On the recordJuly 23, 2013
I appreciate the fact that this is the first instance that my friend and colleague from Indiana and I are participating in a debate on an amendment on the House floor, which is why I respectfully and regretfully have to oppose her amendment, as well-intentioned as it is. I do not believe that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody. But we're told we cannot bring these detainees to the United States for trial or custody. And we are told in three other instances in the bill that we cannot close Guantanamo. But I think the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first instance was a misplaced idea that the facility could be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law. With this amendment, now we would have a fourth restriction within this bill, and I think that is not the best policy for this country to pursue. For that reason, respectfully, I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment, and would reserve the balance of my time.
