Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

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 yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McKEON. 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.

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

Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. McKEON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

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. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. McKEON. 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.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON

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

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

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for working with the staff to try to find a way to get this pilot program moving forward to help our parents in the military of those who have special needs. One of the things that is different between the military and other people is they are moved often, and they don't have time to go through all of the process to get all of the help they need. This would help them. It's a pilot program. I encourage the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, pursuant to H. Res. 276, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 276, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. McKEON. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend and colleague, Ranking Member Smith, and I and our staffs and others have been working together for a long time to try to come to agreement, and we have come to agreement on many points of this bill, but there are a few little differences here. His amendment would be a change and a weakening of existing law regarding restrictions relating to Guantanamo detainees. The National Defense Authorization Act of the year 2011, last year, prohibited the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, prohibited certain detainee transfers to countries overseas and prohibited the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. Ranking Member Smith amendment's would relax all of these restrictions. His amendment would allow Guantanamo detainees and other detainees to be transferred to the United States to face prosecution. I share his goal of seeking justice for victims of terrorism. However, I disagree that it's necessary to bring detainees to the United States to do so. I feel strongly that many Guantanamo detainees and other law of war detainees overseas should be prosecuted in the military commission system instead of bringing them into the United States. We currently have multimillion-dollar facilities ready to try detainees for their war crimes at Guantanamo that are sitting empty. Additionally, Guantanamo detainees who already have habeas protection would likely be granted further constitutional rights if brought onto U.S. soil. I strongly oppose Ranking Member Smith's amendment. There is no need to bring Guantanamo or other law of war detainees into the United States. And with our increasing concerns relating to the recidivist rates and activities of Guantanamo detainees, there is also no reason to loosen restrictions on transferring detainees overseas to countries where they are likely to return to the fight and threaten our men and women in uniform, U.S. citizens, or the U.S. homeland. I strongly oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will just make three brief points. Public disclosure of this personal information serves no purpose but to infringe on the rights and the privacy of civil servants. The second point, the data required is already being reviewed by the DOD Inspector General. There's no oversight value in making it publicly available. This will only hamper the DOD's efforts to recruit talented acquisition personnel. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).