Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'm curious about the ``we're not actually going to fund it out of DOD, we will fund the money somewhere else in conference'' argument because it's funded out of DOD right now. Unless this is now being offered as a sense of Congress with no money attached to it, in a minute I would be curious to hear exactly how that works. But beyond that, this is not what is in the best interests of the children of our servicemembers. To give them a $7,500 voucher to go get special needs education is a license for them not to get the education they need. As everyone in this body knows, the costs of special needs children can sometimes be as much as $100,000 a year to our public schools. There are some children out there who have some very, very strong needs. Fortunately, because of the IDEA, the public schools in this country are 100 percent obligated to meet that need. Talk to any school superintendent who has to deal with this, it's an enormous cost, but it's also an enormous benefit to these children. They have to meet those needs, and if they don't, it is precisely the parent who has the law on his or her side to say the public school must meet that requirement. If you give them a $7,500 voucher and send them off to whatever private school is out there, they are not subject to those same requirements. They do not have to meet that same dollar value. What you are doing is you are undermining the education for these special needs children in a way that could be very detrimental to our families. Now, we had a very long debate on this in the Armed Services Committee. This amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in committee for a variety of different reasons. I want to make it clear, it was stated throughout, how can you not care about the children of our servicemembers, and more than one Member on our side said, we do. This is not what this is about. We absolutly care about the children of our servicemembers. We want them to get the best education possible. But taking special needs families, giving them a $7,500 voucher and sending them out into the public and private school world and saying, good luck, is not what is in the best interests of parents with special needs children. It simply isn't. They are not getting the type of protections that they have under the law if they go out in that situation. I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I have no speakers at this time; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I'm happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this may not be the best way to get at this problem, but this is a problem. There is nothing wrong with competition, but what's happening right now with a lot of DOD contracts is not competition. The DOD has gone in, in a very arbitrary way, picked large contractors from a long ways away, and not even allowed, in many instances, local contractors to compete for that work. This is a very real problem. It's a bipartisan problem. We had a Republican Member testify before the Armed Services Committee about his concerns about this. They are driving work away from local contractors and away from local workers, not allowing them to compete for that work by showing a bias in favor of a large, one-size-fits-all contractor. Not good for the Department of Defense. Also, with all of our bases, the local community is a critical support structure for that base. Once you take that out, once you take local workers, local contractors out of the equation, it makes it that much more difficult to get the local community to give the base the support that it deserves. This is not competition as it's currently constructed. I applaud the gentleman for offering his amendment. I urge support, and I urge that this committee look more closely at this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Throughout the bill--and we have an amendment coming up after this that is the same sort of thing. There is a lot of money in the defense budget that gets appropriated, and then for whatever reason we find out we can't actually build what it was intended for, and then we just hold on to the money because we might use it later. That is not an efficient way to spend money. And I'm sorry. The deficit does matter to our national security. As has been quoted earlier, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that our deficit, in fact, is the number one threat to our national security. So we have to save money where we can. Clearly, this is a place where we can save money. I urge support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition. I am not opposed, but I am happy to yield 30 seconds of that time to Mr. McKeon to finish his statement.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, this is a very frustrating debate because nobody's questioning the importance of missile defense. There is $1.1 billion in this bill precisely for this missile defense. The reason that funds have been cut for this program isn't because it's less of a priority; it's because the program wasn't working as it was intended. As I have discussed earlier, this happens frequently in the Defense Department. We don't get a program up to where it's supposed to be. We are appropriating money, authorizing money, in this bill that cannot be spent not because we simply want to cut it because we don't have a priority but because it isn't working at the pace that we expected it to be. We are giving $100 million that isn't needed even to continue the program. We need to be more fiscally responsible with our money. We support this program. We support $1.1 billion.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The gentleman from Virginia is right, it would be easier to try them under military commissions. In fact, it would be easier not to try them at all. It would be easier just to hold them forever. Why bother with the trials. Why bother with the trials: because in over 200 years of history in this country, we do have a fair justice system and that does matter. Military generals will tell you that Guantanamo Bay has been a major, major problem for them in the field, a major recruiting tool for our enemies because it undermines our values. Having a justice system that we can depend on matters. I trust everyone on that side would agree on that, that it is not just a matter of what is easiest to hold them. If that was the case, we wouldn't have courts at all; we wouldn't have military tribunals; we wouldn't have anything. We would just hold them. So it does matter. I will also point out that, yes, the gentleman was acquitted of a whole bunch of charges. He was also convicted and sentenced to life in our Article III courts. So the system worked in that case. We have over 200 years of history with our Article III courts; and they have worked. By the way, the Constitution, as ruled by the court, applies in Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus was attached. It does apply there. They don't suddenly get constitutional rights coming here that they didn't have before. I will agree on one point: the scare campaign from last year certainly worked. People are afraid of the notion of bringing Guantanamo Bay inmates to this country. But they shouldn't be. As has been pointed out, over 300 of them, including Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the first attack on the World Trade Centers, is held here in the United States of America safely and without incident. We are tossing aside 200 years of constitutional and judicial history for no good reason. That is not a good idea. Let's give the President the option he needs to bring terrorists to justice within our system of values. The thing about our system of values, it works. We need to stop implying that somehow our Constitution doesn't work to protect us. It absolutely does. And it has for over 200 years. I urge support for this amendment.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I oppose this for many of the same reasons I support the previous amendment. This is simply expanding a bad idea. I will point out that while it is true that it was contained in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, it is something that I, and a majority of Members on this side, never supported. So last year's law is not something that we wanted to see happen. There was a lot of other things in the National Defense Authorization Act which we did support, so we were forced to accept this not because we liked it, but because that is the way the system works occasionally. This would simply expand that bad idea and deny an even larger segment of people access to Article 3 courts. And it's arguable whether or not it's constitutional. Because there's a little known fact about the Constitution: It doesn't just apply to U.S. citizens; it applies to persons in the United States. So once somebody from wherever they are is in the United States, the Constitution applies to them. And simply taking them out of the justice system and putting them in what I presume would have to be the military, since they are the ones that run our military commissions, I believe would violate the Constitution in this instance, taking away the rights from a person within the United States. But beyond all that, it's just a bad idea for the same reasons that I stated earlier. Our United States Constitution works. It convicts criminal after criminal after criminal and puts them away for a very long period of time. Let's not take it off the table. Even the majority party, as strongly as they feel about this area, did not include this particular provision in the bill that was before the Armed Services Committee. I think there was a good reason for that. I think we should strongly oppose this amendment. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to restate the points that were made. I think Mr. Nadler and I both made the arguments that need to be made. This does go outside the Constitution. It is unnecessary. And it, again, further ties the hands of the President and the Department of Justice to adequately deal with the very real threat that we face from terrorism. It would tie that process up even worse. And I wish we would defeat this amendment and give the President and the Department of Justice the authority it needs to try people appropriately, convict them, and put them away and take the terrorists off the battlefield. I oppose this amendment. I urge the body to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable request. I think making sure that minority-and women-owned businesses are protected is an important part of building a strong economy and a strong country, and it is reflected in many different aspects of Federal law, to try and make sure that opportunities are made available for women- and minority- owned businesses. I will also add that this amendment does not presume that outsourcing is harmful to women and minority-owned businesses; it simply wants to gauge the effect. It is quite possible the effect is positive, and it is going to create an opportunity for them that would not otherwise be created. But in making those decisions, the impact on women- and minority-owned businesses is an important part of that decision, and I believe should be reflected. So this amendment is not meant in any way to restrict outsourcing. There are a lot of different decisions that have to be made in doing that. It just says that when you do that, keep this important consideration in mind. I urge support for the amendment. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for bringing it to the committee's attention.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will begin by yielding 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. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason. As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of engagement should be. I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into, and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the authority with the commanders, where it belongs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment has to do with whether or not to try anyone in Guantanamo or any non-U.S. citizen captured abroad going forward in Article 3 courts in the United States. The underlying legislation prohibits anyone currently at Guantanamo or anyone who would be brought there in the future and, for that matter, any non-U.S. citizen captured abroad from being tried in Article 3 courts. This really grew out of the larger debate over whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay. But one thing I want to make clear, you can support my amendment even if you believe that Guantanamo Bay should remain open. Now, I don't. I believe that we should close it, that we should handle those terrorists, whether we handle them by military commission, by Article 3 court, or by indefinite detention, that they should not be held at Guantanamo. But you can still hold Guantanamo Bay open and support my amendment. What my amendment says is we want to make sure that Article 3 courts are still a possibility for trying these terrorists. The main problem I have with the underlying bill is it takes that possibility off the table and requires either a military commission or indefinite detention, and I think that is a bad and dangerous policy. Now, we have to understand that we have already tried and convicted over 400 international terrorists in our Federal courts, in our Article 3 courts. As we sit here right now, or as I stand here right now, we have over 300 convicted terrorists being held in prisons in the United States. There is no question that we can do this, no question that we can do it safely. By going in this bill and taking off the table the option of Article 3 courts, all we are doing is we are tying the hands of our Department of Justice and our President as they seek ways to bring terrorists to justice and take them off the battlefield. Right now we have over 170 inmates at Guantanamo Bay. We don't know what to do with a fair number of them for a variety of different reasons. That undermines our ability to fight the terrorism threat that we are trying to confront. It doesn't help it. So I ask simply that we give the President all the tools in his toolbox. I support military commissions. I support indefinite detention. In certain instances that's going to be necessary, but I also support our Article 3 courts that have over 200 years of history, that are some of the most respected courts in the world for their ability to bring swift and fair justice to all criminals. We should not undermine our President's ability to make use of those courts in prosecuting our fight against the terrorists and, therefore, I urge you to support this amendment. I will add one thing, actually. In my amendment, if the President is going to bring people from Guantanamo Bay to be tried here in Article 3 courts, he does have to notify Congress. He does have to establish that he feels that can be done in that particular case safely and fairly. It does require that. But I think more than anything it gives the President the option of Article 3 courts, which he needs in order to properly prosecute the war against terrorism. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

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