Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just say that I think the gentleman raises excellent points, and I urge the body to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. We discussed the nonproliferation programs earlier. It is still a critical issue. Former Soviet Union, now Russia and various other countries, have a large number of weapons of mass destruction. And it has been a very successful program. A bipartisan group of I think at least three, if not four Presidents who have worked on this program. It's important that we continue to cooperate with Russia to try to reduce proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's clearly in our interests. It is also in their interests. And it is a program that has worked and worked quite effectively. Whatever else Russia may be doing that we don't like and agree with, there is near-universal praise of the cooperation that we received on nonproliferation. I don't think it's wise to cut and eliminate this program. When the greatest threat that we face right now, as everyone will tell you, comes primarily from terrorist non-state actors, and the greatest threat that could happen there is if they got their hands on weapons of mass destruction, that's what we all worry most about in terms of the threat to the United States. A program that is making it more difficult for anyone, particularly terrorist groups, to get access to weapons of mass destruction, it's a program we certainly should not eliminate. I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time as well.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think the gentleman raises a very legitimate point that the exercise of strikes against terrorist targets does need a proper oversight. There are a number of ways in which I think we can have greater transparency in those decisions, frankly, whether they're signature strikes or against individuals. The bottom line is al Qaeda declared war against us in 1996. They are actively prosecuting that war against us from a number of different locations, many of which we don't have as much information as we would like, but clearly in federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, they are organizing training camps and they are actively pursuing us. Our Joint Special Operations Command is trying to keep track of those networks and keep them from attacking us. The ability to hit those training camps is an important part of protecting us from terrorist attacks. As General McChrystal said: It takes a network to beat a network. We need our network to have the ability to stop Al Qaeda's network. They declared war against us. They haven't changed their mind. It is still something that we need to be able to adequately protect this country against. This amendment unduly restricts our military's ability to protect this country.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on the amendment by Mr. Turner that addresses safety at defense nuclear facilities, that is considered in this en-block package. Much reckless damage has been done in this bill that weakens safety for workers at defense nuclear facilities and for the public. Among other changes, this hill blocks independent oversight by the Department of Energy and weakens the capacity of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This oversight is critical to keeping people safe, and we should not be cutting corners on safety. These changes have profound implications and risk imperiling the safety and lives of worker and the public. It also transfers responsibility for safety to the National Nuclear Security Administrator and to contractors, at a time when NNSA's undivided attention should be focused on maintaining a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent and on the pressing need to make much-needed progress on nuclear nonproliferation to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. For these reasons, Mr. Miller, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Waxman and I submitted two amendments to undo some of the damage that is done in this bill, and that would have preserved strong safety standards and independent oversight. My amendment would have restored the authority of the Secretary of Energy over the nuclear weapons complex and nonproliferation programs, whose control has been improperly severed without justification in this bill. However, the Rules Committee did not make these amendments in order, and so regrettably we are prevented from having this important debate on an issue that affects thousands of Americans who work or live near defense nuclear sites. Going forward, I will work with the Senate in conference to reverse many of these changes, to improve the outcome in our final bill. Specifically with regard to the amendment by Mr. Turner in this package, it makes several important improvements but does not go far enough and fail to fix significant problems in the bill. (1) This amendment does not specifically prohibit a reduction in the safety standards, both nuclear and non-nuclear, compared to the standards we have today for defense nuclear facilities. Nonnuclear safety standards, such as fire protection, quality assurance, chemical, are also important to the safety of defense nuclear facilities. (2) This amendment reaffirms that the decision on safety standards should be made by the Administrator for Nuclear Security, rather than by the Secretary of Energy and the Dept of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security, which would provide independent oversight of NNSA and the nuclear weapons complex health and safety and security operations. (3) The core concept of risk and cost-benefit should not be an element of adequate protection. Inserting cost requirements muddles the requirements for safety. At this time, cost is not an element of adequate protection for commercial nuclear power or for DOE's defense nuclear facilities. It also forces the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to pre- judge NNSA's action and decisions in responding to safety concerns, rather than allowing the Board to focus on identifying and raising safety concerns. (4) This requirement places obstacles in the Board's path and will make it more difficult to ensure adequate protection of public and worker safety. (5) These provisions would allow inconsistent safety standards. I am deeply concerned about these changes and hope to work with my colleagues to remedy the measures that unnecessarily put workers and the public at risk.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just point out that Mirandized or not, nobody has to speak, and a ton of information has come out of people after they were Mirandized. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Just to respond to the arguments of the gentleman from Texas, if an al Qaeda terrorist comes to the U.S., whether they're an illegal alien or not, frankly, we want them arrested, tried, and convicted. All we want to do is make sure that they actually are a terrorist before we do that, to have a process in place so that the President doesn't have that power to simply lock somebody up without due process and a trial. And then the argument about how we are bestowing upon illegal aliens constitutional rights. I've got bad news for the gentleman from Texas. We aren't bestowing anything. The United States Constitution bestows upon them those rights. The United States Constitution says any person in the U.S., not citizen, not legal, illegal, it doesn't matter. So if he has a beef, he has a beef with James Madison and everybody else who supported the Constitution. And we hear constantly from that side, strict interpretation, the Constitution must be adhered to. The Constitution says any person, not any lawful resident or any citizen. The United States Constitution clearly triggers that. We're not creating anything. In fact, the Gohmert amendment goes outside the Constitution by creating rights that aren't contemplated in here, separating people in this country in terms of who should get what rights. It's in the Constitution: any person. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I support the manager's amendment. I'm going to speak the balance of my time on the Smith-Amash amendment coming up later. There has been a great deal of distorted information going out. I want to take this opportunity to correct some of it. First of all, the Gohmert amendment that's being offered does not solve the problem; you will still be subject to military custody and indefinite detention. It is not clear on that point; it leaves open the possibility the President will maintain that authority, and that is what this debate should be all about. The President, right now, has the authority to go outside of the normal due process, constitutionally protected rights that are part of a court trial, and lock somebody up indefinitely or place them in military custody here in the U.S. That is an extraordinary amount of power to give the executive branch over individual freedom and liberty. I don't think it is necessary to keep us safe. Ten years of successfully prosecuting, convicting, and locking up terrorists under Article III courts has proven that point. But hands down, the dumbest set of arguments I've ever heard in debating has been circulating that somehow taking away this extraordinary power from the President rewards terrorists. I would like to remind everybody--and particularly Tea Party conservatives--that just because the government arrests you doesn't mean you're guilty. Under their thinking, basically, once the government says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and we shouldn't have a trial about it. So any effort to make sure that there's a process, to make sure that you actually are a terrorist becomes rewarding them. No; it's the process to make sure they are actually guilty. I cannot believe that Tea Party conservatives want to create a situation where when the government says you're guilty of a crime, that's it--no trial, no process, let's just lock you up and forget about it. That's why we have a court system. Let's have the real debate here. Does the President need this authority to keep us safe? I don't believe he does. Let's stop these ridiculous arguments about rewarding terrorists and have some respect for the Constitution and due process. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I can't recall in 16 years in Congress ever speaking against a rule. By and large, I have a great deal of respect for the fact that the majority has the right to set the terms of debate. I understand that we cannot endlessly debate every issue. You have to set a certain amount of parameters on it and move forward. But this rule goes so against the principles of how we are supposed to debate the Armed Services bill--and I've been privileged to be on that committee for 16 years--that I have to speak against this rule. It is not allowing us to have our position on the single most important issue that faces our country right now on the Armed Services Committee--the future of the war in Afghanistan. It is not allowing us to have our position debated and voted on on the floor. Now, I had an amendment on Afghanistan in the committee, which was not allowed either because of sequential referral rules. The committee gets all kinds of interesting sets of rules; and even though the base bill had a discussion of Afghanistan policy, my amendment was not allowed. So we said, okay, we'll have the debate on the floor. I worked with Mr. McGovern, and I worked with a variety of others. I very specifically told the Rules Committee that this is our amendment on Afghanistan, and it was not allowed in order. The amendment that was allowed in order by Ms. Lee simply says: get out. There is a huge distance between that policy and the policy of the majority, which is: as many troops for as long as possible. That is the position that Mr. McGovern and I put forward. I asked the Rules Committee to rule it in order, and they denied us the right to debate that amendment and to vote on it. It is the single most important issue facing our Armed Forces right now. The minority's position was excluded from this debate. Now, I can understand why. Close to 70 percent of the country wants us out of Afghanistan quicker. The majority's position is: more troops in Afghanistan for a longer period of time. Our position is quite the opposite: get us out as soon as we responsibly can; meet those obligations on counterterrorism, but do so without an extended troop presence. Our position is clearly where the country is. The majority didn't want to have to vote on that. It didn't want to have to have that debate, so they froze out our amendment. There are a lot of debates that when you're in the majority you'd just as soon not have. I understand that, but that's why it's a representative democracy, and that's why we have the rights of the minority. That's why, particularly on the Armed Services bill, I tell everyone that it's the most bipartisan committee in Congress. Let me just say that my beef is not with Chairman McKeon. He has worked with me in an open and honest manner, and he testified at the Rules Committee that my amendment should be ruled in order, and yet it was not. This is a critically, critically important issue. They have denied us the right to debate it. They have denied us the right to put our position out on the floor, to have a debate, and to have a vote on the war in Afghanistan, on the Armed Services bill. There is no more important issue. They were afraid of the debate--afraid that they're on the wrong side of the issue--so they denied the people's House the right to debate it and to vote on it. I can think of no greater reason to vote down a rule than that. It is a shameful way to deal with the Armed Services Committee bill. I urge this body to vote ``no.''