I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the…
I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time for consideration of amendment No. 50 be expanded by 10 minutes and that such time shall be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Michigan and myself.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act would affirm the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and the ability to go after terrorists who are part of or substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces.
I want to be very clear. This section does not alter the way the war on terror is currently being fought. Our members and staff have spent many weeks and months discussing the proposed text of section 1034 with Ranking Member Smith, his staff, outside experts, and legal scholars. In the end, we decided to use the same interpretation used by the Obama administration so as not to create any confusion or any doubt as to the legal authorities our military is currently operating under.
That is my priority first and always--to ensure our troops have Congress' express affirmation that they are fighting the war and risking their lives in our defense on solid legal ground.
While courts have accepted the administration's position, this could change any day. I am not willing to take that chance when it comes to something as critical as defending the United States against terrorism. As former CIA Director Michael Hayden said in a letter to me this week, section 1034 ``will send a powerful statement to those on whom we depend for our defense. Press on with our support. It also sends a powerful message to our adversaries in this conflict. The American people remain united in their resolve to see this through to success.'' I stand in strong opposition to this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to insert into the Record a letter from former Attorney General of the United States Michael B. Mukasey. Just one short thing. He says, ``Your new legislation would not confer new powers, but rather would add order and rationality to what has been an improvisational exercise overseen by judges who do not have the fact-finding.''
May 20, 2011.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The legislation you have proposed to
update and clarify the Authorization for the Use of Military
Force (``AUMF''), passed in September 2001 in the wake of the
attacks on the United States that occurred that month, is
both timely and constructive.
Since its passage, the AUMF has not been updated to reflect
the evolving nature and origin of the Islamist threat against
this country. Indeed, there are organizations, including the
Pakistani Taliban, that are arguably not within its reach,
and although we have fought and detained thousands of enemy
fighters captured not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also
in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan, and continue to detain
hundreds, the AUMF does not even refer to detention, let
alone prescribe standards for detention. As a result of this
inaction, we have simply allowed policy makers and judges to
improvise how we deal with the evolving terrorist threat and
how we treat those we encounter on the battlefield. The
increased use of remotely piloted aircraft--drones--has
allowed us to strike lethally, but because dead men tell no
tales and records destroyed in drone attacks cannot be
exploited, we may unconsciously be defaulting toward
strategies that do not allow us to act as effectively as we
might if we captured terrorists instead of killing them.
Your new legislation would not confer new powers, but
rather would add order and rationality to what has been an
improvisational exercise overseen by judges who do not have
the fact-finding resources of Congress, or the accountability
that comes from being responsible for protecting the national
security.
I cannot for the life of me understand the opposition to
this measure that is coming from people who profess to be
concerned with civil liberties and the rule of law, and yet
seem to prefer an improvisational arrangement that does not
make us face up to the fact that we are detaining people. If
anything, such a system creates the occasion for offloading
our detention responsibility to countries that will treat
detainees much less humanely than we would, or killing
instead of capturing, which can hardly be said to present a
humane alternative or one governed by legal principles.
I would welcome the opportunity to provide whatever help
and input I can.
Yours sincerely,
Michael B. Mukasey.
I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert another letter into the Record. This is from General Michael Hayden, former CIA director. I will quote just a part. ``Those whom we have charged with protecting us need clarity in both their mission and in the legal underpinning that justifies it. This act does exactly that.''
24 May 2011.
Hon. Howard P. McKeon,
House of Representatives, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to offer my support and,
frankly, my thanks for the language in the National Defense
Authorization Act that reaffirms and updates the language in
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
In 2007, speaking to the representatives of our European
allies, I attempted to outline for them how we at the CIA--
and, indeed, how we throughout the American security
community--viewed our task operationally, ethically and
legally: winning a conflict against al Qa'eda and its
affiliates, a conflict that was global in its scope and which
therefore required us to take the fight to this enemy.
Two Presidents, the Congress and the Courts have affirmed
that this is indeed true, but this is a different kind of
conflict, against a non-state adversary, and there are those
who would cloud this question and claim that the laws at
armed conflict do not apply and that we should confine our
response to other (e.g., law enforcement) models. As time has
passed since 9-11, these arguments have become more
commonplace and frankly more confusing to those on whom we
depend for our safety.
Those whom we have charged with protecting us need clarity
in both their mission and in the legal underpinning that
justifies it. This Act does exactly that, in unambiguous
language, adding yet another Congressional sanction to
Presidential statements that a state of armed conflict exists
between the United States and al Qa'eda, and its affiliates.
The Act also reaffirms that activities routinely incident to
such conflicts--like detention of enemy combatants for the
duration of the conflict--are inherently justified.
This will send a powerful statement to those on whom we
depend for our defense: ``Press on with our support!'' it
also sends a powerful message to our adversaries in this
conflict: ``The American people remain united in their
resolve to see this through to success.''
Yours Sincerely,
Michael V. Hayden
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert at this time an editorial from the Los Angeles Times into the Record, and I will read just a little bit of it:
``The New York Times sees the term `associated forces' as so vague that it could include `anyone who doesn't like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.' That is an exaggerated, if not paranoid, characterization of the language.''
[From the Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2011]
A War Against Anyone Who Doesn't Like the U.S.?
(By Michael McGough)
Language in a new defense bill could authorize the military
``to pursue anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth,
from now to the end of time.'' So says a New York Times
editorial, but the issue is not so-clear cut.
New language contained in a defense bill does tweak the
Authorization for Use of Military Force approved by Congress
after 9/11, but it does so to shore up existing policies, not
to license a broader war on terror.
What's the difference between the two documents?
The AUMF, as it's called, authorized the president to ``use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons.''
The House Defense Authorization bill says this: ``As the
United States nears the 10th anniversary of the attacks on
September 11, 2001, the terrorist threat has evolved as a
result of intense military and diplomatic pressure from the
United States and its coalition partners. However, Al Qaeda,
the Taliban, and associated forces still pose a grave threat
to U.S. national security. The Authorization for Use of
Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address
the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.''
The New York Times sees the term ``associated forces'' as
so vague that it could include ``anyone who doesn't like
America, even if they are not connected in any way with the
2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.'' That
is an exaggerated, if not paranoid, characterization of the
language which seems designed to cover groups like Al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula.
There is one problematic section of the authorization:
language saying that the president has the authority ``to
detain certain belligerents until the termination of
hostilities.'' This language is a significant departure from
the AUMF, though it comports with President Obama's view of
his authority to hold ``the worst of the worst''
indefinitely.
The real news about the language of the defense bill is
that it codifies Obama's view of what he can do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
May I ask how much time remains?
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
I thank the gentleman for yielding. There has been no Member of Congress more active in promoting the space enterprise than my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher. He has also been a leader in ensuring U.S. space technology is not transferred to China. We share the same belief that a strong space industrial base is in the national security and economic interests of the United States, and that there is an opportunity to revise U.S. satellite export control policy. However, space technology is a U.S. technological crown jewel. Any revisions to our satellite export control policy must account for the national security risks of removing satellites and related components from the United States Munitions List.
The Defense Department has begun a risk assessment and about 2 weeks ago provided Congress with an interim report, but their work is not yet complete. The interim report suggests that some satellite components could be removed from the U.S. Munitions List without posing an unacceptable security risk, but it also concludes that several components are critical to U.S. national security and should remain on the U.S. Munitions List.
Before making significant changes in legislation, I would prefer that the committee do its due diligence. We need to allow the department to finish its risk assessment and conduct oversight hearings and briefings on this issue.
I am committed to working with the gentleman from California and my ranking member to review our Nation's satellite export control policies and identify policy recommendations that would facilitate greater export opportunities for our aerospace companies while also preserving our national security.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Flake's amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Arizona's amendment would eliminate resources for the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund. I commend Mr. Flake for taking a serious issue, namely, deficit reduction. However, his amendment could do serious harm to our national security. I believe the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund can be an important tool for the Defense Department to help keep America safe.
We set this fund up at the start of the process so that we wouldn't be tied to the President's budget request so that we could, the members of the committee that have the expertise, move the funding around to more important items. Resources from this fund will be used to power programs vital to our homeland defense such as Navy shipbuilding, strike aircraft, and ballistic missile defense, systems that the members of the Armed Services Committee agreed were not sufficiently funded by the President's budget. As you know, there are no earmarks in this bill.
We have worked very hard to move away from the system that you worked so hard to eliminate, and we have done a great job on that. But we do not feel bound by the President's request that we will just be a rubberstamp committee to just do what he expects us to do.
Madam Chair, I must repeat my concerns about stripping money from our troops and sending it back to the
Treasury. I know how important deficit reduction is. We do need to focus on that, but we have stressed very strongly, we will look at everything that the Pentagon spends, we will go through it with a fine- tooth comb, but the money we save we know we will put to areas that the Quadrennial Defense Review and our independent panel showed that we need just to bring us up to what our defense should have been 20 years ago.
I strongly oppose any amendment that would reduce the defense top line. And while I support Mr. Flake, as we all endeavor to get our spending under control, I must oppose this amendment, as it would strip our fighting force of the tools they need to get the job done and to keep America safe.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield?
This is on page 692, ``Merit-Based or Competitive Decisions. A decision to commit, obligate, or expend funds referred to in the second sentence of subsection (a) with or to a specific entity shall
``(1) be based on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of'' the company's sections and
``(2) comply with other applicable provisions of law.''
And if we find any Member pressuring the Department of Defense to use any funds other than to comply with competitive merit-based solutions, we will go after them. We have a strong oversight committee that will do this.
I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
In the time I've been in Congress, as the gentleman said, our military has basically been cut in half, and yet we are fighting two wars and half of a third. And Ronald Reagan said that during his lifetime he never saw us get into a war that we were overprepared for. We cut back after every war. This is the first time I have seen us trying to cut back during wartime.
I ask that we defeat the gentleman's amendment. As well intended as it is, we need the money for the defense of this Nation.
Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
When I conclude my remarks, Madam Chair, this will conclude our work for the day. We will come in and, my understanding is, start at 10 in the morning. We have seven more amendments to address in the morning plus four en bloc amendments.
I would just like to, at this time, thank all of those Members who have participated. Especially I want to thank Ranking Member Smith and all of our staff. They have put in long, hard hours and great work. I think we have come out with, so far, a very good bill. I look forward to finishing it up tomorrow morning.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.