Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. McKEON. 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.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McKEON. 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. McKEON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. 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. McKEON. 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).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Flake's amendment.

Mr. McKEON. May I ask how much time remains?

Mr. McKEON. 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.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. I have no further requests for time, I encourage the acceptance of the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 5 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 82 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority and the minority. I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. McKEON. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 36 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. McKEON. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 34 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.