DOTCOM Act of 2014

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) to talk about her very important amendment dealing with Boko Haram, as we all know, a significant problem that needs to be addressed.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chair, I offer the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is the amendment that will enable us to eventually close the Guantanamo Bay prison. There are several compelling reasons to do this.

First of all, we have reached a point where we are now spending $2.7 million per inmate at Guantanamo Bay. To contrast that, an inmate at a supermax Federal prison facility here in the U.S. costs roughly $78,000 a year. This is only going to become more expensive as the temporary facility at Guantanamo Bay is forced to last longer and longer. So the cost alone is reason, I believe, to close it.

Also, we have the larger issue. President George W. Bush wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, as did Secretary Gates, as did Senator McCain. Many very conservative Republicans came out in favor of closing Guantanamo back in 2008. Why? Because the military told them that it was harming our ability to effectively fight al Qaeda and affiliated forces, that the presence of Guantanamo Bay was recognized as an international eyesore that undermined U.S. credibility with our allies abroad as we tried to prosecute that fight. There is no need for Guantanamo. So argument number one is all of the problems with it.

Argument number two is that there is no need for it, because what we could do would be--154 inmates who are in Guantanamo Bay, first of all, some number of them, I think it is roughly half, have been deemed not to be a threat to the United States. We just don't have anyplace to send them. So we can do foreign transfers, which we are beginning to work on. The rest of them that are a threat can be housed in supermax facilities in the United States of America.

Now, we constantly hear the argument that we can't bring terrorists to the United States. The way that argument is stated, it is like we are bringing them here and setting them free. We are not. We are going to lock them up and hold them. In fact, there was a recent ruling of the courts that made it clear those inmates would not be freed in the United States under any set of circumstances.

In addition to that, we have the ability in the United States of America to hold dangerous people. I will submit to you that if we didn't have that ability, we would be in a whole lot of trouble regardless of the people at Guantanamo Bay.

We currently house over 300 terrorists here in the U.S., including Ramzi Yousef, The Blind Sheikh, and a number of others. We have been able to successfully hold terrorists in the United States. We also hold mass murderers and gang leaders and mobsters. We have the ability to safely hold these people in the United States of America. So there is no downside to doing this.

The upside is to finally do what President George W. Bush recognized back in 2007 and 2008 that we needed to do, to close down Guantanamo Bay because of the international perception that it goes against our values and because of the very fact that it does go against our values to have people locked away in a prison that was originally set up under the hopes that somehow we would be able to avoid habeas corpus. Well, the Supreme Court said no, Guantanamo Bay is effectively under U.S. control, so habeas corpus applies anyway, so same amount of rights, same everything. It is simply an international eyesore that we keep open for no good reason.

This bill has prohibitions on closing it. My amendment would put in place a plan to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of 2016 and enable the steps necessary to accomplish that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chair, how much time is left in the debate on both sides?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment would eliminate indefinite detention in the United States and its territories. So basically anybody who we captured who we suspected of terrorist activity would no longer be subject to indefinite detention, as is now currently the law.

The basic reason for this is our Constitution works, and we ought to value it and we ought to let the Constitution work. We have gone through article III courts to try, convict, and incarcerate terrorists successfully for decades. Yet, because of the 2001 AUMF, we still have on the books a law that would allow the President, any President now or in the future, to indefinitely detain any person in the United States if they determine that that person is affiliated with al Qaeda or affiliated forces. If they are acting in support of those organizations, they would be subject to indefinite detention and would not be allowed to due process rights that are in our Constitution.

That is an enormous amount of power to give the Executive: to take someone and lock them up without due process. It is not necessary. This President has not used the authority. President George W. Bush did not use it after about 2002 and then only in a couple of instances. It is not necessary. It is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country.

We need to eliminate indefinite detention in the United States. This amendment would do that clearly and unequivocally, and I urge support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The language within the NDAA about preserving rights is very confusing. I think it is very clear that the President does have the power right now to indefinitely detain people. So arguing that rights are protected, they are not. Indefinite detention is the law of the land. The President has the power to do that. Habeas corpus is one right. It is not due process. This law currently allows for due process to be ignored and for the Executive to indefinitely detain people.

The other big problem with this is it goes on forever. We have at different points in our Nation's history suspended habeas corpus-- during the Civil War and other times of extreme danger. But in this case, al Qaeda and terrorism have been with us for a while. They are going to be with us for a long time to come in some form or another.

So to grant the President the power to indefinitely detain people is a long, long-term issue. Again, it is not necessary. Our article III courts have arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated hundreds of terrorists. It works. We don't need to give the President the power to throw out portions of the Constitution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, Guantanamo Bay would not apply in this case. None of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay were captured in the United States, so this would have nothing to do with that. That is a vexing and difficult question. This applies to people captured from this point forward in the United States. It would not apply to Guantanamo Bay inmates.

Second, I want to deal with this argument about intelligence. It is an argument that has been made repeatedly that does not make any sense. This notion that somehow under the normal judicial process, under the normal law enforcement model you cannot collect any intelligence. Well, that would be a surprise to the FBI. It would be a surprise to every law enforcement agency in the United States of America that has been giving suspects Miranda rights, investigating crimes, and gathering intelligence for decades. Just because you tell someone they have the right to remain silent doesn't mean that they will, first of all.

Second of all, even if you don't tell them, everybody is aware of the fact

that they don't have to talk. We have used Miranda successfully to gather intelligence in a variety of different ways repeatedly. You will not lose that ability if you go through article III courts using Miranda rights.

Again, I want to emphasize, the idea that when you capture a terrorist, it never occurs to them that they don't have to give up information until you give them Miranda rights makes no sense whatsoever, number one.

Number two, over and over and over again domestic law enforcement officials have been able to give Miranda rights and gather an enormous amount of intelligence. That is a red herring in this argument.

Again, we come back to what the law does. The law gives the President of the United States the power to indefinitely detain people without due process. The Republican Party is always talking about freedom from government intrusion. They are concerned about the health care law, they are concerned about all manner of different things. This is a law that gives the President the power to lock you up and take away your basic freedom without due process. It strikes me that nothing could be more fundamental to those basic freedoms from government intrusion that we always hear about from the other side of the aisle than this issue.

I urge Republicans and Democrats alike to support this amendment. Take away the President's ability to lock people up indefinitely without due process. That is a gross, gross violation and an individual right that none of us in this country should stand for any longer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly agree with Congressman Heck.

I used to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord. It is the worst traffic in the State of Washington. The base more than doubled over the course of 7 to 8 years. It is a significant quality of life issue for our men and women and their families who are serving on Joint Base Lewis- McChord, and I am sure this is a situation that is repeated around many bases across the country.

So I strongly support his efforts to try and deal with this. This is something that directly impacts our troops and their families. I thank him for his effort.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, on the trust issue, you wouldn't have to negotiate with people that you trusted.

Unfortunately, regrettably, we have to negotiate with people all the time who are not entirely trustworthy. That is why Ronald Reagan always said, ``Trust but verify,'' which I think was wrong. Let's verify. Trust is a very difficult thing.

Obviously, Russia has proven itself untrustworthy, but they have consistently reduced their nuclear weapons arsenal as a result of treaties that were first negotiated by Ronald Reagan, and many others.

They have also worked cooperatively with us to contain nuclear material, which has been enormously important. They would be a huge terrorist threat if they were to ever get their hands on nuclear material. Outside of the United States, the former Soviet Union--and now Russia--is the number one place where you have that nuclear material.

So having some measure of cooperation with them to contain and reduce that material is enormously important. That is the goal of the START Treaty.

It is not a matter of whether or not you trust Putin or Russia. I don't trust many people, just in general, and I certainly don't trust them. The question is: is the START Treaty, an effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that Russia has and to contain and control the fissile material that they have, is that in our best interest?

It is. And we should negotiate that.

Certainly, what Putin is doing in the Ukraine is reprehensible and violates all manner of treaties. I support the President and the efforts of others to condemn and sanction them as a result.

But to walk away from an effort to contain nuclear weapons I don't believe is in the best interest of the U.S. It is not a matter of whether you trust Russia; it is a matter of what it is in our best interest. I believe it is in our best interest to try to contain the nuclear fissile material available out there in the world. START is one way to do that. Walking away from this just because we don't trust Putin--and we don't--is not sound policy.

I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

First of all, just for everybody's information, you cannot actually reveal classified information, even if it has showed up in the newspaper, because then you are confirming it. So you are not supposed to do that.

Second of all, if you don't like the START Treaty, that is one thing. We can have that debate. We had that debate in the Senate and a bipartisan group of senators confirmed the treaty and then passed it. That is a separate debate. If you are trying to still reopen that, that is something that the Senate has already determined.

Again, it is not a matter of Russia being trustworthy. I don't think of them as a partner. I think of them has a reality that we have to deal with.

In the one area where they have been fairly consistent, again, starting with the treaty negotiated under Ronald Reagan, is they have reduced their nuclear forces and worked with us to contain their fissile material after the breakup of the Soviet Union. This has reduced the amount of nuclear weapons in the world, which is a positive step.

So, again, yes, what they are doing in the Ukraine, we ought to oppose that. But when it comes to trying to contain nuclear material for the protection of both of our countries and the world, that is not something that I think we should walk away from.

I am sure there are other opportunities, other ways we can punish Russia for their misdeeds that would make a great deal more sense. This hurts us, it does not help us.

Again, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I want to emphasize, the START Treaty, if you don't like the START Treaty, that is a separate debate. That is not the purpose of where we are at here in the House.

With regards to violating treaties, on this START Treaty, the Russians are in compliance with it. There has been no evidence brought forward that they are not. This is the treaty that we are talking about.

If they have violated other treaties, we can talk about that and deal with that.

I will also point out that they are not alone. The U.S. abrogated the antiballistic missile treaty that we had signed with the Soviet Union because we thought it was in our own interest, so there are different reasons for doing those things.

Again, let me just emphasize the point. If we have an agreement with Russia that enables us to better control nuclear weapons, I think that is a good thing.

Don't trust them. Don't think of them as a partner. Whatever evil things you want to say about Russia, that is fine, but let's not do things that are contrary to our own best interest.

There are other ways to punish Russia for the treaties that they have violated, for the horrible things that they are doing in Ukraine.

Walking away from the START Treaty undermines our interests. That is why, again, a bipartisan group of United States Senators voted for and put into the law the START Treaty because it is in the United States' best interest.

So, as much as I am opposed to what Russia is doing in many areas and agree with the gentleman on that, this amendment is the wrong way to go about dealing with those changes, and I urge opposition.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

Mr. Chairman, religious freedom and defending freedom should not be mutually exclusive. America was founded on religious liberty, and it is part of what makes our country so great. The men and women in uniform who have volunteered to keep our country safe and to protect our Constitution should not see their own liberties violated.

My amendment ensures that all servicemembers--no matter their religion or rank or leadership--are afforded their constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

One of the driving factors behind recent violations of religious freedom in the military is simply bad rules. My amendment requires the Pentagon to rewrite their rules on free exercise of religion, both for the whole Department of Defense, and particularly for the Air Force.

I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for supporting this amendment, as well as Mr. Forbes and Mr. Fleming, who are cosponsors.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. The United States should not be spending money to disarm ourselves--to dramatically cut our strategic nuclear deterrent under the New START Treaty--if the other party to the treaty is not trustworthy.

At the moment, the Russian Federation is clearly not trustworthy.

Let me remind us all of Russia's current record on observing treaties and agreements.

In 1994, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement included a commitment to ``respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.'' But this agreement did not keep Putin from invading Ukrainian territory.

Strike one.

In January, The New York Times revealed that the Russian Federation was cheating on another treaty--the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty. According to the story, our State Department has been raising the INF cheating issue with the Russians for about a year now, with no response.

Strike two.

In 2007, President Putin announced that he was suspending Russian participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, or CFE. This came after years of Russian violations of the CFE Treaty.

Strike three.

Is the Russian government trustworthy?

The answer is clearly no.

The question for us tonight under my amendment is whether it makes sense for us to spend money on reducing our nuclear deterrent when the other party to the New START Treaty is not trustworthy. If you trust Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, vote against this amendment. But if you, like me, don't want to put our national security in the hands of a serial treaty violator, please vote for this amendment.

We should not be spending money implementing the New START Treaty, which reduces our nuclear forces, unless and until Russia makes it clear that they are a responsible actor and will abide by the agreements they make.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to my colleague by saying there is a flaw in the New START Treaty, in my opinion, in that it originally called for reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and allowed Russia to increase its nuclear forces.

So that right there I think is a problem. But when you have serial violations by the Russian Federation invading Ukraine, in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the INF Treaty, and the CFE Treaty, they are not a reliable partner in these treaties.

And so to reduce our forces, how can that be in our interest when the other party to the treaty is not someone who is performing on these other treaties? There could be questions on whether they are even fully complying with the New START Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record an article from The New York Times dated January 29 of this year detailing some of their violations of the INF Treaty.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 29, 2014]

U.S. Says Russia Tested Missile, Despite Treaty

(By Michael R. Gordon)

Washington.--The United States informed its NATO allies

this month that Russia had tested a new ground-launched

cruise missile, raising concerns about Moscow's compliance

with a landmark arms control accord.

American officials believe Russia began conducting flight

tests of the missile as early as 2008. Such tests are

prohibited by the treaty banning medium-range missiles that

was signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S.

Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, and that has long

been viewed as one of the bedrock accords that brought an end

to the Cold War.

Beginning in May, Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department's

senior arms control official, has repeatedly raised the

missile tests with Russian officials, who have responded that

they investigated the matter and consider the case to be

closed. But Obama administration officials are not yet ready

to formally declare the tests of the missile, which has not

been deployed, to be a violation of the 1987 treaty.

With President Obama pledging to seek deeper cuts in

nuclear arms, the State Department has been trying to find a

way to resolve the compliance issue, preserve the treaty and

keep the door open to future arms control accords.

``The United States never hesitates to raise treaty

compliance concerns with Russia, and this issue is no

exception,'' Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman,

said. ``There's an ongoing review process, and we wouldn't

want to speculate or prejudge the outcome.''

Other officials, who asked not to be identified because

they were discussing internal deliberations, said there was

no question the missile tests ran counter to the treaty and

the administration had already shown considerable patience

with the Russians. And some members of Congress, who have

been briefed on the tests on a classified basis for well over

a year, have been pressing the White House for a firmer

response.

A public dispute over the tests could prove to be a major

new irritant in the already difficult relationship between

the United States and Russia. In recent months, that

relationship has been strained by differences over how to end

the fighting in Syria; the temporary asylum granted to Edward

J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor;

and, most recently, the turmoil in Ukraine.

The treaty banning the testing, production and possession

of medium-range missiles has long been regarded as a major

step toward curbing the American and Russian arms race. ``The

importance of this treaty transcends numbers,'' Mr. Reagan

said during the treaty signing, adding that it underscored

the value of ``greater openness in military programs and

forces.''

But after President Vladimir V. Putin rose to power and the

Russian military began to re-evaluate its strategy, the

Kremlin developed second thoughts about the accord. During

the administration of President George W. Bush, Sergei B.

Ivanov, the Russian defense minister, proposed that the two

sides drop the treaty.

Though the Cold War was over, he argued that Russia still

faced threats from nations on its periphery, including China

and potentially Pakistan. But the Bush administration was

reluctant to terminate a treaty that NATO nations regarded as

a cornerstone of arms control and whose abrogation would have

enabled the Russians to increase missile forces directed at

the United States' allies in Asia.

Since Mr. Obama has been in office, the Russians have

insisted they want to keep the agreement. But in the view of

American analysts, Russia has also mounted a determined

effort to strengthen its nuclear abilities to compensate for

the weakness of its conventional, nonnuclear forces.

At the same time, in his State of the Union address last

year, Mr. Obama vowed to ``seek further reductions in our

nuclear arsenals,'' a goal American officials at one point

hoped might form part of Mr. Obama's legacy.

But administration officials and experts outside government

say Congress is highly unlikely to approve an agreement

mandating more cuts unless the question of Russian compliance

with the medium-range treaty is resolved.

``If the Russian government has made a considered decision

to field a prohibited system,'' Franklin C. Miller, a former

defense official at the White House and the Pentagon, said,

``then it is the strongest indication to date that they are

not interested in pursuing any arms control, at least through

the remainder of President Obama's term.''

It took years for American intelligence to gather

information on Russia's new missile system, but by the end of

2011, officials say it was clear that there was a compliance

concern.

There have been repeated rumors over the last year that

Russia may have violated some of the provisions of the 1987

treaty. But the nature of that violation has not previously

been disclosed, and some news reports have focused on the

wrong system: a new two-stage missile called the RS-26. The

Russians have flight-tested it at medium range, according to

intelligence assessments, and the prevailing view among

Western officials is that it is intended to help fill the gap

in Russia's medium-range missile capabilities that resulted

from the 1987 treaty. The

treaty defines medium-range missiles as ground-launched

ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400

miles.

But because Russia has conducted a small number of tests of

the RS-26 at intercontinental range, it technically qualifies

as a long-range system and will be counted under the treaty

known as New Start, which was negotiated by the Obama

administration. So it is generally considered by Western

officials to be a circumvention, but not a violation, of the

1987 treaty

One member of Congress who was said to have raised concerns

that the suspected arms control violation might endanger

future arms control efforts was John Kerry. As a senator and

chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he received a

classified briefing on the matter in November 2012 that dealt

with compliance concerns, according to a report in The Daily

Beast.

As secretary of state, Mr. Kerry has not raised concerns

over the cruise missile tests with his Russian counterpart,

Sergey V. Lavrov, but he has emphasized the importance of

complying with arms accords, a State Department official

said.

Republican lawmakers, however, have urged the

administration to be more aggressive.

``Briefings provided by your administration have agreed

with our assessment that Russian actions are serious and

troubling, but have failed to offer any assurance of any

concrete action to address these Russian actions,''

Representative Howard McKeon, Republican of California and

chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Representative

Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who leads the

Intelligence Committee, said in an April letter to Mr. Obama.

And Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, and 16 other

Republican senators recently proposed legislation that would

require the White House to report to Congress on what

intelligence the United States has shared with NATO allies on

suspected violations of the 1987 treaty.

Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee have also cited the issue in holding up Ms.

Gottemoeller's confirmation as under secretary of state for

arms control and international security.

It was against this backdrop that the so-called deputies

committee, an interagency panel led by Antony Blinken, Mr.

Obama's deputy national security adviser, decided that Ms.

Gottemoeller should inform NATO's 28 members about the

compliance issue.

On Jan. 17, Ms. Gottemoeller discussed the missile tests in

a closed-door meeting of NATO's Arms Control, Disarmament and

Non-Proliferation Committee that she led in Brussels.

The Obama administration, she said, had not given up on

diplomacy. There are precedents for working out disputes over

arms control complaints, and Ms. Gottemoeller said American

officials would continue to engage the Russians to try to

resolve the controversy.

But even with the best of intentions, establishing what the

Russians are doing may not be easy. The elaborate network of

verification provisions created under the medium-range

missile treaty is no longer in effect, since all the missiles

that were believed to be covered by the agreement were long

thought to have been destroyed by May 1991.

At this point I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I can't see how it would be in our interest to keep complying with a treaty when the other party to that treaty is not in compliance with so many other things it is supposed to be doing.

This amendment merely calls for a halt in the spending until such time as they come into compliance with all of these other treaties.

We are talking about reducing our nuclear forces. That is a guarantee against the main and only existential threat against the United States: a devastating nuclear attack, God forbid. But why in the world would we want to give up further nuclear forces when the party that is supposed to be working with us on this is not reliable?

I do not understand that. I would ask adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman's amendment merely required the President to come up with a plan that Congress and the American people could look at on exactly what he would do and how he would do it to close Guantanamo, including what the costs would be, where he would move them, what the cost of security wherever he would move them would be, I might support that.

The truth of the matter is in all the time since the President has been in office, he has not come up with a specific plan that has gotten the support of the American people or this Congress. Even when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they were not able to pass any legislation to close Guantanamo.

So if he can put a plan together that gets the support of the Congress, support of the American people, I think that may be a step forward. But to say we are going to close it and, oh, by the way, along the way you can tell us what you are doing and how you are doing it, that is putting the cart before the horse.

The President needs to get the support of the American people. So far he has not done that. The American people have been clear: they are uncomfortable with those detainees coming here. Therefore, it is premature to close it, and this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has previously been defeated in the House. Members have voted on it before, and I think it should be defeated again.

This is the underwear bomber case. A foreign terrorist flies into the U.S. in order to kill as many Americans as possible. The bomb malfunctions, the terrorist is captured, he is immediately given under the amendment American constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent.

Now, in fact, the underwear bomber was questioned for about 50 minutes before the FBI gave him his Miranda rights and he quit talking. But meanwhile, when he knows he has the right to remain silent, he quits talking, we have no idea how many more bombers there are, where they may be, or how we may be attacked again.

Actually, this amendment goes further than the Obama administration even wants to, because the administration has admitted that there are several dozen terrorists in Guantanamo that cannot be tried in article III courts and are too dangerous to release. So what happens to them under this amendment? If they can't be tried, they are released.

Especially if you put this amendment with the previous amendment, they come here to the United States, they can't be tried in article III courts because it reveals too much information, so what do you do with them? That is part of the problem. We need this flexibility for indefinite detention.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has held that this right of detention goes hand-in-hand with an authorization for the use of force. I believe probably constitutionally the President has that authority when he has the authority to use military force. So trying to take it away not only limits the options, it is impractical in this case.

It is, of course, true that everybody detained has that right of habeas corpus to contest their detention in front of an article III court, as the gentleman said, even those foreigners held in Guantanamo. But to say that everybody immediately goes into the court system I think would be compromising our security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, admittedly, there are some difficult issues involved in detention, particularly with this war against terrorists that we are involved in.

But you have got to look at the bigger picture, and part of what one needs to look at is how one is going to deal with these situations. We just debated an amendment where the argument was close Guantanamo. Now we have an amendment on the other hand that says everybody that is here, including the people presumably that we would bring back from Guantanamo when it was closed, automatically and immediately goes to article III courts.

It is not my argument that some of the people in Guantanamo cannot be tried in article III courts. That is what the administration tells us.

So how does this fit together?

It doesn't, not without releasing very dangerous people out into society or into the world.

Secondly, when it is clear that you have greater rights when you come to the United States, rather than if you attack us from some other place, the incentive is to come to the United States because that is where you are given the greater rights. That is the perverse incentive under this amendment. It would be a mistake.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, as the gentleman indicates, he offered this amendment last year, and it failed, and I believe it should fail again.

As the gentleman knows, I believe very strongly that the AUMF should be updated. In fact, this House has voted twice to update it, but then the Senate failed to take any action whatsoever, and I don't think there is any reason to believe that there is any more likely prospect of the Senate acting now than before.

So what this amendment would do, it would be to repeal the AUMF against terrorists, without anything, anything at all to replace it and, frankly, without any prospect of having anything to replace it, at least in this Congress, so we would be left with no authority to take action against terrorists bent on killing Americans.

I can't help but note, Madam Chair, that they just opened the 9/11 museum in New York in the last few days. Have we forgotten so quickly about what this AUMF is all about?

One other factor, the President has made some comments about engaging Congress on this issue, but he has exercised absolutely no leadership whatsoever in doing so. What does the President propose, if he proposes an update to the AUMF?

We have no idea. Unfortunately, that lack of leadership is all too common for this administration.

Meanwhile, what is happening in the world? Well, terrorism is growing, and it is getting more dangerous. I note there was a New York Times story just 3 days ago, where the new director of the FBI says that, before he was sworn in and got access to the latest information, he underestimated the terrorist threat.

``I didn't have anywhere near the appreciation I got after I came into this job just how virulent those affiliates had become,'' Mr. Comey said. ``There are many more than I appreciated, and they are stronger than I appreciated.''

Yet the Obama administration, Madam Chairman, wants us to believe that terrorism is done; we have got them on the run. Everybody's going to live happily ever after. That sort of wishful thinking is not only unrealistic, it is dangerous.

As a matter of fact, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has written within the last month that:

American foreign policy is in troubling disarray.

David Brooks wrote in The New York Times:

All around, the fabric of peace and order is fraying.

I would suggest that a substantial part of that disarray and fraying is the sort of wishful thinking that we can wish terrorism and other problems away and go along and the world is not going to bother us.

In other words, short-term political messaging is taking precedence over longer-term strategic interests; so repealing the current authority that helps the military protect us against terrorism, without something to take its place, is exactly that kind of wishful thinking.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman argues that, oh, we don't really need these authorities, that there are other authorities.

Well, either they are important, or they are not. Either article I, section 1 makes a difference in what the President can do to defend the country, or it is all superfluous, and I don't know why we continue to have these debates and declare war.

Obviously, there are different views about how far a President's power under article II goes, but most people believe article I, section 8 means something and that for the Congress to authorize the use of military force means something.

I would say, parenthetically, the last thing we need is to get all balled up in court arguing about this after we have repealed the AUMF, but have nothing to take its place.

Secondly, the gentleman argues that: well, we are not going to do anything unless we make a deadline.

I hate to remind us all, but we have had deadlines before that we have not exactly met. Unfortunately, repealing something this serious without something to take its place is a dangerous game, I think, to play.

The evolution of al Qaeda is a very serious issue, Madam Chair. We should be having a conversation about how to update the Authorization for Use of Military Force, but we still have to protect the country while we are having that discussion.

Unfortunately, this puts the cart before the horse, deciding to repeal before we know what will be used to replace it.

This amendment is not about Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Somalia, or anywhere else. This amendment is about us. This is about protecting Americans, and when the President and the military have the authority that the Constitution allows us to give them to protect the country, we should not abandon that lightly.

The world is still dangerous. The terrorists are still coming for us. We need to keep this in place unless and until there is a more updated AUMF to replace it.

Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force just days after 9/11, it provided the President with the broad authority to strike against those who ``planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored'' them.

That authorization no longer properly encompasses the scope of military action that we are taking in the ongoing fight against terrorism. While the AUMF was originally directed at a fairly narrow range of actors, it has been used to sanction targeted strikes against groups and militants with little relation to the individuals who actually planned, authorized, and perpetrated the attacks on 9/11.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution invests Congress with the power to declare war. It is our most awesome responsibility, and it is central to the success of our military efforts overseas. We owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and authorize their mission.

This amendment would not immediately repeal the 2001 AUMF. Instead, it would sunset one year from the date of enactment, providing time for Congress and the administration to consider what authorities are needed to protect the Nation.

I think a more narrow authorization, constrained in focus and duration, may very well be necessary, but let's be clear. Even in the absence of an AUMF, the administration would retain the necessary authority to respond to threats from al Qaeda.

At a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning, Stephen Preston, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, testified:

The AUMF is not the only authority the President has to use

force to keep us safe. The President has authority, under the

Constitution, to use military force as needed to defend the

Nation against armed attacks and imminent threat of armed

attack.

Over the course of the last year, there has been a growing recognition of the outdated nature of the current AUMF. In Syria, for example, one of the most violent groups on the ground is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, which grew out of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Though originally part of the al Qaeda brand, ISIL has since been excommunicated from al Qaeda, and recent months have seen intense fighting between ISIL and the Nusra Front, al Qaeda's preferred jihadi group.

That raises the question of whether action against ISIL would be covered by the current AUMF, and if it is not, do we really want to be in a situation where Ayman al-Zawahiri is able to chose which groups are subject to the authorization for the use of force by the United States and which are not? That is not something I think we want to delegate to our enemies.

Last year, during consideration of the defense appropriations bill, I offered a similar amendment that gained the bipartisan support of 185 Members of the House, indicating strong support on both sides of the aisle, for bringing our actions into conformity with the law.

Since then, the legally precarious nature of our military actions under the AUMF has only become more pronounced. This amendment will force Congress and the administration to do something about it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chair, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made in opposition, the first, that if the sunset goes into effect and nothing is enacted, subsequently, there will be no authority to take action against our enemies.

That ignores the President's authority under article II, or it is a very, very constrained view of the President's authority under article II as Commander in Chief, one not shared by this President, one certainly not shared by President Bush and, indeed, one not shared by any President, I think, in U.S. history.

This is not an effort to legislate away the threats that we face. That cannot be done, but it is an effort to compel Congress and the administration to bring our use of force into conformity with the laws passed by Congress and to restore our responsibility as the body with the power to declare war and to define the scope of any conflict.

Without a sunset, I am convinced that, a year from now, we will be exactly where we are today, continuing to rely on an increasingly legally unreliable AUMF, and I have confidence that, spurred on by the necessity of acting--and we are not requiring that we act tomorrow, we give a deadline of a year from an enactment--that should not be too much to ask of this Congress. Congress will step up to its responsibility.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I want to thank Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions for making this amendment in order, and I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his service and for allowing this amendment to be part of the en bloc package.

My amendment adds the voice of the House to those of many Americans, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who would like to see the names of the 74 sailors lost aboard the USS Frank E. Evans added to the Vietnam Memorial.

The USS Frank Evans, a destroyer, was launched near the end of World War II and was recommissioned for the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. After participating in combat off the coast of Vietnam, the Evans was deployed for the Operation Sea Spirit training exercise in the South China Sea.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the Evans was training with an Australian navy carrier when the two ships collided.

The Melbourne ripped the American destroyer in two. The bow sank in just 3 minutes, leaving only a stern section afloat. Seventy-four sailors perished.

Although they were in the South China Sea, these sailors' names have been excluded from the Vietnam Memorial because the Evans was outside the designated combat zone which determines inclusion on the wall.

Although these men did not die in direct combat, they were instrumental in advancing military objectives in Vietnam and participated in the conflict just days before the collision.

I thank the chairman for allowing this amendment which would encourage the addition of their names to the wall.

My amendment adds the voice of this House to those of many Americans, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who would like to see the names of the 74 sailors lost aboard the USS Frank E. Evans added to the Vietnam Memorial.

The USS Frank E. Evans, a destroyer, was launched near the end of World War II and was recommissioned for the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. After participating in combat off the coast of Vietnam, the Evans was deployed for the ``Operation Sea Spirit'' training exercises in the South China Sea.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the Evans was training with the Australian Navy carrier HMAS Melbourne, when the two ships collided. The Melbourne ripped the American destroyer in two. The bow sank in just three minutes, leaving only the stern section afloat. Seventy-four sailors perished.

Although they were in the South China Sea, these sailors' names have been excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial because the Evans was outside the designated combat zone which determines inclusion on the Wall. Although these men did not die in direct combat, they were instrumental in advancing American military objectives in Vietnam and had participated in the conflict just days before the collision. This happenstance should not obscure their valor, patriotism, and ultimate sacrifice for their country, especially as other exceptions to the stated policy have been made, including by Ronald Reagan, who waived the combat zone criteria to add 68 names of U.S. Marines who were killed when a ``rest and recreation'' flight to Hong Kong crashed.

It has been nearly 45 years to the day since that June night in 1969, and the passage of time has made duller and less distinct, boundaries and criteria that may have seemed reasonable and clear back then. The 74 sailors from the Evans belong with the other 58,000 Americans who gave their lives in Vietnam--on the Wall--where Americans from every corner of this great nation can give our silent thanks for their having given the ``last full measure of devotion.''

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

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

In 2008, Congress passed legislation to suspend public-private competitions at the DOD through the OMB Circular A-76. That moratorium remains in place today. In 2009, the OMB issued a memorandum which regulated the move to insourcing at the DOD.

Today, nearly half of the Federal Government owns and operates thousands of activities that are commercial in nature. These functions are not inherent or unique to government; rather, they can be found in small and Main Street businesses across the Nation. Not only are these Federal agencies duplicating private business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the private sector.

My amendment seeks to place a moratorium on the insourcing of previously contracted activities within the DOD. Exceptions would be made, number one, if the activity were inherently governmental and, thereby, should never have been contracted out in the first place; or, number two, if the DOD would employ a reverse A-76 to itemize specific costs saved to the taxpayer, should the DOD be able to

perform the commercial activity more efficiently for the taxpayer.

According to the OMB, the act of conducting the A-76 competition alone can generate a savings of 10 to 40 percent on average. That is just the average savings generated from simply going through the process.

While the A-76 process is not perfect, it is the best opportunity we have for a cost comparison. As an accountant, I understand the importance of a cost comparison. This amendment is just the first step. Studies also show that utilizing the A-76 public-private cost comparisons can save up to $27 billion per year. Again, this is just by implementing the cost comparison tool.

In 2011, the Department of Defense completed a report in response to section 325 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2010, which concluded with two major recommendations to Congress, the first of which is to lift the suspension on A-76 competitions. This is the recommendation from the

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, opponents may argue that this is a burden to place on the DOD when they are seeking to insource, but I believe that ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is hardly a burden.

A formal, documented process which shows the cost savings will make sure that this is fair for the small businesses who depend on these contracts to thrive.

The American Legion approves of this proposed amendment. They stated:

The practice of converting functions and services that have

been performed by contractors with government employees

limits the amount of contracts that can go to the private

sector to stimulate and grow the veteran small business

industrial base. When the government takes a couple of

positions away from a small business, they are essentially

crippling the small business' ability to succeed in the

private sector. These practices primarily affect small

businesses, as large contractors are rarely affected by

insourcing policy because of their size and number of

employees.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also supported by the TRSA, MAPPS, the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, and the American Conservative Union.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements in support for the Record.

Submitted for the Record in Support of Jenkins Amendment #135

Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA): In its 1996

examination of the issue, the Center for Naval Analyses

likewise found benefits of competing work. The visibility and

identification of alternate providers were beneficial aspects

of the process identified by the Center. As a bottom line,

the Center for Naval Analyses determined a 30% average

savings resulted from this beneficial focus on competition,

with savings persisting over time. A leaner, more efficient

government is a worthy goal, and Rep. Jenkins (KS) Amendment

#135 is a means to achieve this goal.

MAPPS: We have seen insourcing take place beyond

`inherently governmental' activities such as commercial

activities like mapping and geospatial activities. The

Jenkins Amendment is the fairest approach by helping defend

business opportunities for the private sector, including

small business.

Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC): The Jenkins

Amendment is the `yellow pages test' personified. This

amendment 1) prevents the outright conversion of ``commercial

activities'' from private sector firms into DOD performance;

2) requires an official cost accounting be performed and

documented to identify whether DOD performance is more cost

effective than the private sector contractor; and 3) helps

protect private sector firms, including small business, from

losing contracts taken away unfairly by the Federal

government.

American Conservative Union (ACU): The Jenkins Amendment is

essential to stopping the government goliath from gobbling up

jobs that belong in the private sector. Rather than wringing

our hands over slow growth and the lack of good paying jobs,

we should start by protecting existing private sector jobs

from further `insourcing' by this Administration. This

amendment will help do that.

In closing, my amendment seeks to strike a balance. If the service is inherently governmental, it should be contracted out. If it is a commercial activity, the Federal Government owes it to the American taxpayer to get the best value, the most efficiency, and the best service available.

We owe this to our warfighters to ensure they are receiving the best possible services as they protect us. This cannot be assured without the use of a fair competitive processes. With a debt of more than $17 trillion, calls for reductions that will erode the end strength of our military and a stagnant private-sector job market, we must find ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies at DOD while boosting job creation in our communities.

This amendment is an opportunity to vote for small business, break up Federal monopolies, ensure more efficient services, empower the warfighter, and maintain funding for DOD.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following statements in support of Jenkins Amendment #15 to H.R. 4435.

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC): ``The

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC) has seen

the negative effect of Insourcing on veteran and service

disabled veteran small businesses over the last few years.

Veterans who have fought for this government should not have

to compete for business opportunities with the same

government who ordered them in harm's way.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI): A leaner, more

efficient government is a worthy goal. Competitive sourcing

provides important, demonstrable benefits for our business

workforce, our economy, and our government's efficiency. The

Competitive Enterprise Institute supports Rep. Lynn Jenkins'

insourcing-and-outsourcing-related amendment to achieve that

goal.