Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, the previous amendment doesn't say anything about pre- 2001. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash) correctly stated, it says, If you have constitutional rights, you have them. It doesn't say anything about restoring them prior to 2001. It doesn't address the issue, and I apologize. I do not question Mr. Gohmert's motives. I suspect that's what he wanted to do. That's not what his amendment does. If you want to protect the rights of people in this country, then you need to support this amendment, the Smith amendment. And this is a very important debate. Back in 2001, we passed the authorization for the use of military force. Post-9/11, it made sense, I think, to be careful, to give the President the power he needed to protect us. But what we've learned in the last 10 years is one power that he does not need is the power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people here in the United States. Our justice system works. The Department of Justice works. The FBI works. They have arrested, convicted, and locked up over 400 terrorists and have gotten all kinds of actionable intelligence out of them.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield myself an additional 15 seconds. This is an extraordinary amount of power to give to the President, to give the government the power to take away an individual's rights and lock them up with nothing more than one quick court hearing, without the due process rights protection in our Constitution. It's not needed. This is our opportunity to repeal it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would point out that our Justice Department has arrested countless terrorists before they act by discovering their plots and stopping them. That is what they're designed to do, and it's what they've done quite effectively. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I point out that only Members of Congress are allowed to sponsor amendments. Nobody outside of that has sponsored this. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would like to submit for the Record a statement from retired JAG officers explaining the difference in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Retired JAGs Speak Out Against NDAA Misinformation (For Immediate Release: May 17,. 2012) Washington, DC--In response to comments from members of Congress suggesting that the Smith-Amash Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2013 Fiscal Year would give suspected terrorists more rights than members of the U.S. armed forces, Rear Admiral john D. Hutson (ret.) and Donald Guter, former Judge Advocate Generals of the Navy, and Thomas Romig, former Judge Advocate General of the Army, issued the following statement: ``It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our military justice system to suggest that by providing terrorism suspects with Article III civilian court trials, they would be getting `better rights' than our own military. Our courts-martial system under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has a special, constitutionally recognized role in maintaining good order and discipline in the military. It is not designed anyone other than members of the U.S. armed forces or those accompanying them in the field. The Smith-Amash amendment is a modest, bi-partisan approach to protecting constitutional values that ought to draw support from all members of Congress, including those who support our military justice system.'' I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'll be very brief. For the last 20 years, every single chief of Naval operations, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and other military officers have supported this treaty because they recognize that it gives us greater protections in an increasingly complicated world. So I would urge opposition to this amendment that would undermine that Law of the Sea. It does not turn over the power to the United Nations. It creates a treaty that gives us a framework for dealing with what is an increasingly difficult set of issues. China, absent this treaty, could, in fact, make greater claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere, and we would not have the same amount of power to oppose them. So please oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner). I'm anxious to hear about the secret deal to remove troops from Europe.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I actually oppose this amendment for reasons completely opposite of what the previous opposition speaker opposed them for. I believe that part of the solution to stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is to negotiate with them. The President is currently doing that as part of the Six Party Talks. Now, none of that's going to work without very, very aggressive economic sanctions. I'm very pleased in last year's bill we were able to put in aggressive economic sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. We need those sanctions. Those sanctions are what has driven these talks. Unfortunately, I support just about everything in this amendment except for the part that requires bilateral negotiations. It would basically require us at this point to set up a separate set of negotiations apart from the Six Party Talks and would actually undermine the very negotiations that are going on right now. I think it's very well intentioned. I agree that negotiations have to be part of that. It's just, given the negotiations that are going on, requiring bilateral negotiations at this point would undermine that very effort. And, therefore, for very different reasons I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. This is a classic ``cutting off your nose to spite your face'' amendment. We are all very upset by the fact that Russia continues to be supportive of the Assad regime, but cutting off funds from the Defense Threat Reduction Program is not going to hurt Russia; it's going to hurt us. The purpose of the Defense Threat Reduction Program, as the name would imply, is to reduce the threat. This was part of the broad nonproliferation effort, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to set up a cooperative working agreement to try to control the weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, chemical--that Russia has. This is a critically important program to stop proliferation and to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction don't wind up in the hands of terrorists and that they are actually controlled. So, as much as I want to see Russia change its policy towards Syria, cutting off this program to try to force it is not a good idea, and I urge opposition to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is precisely the wrong place to do it. It really isn't, again, punishing Russia. We are the ones who are most concerned about these weapons getting out and getting into the wrong hands. Yes, it requires Russia's cooperation. It is cooperation that we strived hard to get, so to cut it off at this point--to lose that cooperation--places us in greater jeopardy by making weapons of mass destruction more difficult to control. So, again, I would urge opposition. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, that all sounds good; but the one thing that direct solar apparently can't do is actually generate energy and generate electricity. That's the problem with including it in the program for alternative energy. It may well be a very good thing, and it may be something we ought to do; but to say that it's going to count as an alternative energy source when it's not actually an energy source is what we object, to pure and simply; and it does not fit in this category. That's why I join the gentlelady from Guam in opposing the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the committee members, and the staff who, once again, did an outstanding bipartisan job in putting together this bill. One of the paramount duties of our Congress is to provide for the common defense and, most importantly, make sure that our men and women who serve us in uniform have all the support they need to fulfill the missions that we ask them to do. I believe this bill meets that standard. I thank the chairman for his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion with me and my staff. I believe we have upheld the tradition of this committee and have shown that Congress can, in fact, work together to get things done, and I always appreciate that opportunity. Most importantly, this bill prioritizes supporting the warfighter. We still have around 70,000 U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting the war. We need to make sure they have the equipment and support they need to do that. I believe this bill meets that mission. This bill also recognizes the threats we face and adequately funds the need to meet those threats, most importantly, the threat from terrorist and nonstate actors like al Qaeda and their affiliates. We have strong support for the Special Operations Command as well as for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to make sure that we can continue to defeat the terrorist networks that would threaten us. Those are the top priorities. We also make sure that our troops get the 1.7 percent pay raise they need and get the support for both the individual troops and for their families that are necessary to continue to serve us. We must always remember that we have an all-volunteer military. We are dependent upon the willingness of people to volunteer. We must make sure that we honor that service. We have done that, and we have done it quite well, to the point where we have the finest military the world has ever seen, and the support from this Congress is critical to maintaining that. While there is much in this bill that I think is excellent and that I support, I will note just one caution as we go forward: Our bill is $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. It is over what the Senate is going to mark up. At some point, we are going to have to rationalize that and figure out how to make our national security strategy and our defense budget work in an era where our budgets are coming down. We have a sizable deficit, and I believe it's critical that we put together a strategic plan and plan for the future. It's not enough to go year by year. We don't want to wake up 2 or 3 years from now and find out that we've funded more programs than we can afford to complete. We need a strategic vision, and we're going to have to work to get to that number and get to that cooperation with the Senate. I also want to emphasize the importance of an amendment that I plan to offer that would change how we handle indefinite detention in military custody. I do not believe the executive branch should have that power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people captured or arrested here in the U.S. I believe the United States Constitution and our due process system provides plenty of protections. We have arrested and convicted over 400 terrorists using that system. We have not used the indefinite detention in military custody power given to the President, and we have been able to protect ourselves. It's important that we protect the Constitution and that amendment is ruled in order, so I would hope that the full House would pass it. I am very pleased with the bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his outstanding work in making sure that this bill supports the men and women in uniform who so bravely serve us. I believe it meets that objective. And I appreciate working with Mr. McKeon, all of his staff, and all of the members of the committee. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. We do not have further speakers at this point, and I believe we're prepared to close. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, I want to again thank the chairman and thank the folks who worked on this bill. As you see from the debate, there are a lot of controversial issues that wound up in this bill, issues of enormous importance, from our policy towards countries like Afghanistan and Iran, to civil liberties and on. It takes a great deal of work on behalf of the staff and a great deal of commitment to a bipartisan spirit to work through that, have fair debates, have the votes, carry on, and always remember that underlying it all is making sure that we fund the defense of this country, and we fund the troops who are tasked with protecting it. I think our committee and our staff do an outstanding job of dealing with those challenges. I want to talk again about the indefinite-detention issue. The gentleman who spoke a couple of minutes ago raised some concerns, and I think it gives us a pretty good preview of what some of the opposition to that amendment is going to be tomorrow. I just want to counter those arguments. The first notion that ``additional rights'' are being granted as a result of this is quite simply absurd. What this says is: the due process that's in the Constitution is what you get if you are arrested. What we have done in this body is empowered the President to get rid of those rights in certain cases and indefinitely detain people without charge in many instances and without trial. What we're saying is that it is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and it is not necessary. President Bush did not use that authority for the last 5 years he was in the administration, President Obama has not used it, and yet we have protected this country. To give away that basic due- process right, if you are arrested--that you have the basic rights in the Constitution--is no small thing, and it is not necessary. Lastly, I want to talk about this argument that somehow this will incentivize terrorists to come to the U.S. I've heard a lot of arguments. That has got to be the dumbest one I've ever heard. First of all, it is sad to say there are many terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda who are trying very hard to come here and inflict harm on us right now. That's why we have all kinds of efforts in this bill and in Homeland Security to stop them. They are not going to become any less incentivized to do that whether this bill passes or not. Sadly, we must deal with that. Second of all, they are certainly not going to want to come here and operate as opposed to operating in someplace outside of the U.S. where we don't have as much reach. That argument has nothing to do with this amendment. This is a very straightforward argument I think we should have. Is this a power that the President needs to have to keep us safe? It is not. It is undeniably an enormous amount of power to go outside of the Constitution, to go outside of due process, and empower the executive branch to indefinitely detain somebody without the due process that we've developed over the course of 230 years. That is an enormous step for this Congress to take. We have to ask ourselves the question: Is it necessary? It clearly is not. We have arrested, prosecuted, and stopped countless terrorist attacks over the course of the last 8 years. Over 400 terrorists were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in this country, such as Abjulmutallab, who was the underwear bomber in Detroit in December of 2008. He was stopped, arrested, interrogated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. We have a justice system and a law enforcement system in this country that is more than adequate to meet the threat. We do not have to undermine the Constitution to do that. That will be the core of the argument. I look forward to those who are opposed to it arguing why that doesn't keep us safe. I think it will be a great debate, and I'll urge people to vote for it. But I hope we'll have that public debate on the floor tomorrow. It is an incredibly important issue no matter which side of it you're on. It is an important issue that is worthy of this full House having a full and robust debate, and I look forward to doing that tomorrow. Again, I recognize all of the important things that are in this bill. I'm confident when we come to the amendment process, we will have a bill worthy of support of this House, and I will then urge Members to support it so we can fund the defense of this country and fund the brave men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces, and make sure they have all the support they need to do what we ask them to do in defending this country. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. There are no additional rights contained in this amendment. We have the rights that are in the Constitution that are the due process. The gentleman's comment that additional rights are being granted by this is patently false. The Constitution is clear. It provides all persons in the United States the same rights. All we are doing is going back to the Constitution and repealing the authority of the President to circumvent those rights and reduce them. That's a very critical point that we will talk further about tomorrow. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.