Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose this amendment. This amendment, while disguised as a funding limitation, is really an attempt to put in place a major policy change that does not belong on our bill. It would essentially repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Let me be clear about what this amendment does. This amendment cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against terrorists who pose a threat to U.S. persons and interests. In my judgment, this amendment dangerously and erroneously assumes that the terrorist threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates ends once military operations end in Afghanistan. The terrorist threat today is no less real and, in many ways, is more daunting than it was when Congress overwhelmingly gave to President Bush and to President Obama the authority to protect us against those who want to do us harm. While some would argue that core al Qaeda has weakened, as events in Yemen and most recently Iraq and Syria have not shown, we know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are on the rise. This amendment would end our ability to conduct any operations against them at the end of this year--inconceivable. Core al Qaeda isn't the only threat. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, operating out of Yemen, is now considered to pose the greatest threat to U.S. citizens. This amendment would effectively eliminate the President's ability to address the threat or other emerging threats of AQ-affiliated and like- minded groups in north Africa, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere. If adopted, this would send terrorists the message that they just need to wait out the military authority to conduct counterterrorism operations, and then they are free to launch their attacks. The President himself, with all due respect, has reaffirmed the need for this continued authority and uses it, I can assure you, each and every day. It would be a mistake to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief and our military by removing this authority that protects U.S. citizens and our country from terrorist threats. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge others to do so as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Objection.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to accept your amendment. I yield to Mr. Visclosky, if you care to make any comments.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment is very vaguely crafted. It could have undue consequences. This very short amendment would make no funds available for ``the purpose of conducting combat operations in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014.'' Our bill contains funding for combat operations, not only for United States troops, but provides funding, equipment, lift, and sustainment of allies in the fight. Further, within the overseas contingency operations funding account-- when the OCO budget finally arrives, and we have been asking for it for months--there will be funding for combat operations for Afghanistan troops, and I suspect other troops, American troops, or international troops, through what we call the Afghan Security Forces Fund. I think there is a degree of inevitability that that will happen. Certainly we are going to have troops there I think for some time. This amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, as it attempts to tie the U.S. Government's hands in navigating the complicated situation we face related to threats emanating from Iraq. Let's be realistic. What this amendment would do is it would remove the possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstances, even if such engagement would be in the best interest of our country or allies. I strongly oppose the amendment. It doesn't make sense. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not actually opposed to the amendment, but I would like to talk about some of the assertions or allegations made by the gentleman, and I do that respectfully. I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I think there are some things that have been said that need to be replied to. The National Security Agency has participated in standards setting with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST. Of course, they would participate. Wouldn't we want our Nation's best cryptographers to help strengthen and secure the Internet? Their participation in setting standards is a no-brainer. You want the standards to be designed by the people who best understand the threat. They recommended the standards that they themselves use. As the National Security Agency stated on September 30 of last year: NSA is responsible for setting the security standards for systems carrying and transporting the Nation's most sensitive and classified information. We use cryptography and standards that we recommend, and we recommend the cryptographic standards we use. We do not make recommendations that we cannot stand behind for protecting national security systems and data. The activity of NSA in setting standards has made the Internet a far safer place to communicate and to do business. Indeed, our participation in standards development has strengthened the core encryption technology that underpins the Internet. The idea that NSA has deliberately sabotaged security is ridiculous. These folks know the threat we face and are helping to secure the Internet we all rely on so heavily. Again, I don't oppose the amendment, but the assertions need to be rebutted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the National Institute of Standards and Technology, aka NIST, has always enjoyed a good reputation. I served on the committee as a ranking member, and we heavily invested in the work they do. They enjoy an incredible reputation, and the suggestion that somehow they have lost their luster and their reputation is totally inappropriate, but let's move on. I support the bill with the reservations that I have made about some of the earlier assertions that have been basically within the media that have been pumped up, maligning not only NIST but the National Security Agency, which I think does an incredible job of protecting national security and all of us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank the gentleman for his incredible service on the House Armed Services Committee. May I say that the Defense Appropriations Committee has worked very closely with Chairman McKeon as well as with you, and as you know, our bill contains no funding for a future BRAC. I think all of us are still digesting the last BRAC and understand how expensive it was. I think it is important for you to know that we will repeat in our bill, through your amendment, what you put in the authorization bill, which would make it quite clear to the administration.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. Our Nation has invested millions of dollars in building state-of-the- art, humane, safe, and I may say, air-conditioned facilities to detain and prosecute the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo. In order to close that facility, we need to know what the President intends to do with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release but could not be tried. They had an opportunity to prosecute. What has been going on for the last 6 or 7 years? How will he ensure that the terrorists transferred overseas don't return to the fight? No way, apparently, he can reassure us of that because plenty have, and they have killed a lot of our soldiers in the process. And what will he do with terrorists we capture in the future, like the one we captured the other day in Libya? Well, we know what he does. He brings them back to this country, and they are prosecuted as common criminals, not as enemy combatants. He hasn't answered those questions, so our committee is just as adamant as the authorizing committee in opposition to this amendment. I strongly oppose this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let's remember the innocent people who were killed on September 11, 2001. How about justice for them? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. This is our Appropriations bill. There is nothing in this amendment about funding. You won't see one dollar sign or numeral. The goal was to change policy--that is why they are here--and the application of the law without the oversight of the authorizing committees. The authorizers ought to be dealing with this issue. It is my pleasure to yield such time as he may wish to consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary, to respond to this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4870, and that I may include tabular material on the same.