07); The

Honorable Kendrick Meek (FL-17); The Honorable John

Kline (MN-02); The Honorable Allen Boyd (FL-02); The

Honorable Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01); The Honorable Mary

Fallin (OK-05); The Honorable Robert Aderholt (AL-04);

The Honorable Zach Wamp (TN-03); The Honorable Bobby

Scott (VA-03); The Honorable Loretta Sanchez (CA-47);

The Honorable Rodney Alexander (LA-05)

The Honorable Dave Reichert (WA-08); The Honorable Dennis

Moore (KS-03); The Honorable Mike Turner (OH-03); The

Honorable Daniel Maffei (NY-25); The Honorable John

Culberson (TX-07); The Honorable Mike Conaway (TX-11);

The Honorable Bob Latta (OH-05); The Honorable Richard

Neal (MA-02); The Honorable Pete Hoekstra (MI-02); The

Honorable Pete Sessions (TX-32); The Honorable Tom

Rooney (FL-16); The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-

08); The Honorable Dan Lipinski (IL-03); The Honorable

Steve Austria (OH-07); The Honorable Patrick Murphy

(PA-08); The Honorable John Boozman (AR-03); The

Honorable Kevin McCarthy (CA-22); The Honorable Joe

Donnelly (IN-02); The Honorable Elijah Cummings (MD-

07); The Honorable Buck McKeon (CA-25); The Honorable

Nathan Deal (GA-09); The Honorable E. B. Johnson (TX-

30)

The Honorable Joe Baca (CA-43); The Honorable Dan Burton

(IN-05); The Honorable Elton Gallegly (CA-24); The

Honorable Frank Lucas (0K-3); The Honorable Joe Crowley

(NY-07); The Honorable Harold Rogers (KY-05); The

Honorable Rosa DeLauro (CT-03); The Honorable Frank

LoBiondo (NJ-02); The Honorable Bennie Thompson (MS-

02); The Honorable Steve Rothman (NJ-09); The Honorable

Jim Costa (CA-20); The Honorable Dan Lungren (CA-03);

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46); The Honorable

Nick Rahall (WV-03); The Honorable John McHugh (NY-23);

The Honorable Ralph Hall (TX-04); The Honorable Lamar

Smith (TX-21); The Honorable Tim Holden (PA-17); The

Honorable Bob Filner (CA-51); The Honorable Maurice

Hinchey (NY-22); The Honorable Trent Franks (AZ-02);

The Honorable Mark Schauer (MI-07)

The Honorable Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09); The Honorable

Tim Ryan (OH-17); The Honorable Grace Napolitano (CA-

38); The Honorable Maxine Waters (CA-35); The Honorable

Darrell Issa (CA-49); The Honorable Jeff Miller (FL-

01); The Honorable Mike McIntyre (NC-07); The Honorable

Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02); The Honorable lleana Ros-

Lehtinen (FL-18); The Honorable George Radanovich (CA-

19); The Honorable Gregg Harper (MS-03); The Honorable

Doc Hastings (WA-04); The Honorable Christopher Lee

(NY-26); The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04); The

Honorable Dennis Rehberg (MN-At Large); The Honorable

Randy Forbes (VA-04); The Honorable John Shimkus (IL-

19); The Honorable Steve Israel

(NY-02); The Honorable Mike Ross (AR-04); The Honorable

Steve Buyer (IN-04); The Honorable Paul Tonko (NY-21)

The Honorable Tom Cole (OK-04); The Honorable Donna

Christensen (VI); The Honorable Sam Johnson (TX-03);

The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-50); The Honorable John

Fleming (LA-04); The Honorable Mike Coffman (CO-06);

The Honorable Henry Cuellar (TX-28).

Madam Chair, I ask all of my colleagues to reject the Obama administration's posture on the F-22 and to support continued F-22 production as we consider this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by sincerely thanking Chairman Price for his partnership during this 2010 appropriations cycle. Through the transition in administrations, the very late submission of the 2010 budget request and the truncated appropriations process, he has been fair and respectful and has been willing to listen to our concerns and accommodate the minority's interests where possible. So I want to thank the chairman for his friendship and his ability to work with everyone to write the best possible bill.

This subcommittee, Madam Speaker, since its inception in 1993, has a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship, a tradition that stands in stark contrast, I might add parenthetically, to the exclusionary tactics of the House's Democrat leadership that trounced the rights of the minority and stifled debate during floor consideration of the House bill.

But in spite of some of that partisan mischief, I am truly grateful for Chairman Price's efforts to maintain the long-standing comity that has defined this Chamber's appropriation process, as well as Chairman Obey's work to move this vital spending bill towards completion.

So I am thankful that we were able to hammer out an agreement in conference, for the most part. After all, the safety and security of our Nation's citizens should be the number one priority of the Congress. This urgency is underscored by the recent terrorism cases being investigated in Colorado, New York, Texas, Illinois and North Carolina, as well as the persistent acts of terrorism and violence by radical extremists overseas.

What this terrorist activity tells me is that real security demands persistent commitment. Eight years after 9/11 and 6 years after the Department was created, we must remain vigilant in addressing every threat and every vulnerability. I am pleased to see the conference report is willing to honor that commitment by properly resourcing our homeland security needs.

While I can't say that I agree with everything in the conference report, I think it represents a fairly reasonable compromise on most of our homeland security priorities. However, there is a notable provision that I must respectfully take issue with that the chairman has referred to.

Section 552 of this conference report permits the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for purposes of prosecution. Since the President announced the decision to close Guantanamo some 9 months ago, we have seen nothing, Madam Speaker, no plan, in spite of the requests of this Congress, this subcommittee, this committee, no plan, no idea of how to dispose of the detainees remaining there, and no legal rationale for the prosecution, sentencing and incarceration of these terrorists wherever.

Instead, those detainees who pose a minimal security threat have been shuttled off to other foreign countries by way of backroom deals, leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists potentially bound for American soil because no one else in the world will let them be brought to their soil. Apparently we have tried, to no avail.

So I for one see no reason why we should afford enemy combatants who have been caught on the battlefield battling American soldiers, to allow them the same constitutional rights as American citizens or the same due process even as criminal defendants in the civilian courts of the U.S., and I see no reason why these terrorists can't be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba before military tribunals, as we have in the past there. In fact, we know military tribunals work. We have completed three tribunals and convicted and sentenced terrorists right there in Gitmo.

It is clear that the majority of Members in this Chamber and in the Senate agree with this point of view, given the clear passage of the motion to instruct two weeks ago in this body, and the Senate's near unanimous adoption of a total prohibition of detainee transfers to this country with the passage of their Defense appropriations bill just last week. Both bodies have spoken by huge majorities: Keep these detainees off sacred American soil.

This is a critical issue that I think we must get right, so I am disappointed that the conferees did not follow the convincing and bipartisan votes that both Chambers have taken over the past few weeks and deny these terrorists access to the United States.

Now, having said all that, and in spite of my opposition to the section on the Gitmo detainees, I believe the base of this conference agreement will go indeed a long way towards the protection of our great country.

I once again thank Chairman Price for his consideration of our concerns and all of his good work throughout the year on this very important bill.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security authorization committee in the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the hardest working members of this body and a valued member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee in the House, Mr. Lewis of California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

In closing, I regret that this bipartisan and well-balanced conference report contains permission to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees onto American soil.

At the conclusion of today's general debate, I intend to offer a motion to recommit that will give this Chamber the opportunity to once again voice its will to the conferees just as it did 2 weeks ago by way of a clear and convincing bipartisan vote.

I appreciated your overwhelming vote then, and I ask the Members once again to register your objection to bringing these enemy combatants, caught in battle with American soldiers, onto America's sacred soil.

The conferees ignored our instructions of 2 weeks ago, which prohibited detainees from being released, transferred, or detained in the United States for any reason, period. My motion today will have the same effect as the language Members voted for then and has the same effect as what the Senate voted for 93-7.

This motion will keep these terrorists off American soil, out of our Federal civilian courts, and in a place that is far more appropriate, given their status as enemy combatants apprehended on a battlefield with American soldiers.

This motion will correct the flaw in the conference report's language and aligns the will of Congress with that of the U.S. Senate as reflected by the strong bipartisan votes on this issue over the last 2 weeks in both bodies of the Congress.

I would hope Members would join me in supporting this motion so that we can further improve and strengthen this critical conference report.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would like to state my support for this bill. As Chairman Murtha, has said, the subcommittee worked together without any regard to politics or Republican or Democrat to build a legislative appropriation bill that we thought would take care of training requirements for our military, equipment requirements for our military, and force protection requirements for our military; and we did the best we could with the money that we had available, and we did it together. And we did it in a totally nonpolitical way.

So I rise in strong support of this bill. There will likely be several amendments that we may not be able to agree with, and we'll talk about those a little bit later. But one thing I wanted to mention is, I said that we did the best we could with what we had to work with. We were under the President's budget request. Our 302(b) allocation was reduced. We're over last year by about 4 percent, so that's a plus.

It disturbs me a little bit, though, when I see that the foreign aid bill was 33 percent above last year's bill, and our national defense appropriations bill is only 4 percent above last year's bill. But still we did the best that we could with what we had to work with.

Now, we will have amendments that will be offered. I suspect they're not going to be offered tonight, though. I suspect sometime tomorrow they'll be offered. And there will be some disagreement on some of those amendments. We'll discuss those later. But one thing I wanted to mention is air superiority. We're not going to have enough time on the amendment that's offered to deal with the future of air superiority for the American military. Mr. Murtha and I and many of our Members have traveled to far-flung parts of the world where our troops were deployed. We have talked personally to thousands of our men and women in uniform, not only here at home but in places like Korea, like Bosnia, like Kosovo, like Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait and all of these places.

And our soldiers tell us, we'll go anywhere. We'll fight whatever battle we're told to fight. But please make sure that if there's an airplane above the battlefield, that it belongs to the United States, that it does not belong to a threatening enemy. And that's one of the things that we will be talking about with the issue of the F-22. The air superiority, the F-22 is supposedly our air superiority aircraft. It will replace the F-15, which is today's tremendous airplane, but it's our air superiority aircraft. We cannot afford to take a chance and risk the lives of troops on the ground if we don't secure the air overhead.

The Defense Department has suggested that, with the limit of 187 new F-22s, or a total of 187 F-22s, that this is a medium to high risk for air superiority on the part of the United States. I think we ought to take that, despite the fact that there's a veto threat on going above the 187. If the Defense Department believes that this is a medium to high risk, I think we ought to pay close attention to that. But we'll talk more in detail about that when we deal with the amendment that we expect to deal with.

We're told that the Joint Strike Fighter is coming on board and will fill up the gap if we don't have enough F-22s. But to begin with, the Joint Strike Fighter is a different mission aircraft than the F-22, just like the F-16 was a different mission aircraft than the F-15, but they work together in partnership.

If the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, is going to pick up the gap, we'd better do some serious thinking, because the F-35 is not ready to fight. It is not ready to do its mission, let alone the mission of air superiority. We have spent some $37 billion in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, and we have been in development and have been ready to go to production just now, this year, with funding for the production. We started in 1997 to create this aircraft, and here it is 2009, and the aircraft is still not ready to be deployed.

So how is that aircraft going to fill the gap if we need fighters to maintain air superiority?

There is a lot more on this issue that we'll talk about later. The bill today provides for additional F-22s, and that's the way we like it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of the subcommittee and the now ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield at this time 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a very important member of the subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who also is the ranking member of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield now 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Since we have talked so much about the F-22, I thought I would compare just briefly some of the history of our fighter aircraft.

For example, the F-4, which was one of the major aircraft fighters in the Vietnam War, we produced over 4,000 of those airplanes, yet we're only talking about 187 of the F-22s. Of the F-15s, we built 1,118 F- 15s. We only have about half of them left today, and they're being phased out. The F-16. We built 2,230 F-16s. Today we only have about half of those left, and one day we will phase those out when Joint Strike Fighter comes on line.

But the history of buying and building the fighter aircraft and losing fighter aircraft when we are involved in hostilities is very, very telling. And it, again, we must say, it is important that our soldiers fighting on the ground have an American airplane overhead and not an enemy airplane with bombs and strafing guns, et cetera. So we'll discuss this more in detail when the amendment is offered.

At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank Chairman Price.

The members of our subcommittee have a good personal working relationship. One of the things I enjoy most about this wonderful committee on appropriations is that there are no real partisan differences between us. We always work together for the good of the country. We have always worked together without regard to our party label. And this subcommittee, in particular, is one that has worked well together to protect the country from a very severe terrorist threat that we know we all face since 9/11.

I want to thank the chairman and our ranking member for the support that this committee has given to our Border Patrol; for Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding; for Operation Stone Garden, a very successful program that allows cooperation between local law enforcement agencies on the border and our border patrol. That program has been a great success.

My good friends Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Cuellar, we've worked together very successfully in Texas in implementing Stone Garden, as well as a program called Operation Streamline that the country needs to know is working very well. If you cross the Texas border between Lake Amistad and Zapata County, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, you will be deported. And as a result, the crime rate has dropped by over 70 percent in Del Rio. We've seen a 60 percent drop in the crime rate in the Laredo sector. The local community, which is 96 percent Hispanic, loves this program. What mom or dad wouldn't like their streets safer? As a result of simply using existing law and a little additional resources and using the good judgment, the good sense and the good hearts of uniformed law enforcement officers on the border, we have secured the border in Texas, and with the help of the chairman and the committee members, we're working to expand that up and down the border.

There are many great, good things about this bill, but one very serious concern that I have that Mr. Rogers has already expressed is that this bill puts into law a policy that has never, in the history of this country, been followed, and that is that as soon as the President issues a plan to Congress for the disposition of the prisoners in Guantanamo, 45 days after the President submits that plan, this bill explicitly authorizes the prosecution of enemy soldiers in U.S. courts. Now, that's unprecedented.

And my good friend Mr. Ruppersberger, whom I've worked with before on so many good causes, we all in this House voted to make sure that we would not bring enemy soldiers to the U.S. for prosecution, giving them all the constitutional rights as if they were captured on the streets of New York or Los Angeles. We voted not to bring these prisoners from Guantanamo to be incarcerated in U.S. jails.

The security question is one thing, but the one that really concerns me is the fact that this bill gives explicit authorization. For the first time in American history, we will, if we pass this legislation as it is, be authorizing what we now know is going to be the policy of this President for U.S. soldiers, for the first time in history, to be police officers. Our soldiers in the field, in addition to trying to protect themselves and their friends, are going to have----

Never before in our history have American soldiers had to worry about protecting the chain of evidence. Never before in history have American soldiers had to worry about whether or not they were reading the Miranda rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields. Now, this bill makes that explicit. In fact, Chairman Obey's fact sheet that he has issued on his Web site says this bill prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo detainees except for legal proceedings.

Now, anyone standing in a U.S. court in front of a U.S. judge is given all the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Now, that is what concerns me more than anything else is that we are explicitly changing--this is a monumental change in American policy. We cannot and should not burden our soldiers in the field with having to worry about the U.S. constitutional rights of enemy soldiers.

Do you think Sergeant York read Miranda warnings or was worried about the constitutional rights of the Germans that he captured during World War I? Do you think that the brave men who landed on Omaha Beach were worried about the constitutional rights of the Nazis at Omaha Beach or Normandy? I mean, this is an extremely important point that we have to raise, and we need to make sure that all the Members of the House are aware of it.

In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, during the conference committee meeting, my good friend, the chairman, Mr. Price, made it clear that this is the policy of the majority that's going to bring these--you'll want to bring these enemy soldiers to the United States to be prosecuted in U.S. courts.

That means that these enemy soldiers will be clothed in the protection

of the U.S. Constitution. That means that enemy soldiers, these terrorists, can lawyer up at U.S. taxpayer expense. They're going to be given Miranda warnings. U.S. soldiers are going to have to protect the chain of evidence, just like a police officer on the streets of Los Angeles or New York, and make sure that the chain of evidence is protected, that all their rights are protected, and that we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these enemy soldiers committed whatever it is crime that they're going to be prosecuted for.

Let me remind the Congress that in 1942 a number of German terrorists landed on the beaches of Long Beach and in Florida. In June of 1942, they were prosecuted in military tribunals--the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that's the proper way to handle enemy soldiers captured on a foreign battlefield--and they were executed by the end of August 1942.

It is unacceptable to put this burden on U.S. soldiers. It's a monumental and unacceptable change in American policy. We cannot let enemy soldiers lawyer up at taxpayer expense.