Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen). Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont for his amendment and for his thoughtful approach to this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a member of the full committee.
Mr. Chairman, I simply, again, reiterate my support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would point out that the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. The committee worked hard to increase funding for these accounts.
Also, I would point out, representing the First Congressional District of Indiana, I am intimately familiar with the problems these environmental sites have.
There is much to do, many resources we need to look for, and I would support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly join with the chair in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and share the chair's concern over the issue raised. However, I don't think the approach is an appropriate one in that we would carve out another budget line.
Given my anticipation that we will not have a full 12-month fiscal year for this money to be spent, I am very concerned that we will find enough projects for this money to be spent on. In the meantime, they would then be eliminated from the existing line for other possible research.
Mr. Chairman, I would look to work with the gentlewoman to address this issue in a fulsome fashion, but not in this manner.
Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the ranking member, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, as it relates to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and would simply make a few brief remarks.
This is, I believe, a very substantive and serious issue facing a constitutional government, our government of laws.
I would point out that it is a sad state of affairs if somewhere in the United States of America we cannot find a secure facility to detain 41 individuals at this late date, given the fact that President Bush released over 500 people from Guantanamo, and President Obama released 197.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by observing that, within the last week, the Attorney General of the United States of America could not find a justification to have an alleged terrorist, who recruits for al- Qaida, having been extradited from Spain, an Algerian, placed in Guantanamo. That person, as I understand it, as I speak at this moment, is being detained in the United States of America. That is what should happen with the other 41 people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I just have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chair, I have a question on the procedure. I understand that Mr. Foster is recognized. Did I lose track of an amendment for Mr. Polis?
And Mr. Poe?
I appreciate the information. Sorry for the interruption very much.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I simply would want to rise in support of his amendment. I would point out that in 2010, the Ballistic Missile Defense Review made no request for space-based interceptors. Currently, this is a matter under review by the Department. I think we should allow that review to be concluded before we expend moneys.
Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and join her in opposition; although, I must tell you I am always very reserved about opposing an amendment put forth by a Notre Dame graduate.
But, in all seriousness, I would say that I do appreciate the gentleman's concern with the devolving situation in Yemen in that we do not want to get involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I am also in agreement with much of the intent behind the amendment and certainly agree that Congress has relinquished much of its oversight role over Presidential decisions about sending U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities provided under the War Powers Act. That is why I am a strong supporter of efforts to develop a new Authorization for Use of Military Force for the global war on terror. Congress needs to, finally, after 16 years, carry out its constitutional duty and stop hiding from this very important debate that the gentleman has raised in his amendment.
However, I do have concerns that the gentleman's amendment, as written, is overly broad and would place undue restrictions on U.S. Forces within the Middle East to respond to legitimate threats within Yemen.
So, again, very reluctantly, I join with the chairwoman in opposition, and I appreciate her yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly would acknowledge that Iran is up to very nefarious purposes as far as sponsoring terrorism internationally.
I also acknowledge the gentleman referenced the previous administration more than once during his remarks as far as the issue before the House today.
In 2016, last year, heavy water was purchased by the Department of Energy and the State Department, but I would point out this is 2017 with a different administration, and essentially the amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
The current administration has recertified Iran's compliance with the agreement twice. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is subject to intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But importantly to the point raised today, I would suggest that the Department of Energy consistently has indicated at the time of the 2016 heavy water purchase from Iran that the United States would not be a regular buyer of Iranian heavy water.
Since that purchase, the United States has not purchased any additional heavy water from that country. In fact, the U.S. has, through refraining from purchases of excess supply, forced Iran to ship excess heavy water abroad so that it can continue to adhere to the agreement entered into.
It seems highly unlikely that the current administration would now seek out an opportunity to purchase this heavy water.
Again, I believe the gentleman has a solution to a problem that does not exist, and I am opposed to his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida to the end that the Chair puts the question de novo.