Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. We are not ignoring any of that. All of those issues are things we discussed in the Armed Services Committee, are very much aware of and very concerned about. But the bottom line is, as my colleagues have pointed out, regrettably, Pakistan is in a part of the world where we have national security interests. Pakistan has, at various times, provided critical support to allow us to get the supplies we need to our troops in Afghanistan. They have also assisted us in going after various terrorist groups inside of Pakistan. That help has been maybe 2 percent of what we would like it to be, but that 2 percent, regrettably, is help we cannot turn away. It is a very problematic relationship. I think the gentleman who offered this amendment described that quite well. But we cannot afford to simply cut it off because of how important that region is to our national security interests. His amendment would do that. And it is bad policy for this country, bad policy for our troops, and bad policy for our national security interests. Therefore, I would urge us to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as well. As was discussed earlier, we certainly have problems with our relationship with Pakistan. We want to make sure that we continue to put the pressure on them to improve that relationship. Opening up these supply lines are critical to our troops. I think it is a minimum requirement that we should ask, and the gentleman's amendment is very well thought out. It is the appropriate response for dealing with our difficult ally. As Mr. Rohrabacher mentioned earlier, certainly there is much that Pakistan does that causes us trouble. But they are a country that we need to work with if we're going to properly contain the al Qaeda and terrorist threat that comes from that region of the world. I think the gentleman from Virginia's amendment strikes that balance just right, and I urge this body to support it.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not oppose military commissions. I think military commissions are an important tool, particularly when you are talking about people who are captured overseas, potentially in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia. I agree with the gentleman in that there are instances when the evidence necessary requires a military commission. Yet the problem with this amendment is it says it has to be a military commission, that Article III courts are never an option. We have an extensive history of capturing terrorists overseas, of bringing them back to the United States, of trying them in Article III courts, and of convicting them and putting them in prison. We've done that a number of different times, and it is an option that should be on the table. I cannot support taking that option completely away under any circumstances, because there are a couple of problems with military commissions. They are necessary for many of the reasons that Mr. Rooney stated. However, they are also relatively new. We had some military commissions during World War II--I believe just one for a particular group of German spies who were here in the U.S. We've done a couple since then, but they are untested, and there will undoubtedly be appeals. The beauty of the Article III courts is you have 230 years of history. My math may be off a little bit there, but you have over 200 years of history. Let's put it that way. It's well developed, and you know what's coming, and you can prepare the evidence accordingly. We don't know what's going to come from a military commission. The second problem with the military commissions is that our overseas allies are not as fond of them as we are, and it may inhibit our ability to get them to turn terrorists over to us for prosecution if they know they have to go to military commissions. This amendment doesn't make any sense. To take Article III courts completely off the table is taking an option away from the President and from this country to properly protect us. There are going to be instances when we are going to want to use that tool and other instances when we will want to use the military commissions, and this amendment takes away that option in a way that, I believe, will hamper national security. It will limit our options for how to prosecute terrorists. I will say this again, and I will emphasize this: we seem to have totally lost track of the fact that the Department of Justice, the FBI, our Article III courts have been one of the most important tools in successfully stopping the terrorists--over 400 tried, convicted, and locked up for life. That is a very effective tool. The FBI knows how to investigate crimes. It knows how to interrogate suspects. It can do the job. Why would we take that tool in our toolbox and throw it away? It doesn't make sense. For that reason, I have to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rooney has the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Three quick points. I think the difference here and the reason that I drafted my amendment to say ``just in the U.S.,'' I think is a legitimate point. Overseas we do not have the same control over the investigatory process that we have here domestically. There's a clear difference between dealing with someone here domestically. That's why in the last 10 years we haven't done anything other than try people here in the U.S. under Article III courts. We haven't needed military commissions. That's why I think we should take that power away from the President because it's an extraordinary amount of power to give him that isn't necessary. Overseas they are, in fact, taking away the options in this amendment and saying it has to be military tribunals. They are also saying that Article III courts are inadequate to do that when, in fact, they've done it repeatedly. The people who committed the bombing against the World Trade Towers in 1993 were captured overseas, brought back, and tried here in domestic courts. Article III courts work sometimes in these incidents. Their amendment takes those options away completely. I also point out that Guantanamo Bay is not an enormous facility. They already have 40 people waiting in line for military tribunals. Many more will backlog that. But I want to come back to my amendment that will come up later. Domestically, we have proven that Article III courts are more than adequate. Overseas, we've proven that we need multiple options. So this amendment sort of is in reverse of what the facts bear out that we should be doing, and I urge opposition to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Without question, the F 35 has been a troubled program. It's been more expensive than we would like it to be and has underperformed. It is getting better, as the chairman mentioned. There are a number of problems with this amendment, however. First of all, in replacing the F 35B--that's the Marine Corps variant; it's a vertical takeoff plane. I know Mr. Kline will do a much better job of explaining this in a moment than I will. The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force. They need to insert themselves. That's why they need a vertical takeoff plane. The F 18 that is proposed to replace it is not a vertical takeoff. It is not a replacement for the F 35B. Second, the F 35 is a vastly more capable plane than the F 18. It is all about stealth and being able to get in on targets. The F 18 cannot get to the areas that the F 35 could get to to deal with adversaries like Iran or North Korea and those surface-to-air missiles. It is a much more capable plane. If we cut this variant, we will also jeopardize the entire program, not just this variant. Our foreign partners are likely to withdraw. It will undermine our per-unit cost to the point where sustaining the program will be very difficult. It is unfortunate at this point the degree to which we have to rely on this program. But it's going to be 95 percent of our fighter attack aircraft fleet in 10 years. We have to make it work. Therefore, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the V 22 was a troubled program. Certainly before it was finally developed, it went through a number of difficulties. But as the gentleman mentioned in offering the amendment, it has gotten over those difficulties; and, in fact, has been deployed in Afghanistan for a very long time. I was in Afghanistan, and I rode on a V 22. And so it obviously can perform in desert environments. I was down in the Helmand province, and it is a very capable plane. Again it has to do with the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' capabilities. They are an expeditionary force. The vertical takeoff and landing ability of the V 22 is critical to what they do. As Mr. Bartlett pointed out, it has longer range and greater capacity, and properly deployed and properly used, can actually make it cheaper than buying more helicopters that are necessary to accomplish that mission. It is a necessary program, certainly necessary for the Marine Corps. I would urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am going to have to be quick because, first of all, I want to address the issue about the so-called ``open mic incident.'' I do thank Mr. Turner for accurately describing what happened, but he is wrong on one thing, which is that the President did, in fact, respond as to what he meant. He sent a letter to Mr. Turner on April 13, explaining what he meant.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I don't have any time. I'm sorry. I don't have any time. I can't yield.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I read the letter.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. What it says is basically what is obvious to everybody, which is that the President has a different opinion. The President believes that Russia can be a partner to reduce the missile threat and that he can possibly work with them to develop missile defense systems that they don't feel threatened by. It's no big secret. It's what the President has said. Generally, the other side doesn't want to have anything to do with Russia--okay, fine--but they are a factor. The President wants to figure out some way in which we can work with someone who is no longer our enemy to reduce this threat. There is no great mystery here. That's what he is talking about. I want to support Mr. Polis' amendment as well and say that the problem is that we are going to need the ground-based missile system. It's funded in the President's budget to a certain amount of money, but because it has been missing so often, there was a limited amount of money that you can spend testing this. It's not ready. They're spending money testing it. They just don't need this additional money.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. So we're not saying that we don't need missile defense. We're spending money on it. We're spending a lot of money on it, and we're going to develop that. Then the point on Russia is very simple and straightforward in that the President would like to negotiate an understanding with Russia so that we are not in conflict with one another. There are many who don't want us to have that conversation, and I believe Mr. Turner is in that camp. The President would like to have that conversation. That's all he meant, and he explained it in this letter.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I wanted to take this moment while we have a little extra time on this one to talk about Afghanistan and to express our opinions since we weren't able to get our amendment ruled in order. It's important for all the Members on the floor to understand that the base bill has language on Afghanistan, and the base bill calls for us keeping 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 and then makes unspecified requests to make sure that we have sufficient troops to accomplish a series of missions after 2014. It very aggressively calls for a large troop presence in Afghanistan for an extended period of time. I, and many Members on this side of the aisle as well as some on the other, oppose that. We do not think that keeping that many troops in Afghanistan for that long is in the best interest of our national security or our country, and the bulk of the country agrees with us on that. Unfortunately, we weren't offered the opportunity to offer our amendment that offers what I think is a better approach. I am also going to reluctantly oppose Representative Lee's amendment, the only alternative we were given, which is to pull us out as fast as we safely and responsibly can. Representative Lee's amendment does not allow us to maintain any sort of counterterrorism mission, which I do think is critically important. The amendment we wanted to offer was to put us on a more aggressive, quicker drawdown pace to speed up the transition to the Afghan forces for security while enabling us, with a relatively small number of troops, to maintain that counterterrorism issue. We have trained over 350 Afghan national security forces. They have taken over responsibility for an increasing number of provinces and districts throughout the country and for an increasing number of security responsibilities. It is time to make that transition. My objection to the base bill is it doesn't give us the opportunity to make that transition because it mistakenly believes that the key to Afghan stability is keeping as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible. Having that large of a foreign military force--as we have seen, there's been a huge increase in attacks by Afghan forces on U.S. forces. We had the Koran burning incident. We had the horrible incident of a soldier going off and allegedly killing 16 or 17 civilians in Afghanistan. Our presence at this point, in and of itself, is destabilizing. And what we want is a responsible drawdown of that force. We don't want to do it hastily in a way that jeopardizes the mission or jeopardizes Afghanistan. That was the purpose of the amendment that I, along with Congressman McGovern and others, authored. And it is unfortunate that for reasons I cannot understand, the majority refused to allow us the opportunity to debate that. Now, as I said earlier, I speculated that part of the reason is because they know that the American people agree with us. It's a debate they don't want to have and a vote they don't want to take. And I respect that. A number of my colleagues have joked with me over the years, The toughest part of this job is voting; that's when people actually see where you stand.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 1 minute. There have been many times where I wished I didn't have to do that, but it comes with the job and particularly on something as important as Afghanistan. I don't think anyone would dispute that the most important thing about this bill, the Armed Services Committee bill, this year is what's going on in Afghanistan. The single most important issue, and we're denied the opportunity to have a vote on what I think is a much better plan, rather, leaving in place in the base bill a call for having 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014. It is very simple: the majority is in favor of a larger troop presence for a longer period of time. We are in favor of a smaller troop presence for a shorter period of time. I believe it's the better policy. I regret that we will not have the opportunity to vote on it; but as we go into conference, I will strenuously argue this point. It is a major flaw, I believe, in an otherwise very strong bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just say that no part of the President's plan calls for having at least 68,000 troops through December 31, 2014. If you had struck that out of the bill, that would change things. But having that number in there makes an enormous difference. And with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?