Servicemember Mental Health Review Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Dr. Wenstrup.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the HASC Committee.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I strongly oppose this amendment. Two-and-a-half years ago I sent the President a letter about these important issues. I said in that letter:

I fully recognize the importance of crafting a careful and

comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorists who

wish to harm the United States. I also recognize the

challenges and legal complexities related to such an

endeavor. This appreciation is why this issue is simply too

important for the administration to address on its own.

The President did not take up my offer at that time. Nearly a year later in another unanswered letter, I wrote:

While I remain open to working together, I am very

disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a

greater willingness to engage with international

institutions, foreign governments, and the media on issues

relating to our national security than it has with the U.S.

House of Representatives.

Those are excerpts from two of the five letters that I've written to the President on this issue, which he has not answered. Yet, he still has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. What to do with Guantanamo is secondary to the President coming forward with a comprehensive plan. Such a plan must include what he proposes to do with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release but cannot be tried.

Number two, how he will ensure terrorists transferred overseas do not return to the fight?

Three, what he will do with the terrorists we capture in the future; specifically, how will he prioritize intelligence questioning?

Finally, what he will do with the high-value terrorists still held in Afghanistan? This is a particularly critical priority for me. There are several extremely dangerous individuals still in custody in Afghanistan. The only option that I see, as completely unacceptable for those detainees, is to allow their release. We've already seen the outcome of making this tragic mistake in Iraq.

While I appreciate the proposed efficiency of my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Smith's amendment, we cannot strike all prohibitions on transfers of Gitmo detainees, agree to bring them to the United States, release them overseas, and end all funding for Gitmo with absolutely any confidence that any of this will be handled in a way that best protects our national security.

Lastly, and this is important, I want to say that I'm proud of the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation every day at Guantanamo. It's not an easy duty. We owed them a debt of gratitude for their critical service to this Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, the vice chair of our committee, Mr. Thornberry.

Might I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of our committee, Mr. Franks.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 1 minute at this time to my friend and colleague, the chair of the Readiness Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Madam Chair, I might note that the same gentleman last year said they haven't had enough money, and they spent $13 billion more.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Madam Chair, let me note that the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National Governors Association all oppose this amendment.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Note that OCO was not included in the Budget Control Act, and we are totally within the Budget Control Act on this budget.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the time we have left.

And who will be closing?

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, pursuant to H. Res. 260, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for bringing up this important issue.

As you are aware, we did not reopen the issue in the current bill. However, I share your concerns and would hope that DCAA is not overreaching on its authority. The potential for DCAA to misuse corporate internal audits or to go fishing through these audits without understanding their context or purpose is very concerning. The committee is continuing to monitor their implementation of access to company internal audits and is willing to take additional action if we determine DCAA is acting beyond the limited grant of authority that Congress provided.

Again, thank you for raising this important issue.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to use that time to make up for the time that I lost earlier.

What I would like to do is read the letter from the National Guard Association of the United States. This is a letter to Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, and he says:

As you are aware, there is an amendment sponsored by Reps.

Van Hollen, Moran, Mulvaney, and Woodall that would strip $5

billion out of the Overseas Contingency Operation funding and

the underlying readiness and modernization plus-ups supported

in the bill, which includes $400 million for the National

Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). This would have

a significant impact on National Guard equipment, as this

funding is critical for new equipment purchases not planned

for or funded by the active components in the President's

budget. We urge you to oppose amendment 39.

Then he goes into some details about what that would mean.

Finally he ends with:

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose amendment 39 to

remove the $5 billion in OCO funds, where National Guard's

NGREA funds are included. Thank you for your attention to

this critical matter.

It is signed Gus Hargett, Major General, U.S. Army, Retired, National Guard Association.

I think it is very important that we understand fully what we're talking about in these funds. Congressman Van Hollen referred to General Dempsey saying this was all the money we needed. Let me just read to you from the transcript that he was talking to General Dempsey about in their hearing:

Congressman Van Hollen: General Dempsey, does the OCO

request that was made, in your judgment, satisfy our military

requirement for OCO?

General Dempsey: Yeah, it does. But this year's request

proved inadequate to the task. We have to have some

understanding of trying to predict the future 2 years out.

Let me just go back a couple years. They asked for a certain amount of money in last year's budget, but they actually spent $10 billion over that. So they're over-budget coming into this year, and we know, based on past experience, that they're going to spend more than that. And then to try to have an amendment to take $5 billion out of that when we're trying to compensate for the shortfall they had from last year, and then going into this year, is just irresponsible.

When I was in Afghanistan a couple of months ago, I was meeting with a commander there, General Dunford, and he said the thing that people need to understand, as we're winding down this war effort in Afghanistan, and we have to have the troops out of there by the end of 2014, it's going to cost us more because we're closing down the bigger bases, and we have to accomplish that this year.

So we've got the commander saying it's going to cost us more, and we have an amendment saying we should cut $5 billion out. I think it's important that we really put this all in context and understand how those troops who are out there today, fighting, going outside the wire and having attacks on their compounds, are going to be short $5 billion if this amendment is passed.

There exists a nearly $7 billion shortfall in funding to meet just the current readiness requirements. The Army alone needs an additional $3.2 billion beyond what's requested in the President's budget. This is testimony from the chiefs of these different services. The Marine Corps needs another $321.6 million. The Navy is funded $1.62 billion below required levels, and the Air Force $1.3 billion short of needed funding.

So I needed that time, Madam Chair, those 15 seconds that I thought I lost earlier.

But I think it's very important that people understand, this will be one of the most important votes coming up in this next series. We cannot afford to cut money out for warfighters who are over there putting their life on the line for us today.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment; however, I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment although I will not oppose the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee as well.

I want to talk about the FITARA bill, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, that I am a coauthor of with the distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Issa. This is the most sweeping reform legislation since Clinger-Cohen.

Today, Federal IT acquisition is a cumbersome, bureaucratic, and wasteful exercise. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive IT failures that ring up staggeringly high costs and exhibit astonishingly poor performance. Program failures and cost overruns plague the vast majority of major Federal IT investments, while Federal managers report that 47 percent of the budget is spent on maintaining antiquated and inadequate IT platforms even today. The annual pricetag of this wasteful spending is estimated at $20 billion a year.

The Air Force, for example, invested 6 years in a modernization effort that cost more than $1 billion but failed to deliver a usable product, promptly its Assistant Secretary to state:

I'm personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment.

Mission-critical IT investment failures not only waste taxpayer dollars, but they jeopardize our Nation's safety.

Our bill would modernize, streamline, and make more transparent by actually posting 80 percent of all acquisitions on the Web site. It would streamline the decisionmaking process. Right now, the 26 major Federal agencies, Madam Chairwoman, have over 250 people called CIO, chief information officers. We would designate one per agency who is responsible primarily and accountable primarily for IT acquisitions.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I again thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and their very

able staff for cooperating with Chairman Issa and myself on this very important reform legislation, and I certainly hope when we get to conference with the Senate it will persevere.

Madam Chair, today, Federal IT acquisition is a cumbersome, bureaucratic, and wasteful exercise. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive IT program failures that ring up staggeringly high costs, but exhibit astonishingly poor performance. Program failure and cost overruns still plague the vast majority of major Federal IT investments, while Federal managers' report that 47 percent of their budget is spent on maintaining antiquated and inadequate IT platforms. The annual price tag of this wasteful spending on Federal IT programs is estimated to add up to approximately $20 billion.

The Air Force invested six years in a modernization effort that cost more than $1 billion, but failed to deliver a usable product, prompting its Assistant Secretary to state, ``I am personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment.''

Mission-critical IT investment failures not only waste taxpayer dollars, but they jeopardize our Nation's safety, security, and economy. From malfunctioning Census handheld computers that threatened to undermine a critical constitutional responsibility, to a promised electronic border fence that never materialized, time and time again, agency missions have been sabotaged by failed IT acquisitions.

This status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

I want to thank Chairman Issa for working with me in a productive and bipartisan manner to develop Amendment 117, a modified version of H.R. 1232, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, which was favorably reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with unanimous support in March 2013.

Our comprehensive proposal seeks to streamline and strengthen the Federal IT acquisition process and promote the adoption of best practices from the technology community. We have solicited extensive input from all stakeholders to refine and improve our amendment in an open and transparent manner.

The resulting bipartisan amendment would elevate and empower agency CIOs with authority over, and accountability for, effectively managing the IT portfolio. It would also enhance OMB's role, tasking it with leading enterprise-wide portfolio management, and coordinating shared services and shared platforms across government.

This bipartisan amendment would also empower agencies to eliminate duplicative and wasteful IT contracts that have proliferated for commonly-used, IT Commodity-like investments, such as e-mail. In this era of austerity, agencies cannot afford to spend precious dollars and time creating duplicative, wasteful contracts for products and licenses they already own.

In addition to improving how the government procures IT, this amendment would also enhance how the government deploys these tools. It would accelerate data center optimization to achieve greater operating efficiency and cost-savings, as recommended by the U.S. Government Accountability Office; provide agencies with flexibility to leverage efficient cloud services; and strengthen the accountability and transparency of Federal IT programs. If enacted, 80 percent of the approximately $80 billion annual Federal IT investment would be required to be posted on the public IT Dashboard, compared to the 50 percent coverage that exists today.

Consistent with the principle that public contracts are public documents, our amendment also strengthens transparency in regard to the final negotiated price a company charges a Federal agency for a good or service. Today, far too many agencies negotiate blanket purchase agreements in silos, without any knowledge that another agency has already negotiated a BPA with the same exact vendor, for the same exact product, but at a different price.

Nearly two decades after the Information Technology Management Reform Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act were enacted as Division E and Division D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996--reforms that are better known today as the foundational ``Clinger-Cohen Act''--a bipartisan consensus is finally forming around the urgent need to further streamline and strengthen how the Federal Government acquires and deploys IT.

The bipartisan Issa-Connolly Amendment 117 will enhance the statutory framework established by Clinger-Cohen to create an efficient and effective Federal IT procurement system that best serves agencies, industry, and most importantly, the American taxpayer. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bipartisan reform measure.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to cosponsor this bipartisan amendment, which would prohibit the Defense Department from circumventing Congressional intent with regard to Russian state arms dealer Rosoboronexport. This amendment prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing military helicopters from Rosoboronexport--a company that has been supplying weapons to Syrian President Bashar al- Assad's regime in its ``campaign of terror against its own people,'' as characterized by Secretary of State Kerry.

The civil unrest and violence that has engulfed Syria and fueled instability across the region just entered its third year. This week, the United Nations reported that 93,000 people have been killed in this conflict. In addition, more than 1.6 million Syrian refugees are now displaced across five countries, and it is estimated that half of the population of Syria will be in need of aid by the end of this year.

Russia has been the Assad regime's main arms supplier, recently announcing that it would provide Syria with advanced S-300 missile defense batteries. The Syrian Army also requested 20,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 20 million rounds of ammunition, machine guns, grenade launchers, grenades, and sniper rifles with night-vision sights from Rosoboronexport.

The bipartisan amendment before us today, which I am pleased to cosponsor with Representatives DeLauro, Granger, Moran, Kingston, Ellison, and Wolf, would simply clarify the restrictions outlined in last year's defense authorization bill, which prohibited the Pentagon from using FY13 funds to enter into any contract with the Russian state arms dealer. Unfortunately, the Defense Department ignored that Congressional direction and found a way to maneuver around the law. Defense officials announced in April that they would use FY12 Afghanistan Security Forces Funds to purchase 30 more Mi-17 helicopters from Rosoboronexport. The signing of this contract is imminent.

Our amendment would ensure that no funding is used to purchase equipment from this Russian arms dealer unless it cooperates with a pending Defense Contract Audit Agency review of another contract in which Rosoboronexport is suspected of overcharging the U.S. Navy. Moreover, the amendment would also ensure that future helicopter purchases for the Afghan National Security Force will be competitively bid.

I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment, which will hold this Russian arms dealer accountable for its reprehensible role in the Syrian conflict, as well as ensure that the Pentagon complies with Congressional intent.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple amendment. We, through our Chaplaincy Corps, need to support, and do support, various faith and philosophical beliefs among the men and women who bravely serve our country.

We already support some nontheistic beliefs. For instance, we have Buddhist chaplains. Buddhism is a nontheistic faith tradition.

And what my amendment would simply do is allow chaplains who are certified or ordained as secular humanists and ethical culturists or atheists to also be able to support the brave American and women who serve in our military.

Roughly 23 percent of the men and women in our Armed Forces either have no religion, or are atheists; but there are no chaplains that currently are able to represent this important and growing demographic.

Under current law, the Armed Forces only allow chaplains who are granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization and have received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, precluding many of the seminaries and other institutions that can provide certification to nonreligious chaplains that could provide much-needed services, particularly to the roughly quarter of our servicemembers who have stated that they have no religious beliefs or are atheists.

There's no reason why the only faith tradition and philosophical tradition in our military without chaplains does not have any kind of support to address their health concerns.

Now, I've heard some say that, well, all members of our military, even those who are non-observers, are able to see psychiatrists or counselors for support. But that's a very different need than the spiritual needs and the philosophical needs that people have.

First of all, when someone sees a psychiatrist or counselor, it has a certain stigma that can be attached to it that doesn't exist when you're seeing a chaplain. It also doesn't enjoy the same confidentiality that a chaplain visit does, and the information discussed with a therapist can actually have an impact on the chain of command in terms of negatively impacting the servicemember's future military career.

So, again, the groundwork has already been laid with regard to nontheistic faiths like Buddhism, where we have active chaplains in our military. Many universities already have secular humanist chaplains, these including American University here in Washington, D.C. Other militaries have this as well. Our allied militaries in Belgium and the Netherlands have humanist chaplaincies.

And, again, it's a very simple concept and, I think, something that is long overdue to ensure that all members of the military, regardless of their faith background, whether they're believers or not, whatever their philosophy is in life, they have access to the chaplaincy to support their spiritual needs. And, of course, nonbelievers have spiritual needs just as believers do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before further yielding, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say I think we're seeing a double standard here where, if it's a person of particular faith, as perhaps the gentleman approves of, then you say, oh, you go see a chaplain for your needs. However, if you're of no faith, you have to see a psychiatrist.

All of our men and women who bravely serve us deserve the same support.

I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment to reduce funding for the advanced procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptor missiles that simply don't work and are inefficient, and for the refurbishment of the costly Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska, until the Department of Defense can certify to Congress that these programs have been adequately tested and work. It's simply a question of making sure that something works before we spend additional money on it.

The missile defense program was designed to intercept limited intermediate and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. But Congress needs to ensure that these missiles are effective before we continue to provide the Department of Defense with a blank check.

Congress needs to verify every penny of taxpayer money we spend. We have a time of tradeoffs, and of course it's nice to be able to support every program, but during this time of deficits and sequestration we need to make sure we are vigilant to ensure that the money we spend on the Pentagon actually results in the maximum amount of heightened national security.

Since 1997, this weapons system has missed its target more than half the time. My amendment would limit the funding for the procurement of 14 Ground-Based Interceptors until the missiles have had two successful tests before 2015. Very reasonable. If it doesn't have two successful tests, why are we investing enormous amounts of taxpayer money in it?

So, two successful tests before 2015, certified by the Secretary of Defense to Congress as having the full confidence of the Commander of the United States Northern Command, and then it is allowed to move forward.

Now, opponents of this amendment--and I saw a Dear Colleague letter go out talking about how there are long-range missile threats from North Korea and Iran--there's no question, there is complete agreement about the dangers to this country, the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the dangers of a nuclear North Korea. What we're talking about here is the last thing we want to do is trust in an untested and unsuccessful missile to deter very real threats. We need a real threat deterrent system, not something that doesn't work. And my amendment simply requires that this is working.

My amendment would also limit funds for the missile refurbishment project in Missile Field 1 in Alaska. This field was never intended to be

operational. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen in 2011 said:

Missile Field 1 was originally designed as a test bed, so

it lacks required hardening and redundant power, and has

significant infrastructure reliability issues.

There have also been reports of mold and leaks at the facility, and refurbishment would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers without significantly improving the security that America has.

I urge Congress to demand that these programs work, that the programs we fund actually keep our families safe and are proven to work by certification by the Secretary of Defense.

We need to get our fiscal house in order, we need to make tough choices, and we need to make sure that our expenditures on national defense improve national security. And simply demanding that our costly missile defense system is actually capable of keeping our homeland safe is a very reasonable amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'd like to inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I think that to have any type of meaningful missile defense against potential threats in Korea, Iran, and elsewhere, it needs to work. That's simply what this amendment says--two tests that work before $107 million in spending goes forth.

This is the financially responsible thing to do. Why would we want to spend first stage 107 million, over 6 years over a billion, on a system that doesn't work?

It's a very reasonable threshold to have a certification by the Department of Defense if this works. It provides an additional incentive to make sure that America stays safe, demonstrates this works, have an incentive to actually make it work before the rest of the money is released.

I think that's common sense. I think it aligns incentives of our contractors and our military and the defense of the American people. I think it's fiscally prudent. I think it improves our missile defense opportunities against threats from North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere; and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this commonsense amendment that would save over 107 million for the ground-based interceptors in the first year, 135 million for the refurbishment of Missile Field 1, and also ensure that our missile defense system works by having two tests and a certification that it's operational by the Secretary of Defense.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The 56 inmates that we are talking about at Guantanamo are not the most dangerous terrorists in the world. In fact, the intel community and the Department of Defense determined they were acceptable risks for release back to Yemen, back to their home country. Not everybody that we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the very, very dangerous terrorists that we thought they were.

The problem we confront with these 56 that we've determined are not a grave threat to the country, determining that if there is any minimal threat whatsoever we are simply going to hold them forever is, well, quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values, to say that we are going to hold somebody indefinitely--I gather forever--because we think there might possibly be some risk. That's not the way the Constitution is supposed to work.

More than anything, this amendment restricts the President's flexibility. If the President determines that this is safe, if the intelligence community determines this is safe, if the Defense Department determines this is safe, they ought to have that option. This amendment takes that option away and, once again, makes Gitmo the classic Hotel California: ``You can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.''

We cannot warehouse people forever. We need to give the President options, not restrict them.

There are certification requirements that will always be in place to make sure that the Secretary of Defense, before releasing these people, certifies that he believes it is an acceptable risk. We will have to have that. But I think an absolute prohibition ties the hands of the President in an unhelpful way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time just to say that I completely agree with the arguments of the gentleman from New Jersey.

It's not a question of whether or not these people should be released. It's a question of who should make that decision. Should Congress make that decision and restrict the President? restrict the intelligence community? restrict the Department of Defense? As the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, Yemen has been a very capable and helpful partner in the war against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

I believe these decisions are best left to the experts and not to have Congress restrict them and limit their options. With that, I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This is a very straightforward amendment that simply asks the President to put together a plan to close Guantanamo Bay.

One of the complaints in recent weeks is that we've seen Guantanamo become more and more untenable. It continues to be an international eyesore. Way back in 2007, President George W. Bush said it should be closed. Then-candidate John McCain said it should be closed. As recently as last week, Senator McCain and some other Senators went down and reached that conclusion as well. I think a justifiable criticism of that has come from the other side of the aisle that said, well, you can't close it unless you've got a plan for what to do with the inmates and a plan for how to close it, and that is exactly what this amendment does.

It requires the President within 60 days to come up with a plan for closing Guantanamo Bay prison, and then it also removes all of the restrictions that are in this bill that would stop him from generating that plan.

The bottom line is that we do not need Guantanamo. Guantanamo was set up in the first place in the hopes that, because it wasn't actually on American soil, we could somehow hold people outside the normal bounds of due process and the Constitution, but the Court ruled otherwise. The Court ruled that habeas does apply because Guantanamo is effectively under the control of the United States. So there is no benefit there. There are no greater rights in the U.S. than there are in Guantanamo. We just continue to have this prison that has been set up in a way that the international community cannot stand, and it makes a problem for us in terms of being able to cooperate with our allies and to have the ability to get that cooperation to properly prosecute the war on terror.

So I am simply asking that we put a plan in place so that we can close Guantanamo Bay once and for all--something that Republicans and Democrats alike have said that they've wanted to do. We simply haven't taken the steps necessary.

The prison is becoming very, very expensive. There is $250 million in MilCon contained in this bill just to keep it at a somewhat temporary status. Beyond that, the prospect of the United States' simply warehousing 166 people forever with no end in sight is contrary, again, I think, to our values and to our process.

I really want to emphasize the fact that we have here in the United States well over 300 terrorists incarcerated. There is a notion that somehow we couldn't possibly accommodate them here because of the threat, but we have Ramzi Yousef, and we have the Blind Sheikh. We have some of the most notorious terrorists in the world housed here already safely and securely. That is simply not an argument against doing this. The temporary facilities down at Guantanamo are not sustainable.

Now, I'm not going to rush this and say we've got to close it tomorrow if we don't have a plan. I'm simply requiring the President to come up with that plan, and then am giving him the legislative freedom to develop that plan as what we've done in this bill far too often is to have restricted that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

A whole bunch of false arguments are being laid out here. As has been clear, no greater constitutional rights come to people in the United States than at Guantanamo. So that's just a phony argument.

The second phony argument is that somehow they can't be held safely. I have a Federal prison in my district. I have an INS detention facility in my district. Frankly, if there was a supermax facility in my district, I would not have a problem with them coming to that district. They should be held. I would hope that all of our supermax facilities, which are holding very, very dangerous people, they better be holding them securely right now.

It's $1.5 million a year versus $34,000. It is an absolute recruitment tool for al Qaeda. Our military leaders--General Petraeus-- have all said that this is something that is harmful to U.S. security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

We have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

There is more agreement here than meets the eye. I think everyone in this Chamber agrees that no person who is a dangerous threat to the people of the United States should be released. I think most people in this Chamber agree that, if the Government of Yemen is unprepared to effectuate adequate security means, then no person should be released to Yemen.

The question here is who gets to make that decision. In this instance, the people who know the most about this--the leaders of our intelligence community, of our military, of our law enforcement community--have reviewed the specific details of 56 cases, and they have concluded based upon their review of those details that the right thing to do is to release these detainees to Yemen if and when they are satisfied that Yemen's security measures are appropriate.

The question here really comes down to whether this judgment should be made by the Members of this body, who have varying degrees of knowledge about this issue--including the gentlelady, who has very diligently learned a lot about this issue and cares a lot about it--or whether the decision should be made by people whom we have entrusted with the defense of our country, who have developed specific, granular, factual expertise about this question. I believe this is a case where the proper decision belongs with those experts, where the proper decision belongs with those who know the most about this matter. Rigidly limiting the options of those experts is a mistake.

So, although I believe we share the same intentions here, we don't share the same view of this amendment. I believe that the decision should be made by those best positioned to make it. If and when they determine that security conditions in Yemen are appropriate, then the decision to release should be made. In my view, that's the right process. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me say that I think we all agree that our servicemembers who served us at Guantanamo have done a tremendous job and have brought great honor to our country. We thank and respect all of them.

I also believe that there is unanimity here that if someone is a credible threat to the United States, they should be detained, tried, and brought to justice. The question is where to do that.

Why should it be Guantanamo? Do defendants have greater rights if they are transferred from Guantanamo to a place in the United States? The Supreme Court has said, no, they don't. So there's no tactical advantage in a trial.

Are they more likely to escape if they're transferred to the United States? History says ``no.'' The number of escapes from maximum prisons, the supermax prisons, in the United States has been zero.

Is it less expensive to hold them at Guantanamo? Most certainly not. The average cost of incarcerating someone in a Federal maximum security supermax prison is $34,000 a year. The cost to the taxpayer of incarcerating someone at Guantanamo is over $1.6 million a year.

Is there some strategic advantage globally to holding these detainees at Guantanamo? The opposite is true. General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, other leaders of our intelligence and military forces have said that Guantanamo is the best recruiting device against the United States, around the world for those who are trying to sell the lie that the United States is an inhumane and unjust place.

There is simply no rationale for an indefinite extension of the problem at Guantanamo. For reasons of security, for reasons of law, for reasons of cost, for reasons of strategic advantage, we should close Guantanamo Bay. That's why I support the Smith amendment.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Nothing in this amendment in any way impairs the relationship between a Christian or Jewish or other soldier or servicemember and his or her faith leader. Nothing. Nothing in this amendment impairs the operation of the Chaplain Corps.

What this amendment does is to show respect for the choices made by our servicemembers. My Christianity is an important part of who I am and how I see my life. I don't think that that same right should be denied to a servicemember who does not share my beliefs.

What this amendment says is that, for the thousands of servicemembers who choose a humanist or atheistic philosophy system of life, that they

should be able to confide in an adviser who is not a mental health professional.

Going to a mental health professional is a choice that's laden with risk and some controversy for a member of the service. Going to a faith adviser is not.

Depriving those who share the views that Mr. Polis outlined of the chance to go to such an adviser is unequal treatment. It's unworthy of the way we operate.

Nothing in this amendment disrupts the Chaplain Corps, but everything in this amendment respects the rights of our servicemembers. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.