Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 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. SMITH of Washington. 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. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 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. SMITH of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 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. SMITH of Washington. 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. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

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