Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) raises the right questions. And definitely, we do need to go after these folks militarily. Clearly, it would also be better if Congress spoke. But where I disagree with him is on the question of whether or not this goes too far and expands that authority. And I do very strongly disagree with the arguments of Mr. West from Florida. The President does have the authority. He had the authority to do the bin Laden raid, as Mr. Amash just pointed out, within the existing branch of authority. I do want to compliment the chairman of this committee for his hard work in working on this issue. I think it would be an important thing for the Armed Services Committee, for this Congress to speak on what the authorization of use of military force should be beyond just linking it back to 9/11. But when you put in associated forces, and when you don't have any end date, it does confer upon the President the potential for a great deal of power over a long period of time. And it is important to point out the President right now, forget the original AUMF, the President under just the interpretation of the Constitution and laws of this country absent of that has a great deal of authority. Let's remember President Clinton was the first person to take a shot at Osama bin Laden back in 1998, when we launched cruise missiles at a compound where we thought he was in Afghanistan. There was no AUMF at that point. The President has fairly broad authorities conferred by the Constitution and the Court's interpretation of it to prosecute that war in the way that we want it to be done. The question is whether or not this language broadens that authority to the point where we all have to be concerned about the level of power that we are turning over to the Executive. That's really the balance we're trying to strike here. Yes, Congress should speak. But Congress should also not speak in a way that gives the executive branch too broad authority. I believe the language in the bill goes too far in that direction, and therefore I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to speak on this matter. This is a critically important issue. And I worked with Mr. Thornberry on this when I chaired the terrorism subcommittee and he was the ranking member of the subcommittee that has since been renamed and that he now chairs. This is not duplicative. This is an area where, frankly, we weren't spending enough time early enough in Iraq or in Afghanistan to understand the people that we were working with and to get ourselves into a better position to turn over responsibility for security and governance in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. We didn't understand what we were getting into because we didn't have the social and cultural awareness. We need to gain greater understanding in those areas. And one particularly important aspect of this is as you gather the information, how do you compile it in such a way that's useful. That's what this modeling program is supposed to do. You can gather all kinds of information all over the place, but if nobody knows how to actually use that information, compile it, put it together and pick out what is most important to get the lessons learned out of that, then you're not getting the true benefit of the program, which is a big part of what this does. It uses updated technology and updated software to figure out how to find the patterns that are critical to helping us do our job. So I would simply agree with the gentleman from Texas and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It is a relatively small program that makes a very, very big difference and hopefully will save us money by keeping us out of conflicts that we would rather not get into and enabling us to do this working through the local populations by having a better understanding of them.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I mentioned, I'm not opposed to this amendment. In fact, I would support Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment. I understand the concerns of the chairman, but there is one point that I really want to make clear in this. Throughout this whole process, well over, gosh, I guess it's been 12 years now since we passed this restriction, there has always been this notion that somehow we have to wait in order to be extra cautious--as if there is no risk in waiting. And that is where I think we are completely wrong. Absolutely. There is a risk in selling technology that could wind up in the wrong hands. And in the world we live in today, that's a risk we have to live with and attempt to manage. But what has never been properly understood in this body, and particularly on the Armed Services Committee, is the risk of excessive restrictions on U.S. companies' ability to export technology. And it is a risk precisely to our national security. It is not just a matter of jobs or business or the economy. This isn't national security versus economic strength. One of our great strengths as a Nation in terms of our defense is the superiority of our technology companies. We have companies here in the U.S. that we can rely on to give us the best equipment, the best technology to protect us. But, as Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, we are losing that edge. We are ceasing to be the leaders in critical areas of technology, and nowhere is this more painfully clear than in the area of satellites. We have lost over 40 percent market share during that period to our competitors. When I was in Europe visiting some satellite companies 2 years ago, I came across an advertisement, something that was being put out in the trade papers by a European satellite company for an ITAR-free satellite. Well, what is an ITAR-free satellite? It's a satellite that has not one single U.S. component in it. Why? Because if it were ITAR- free, they could much more freely export it and much, much more easily be competitive in selling that satellite technology. We were blocking out all U.S. companies from anything that goes into a satellite. And trust me, I've seen satellites. There is a heck of a lot that goes into them. Our companies are being severely disadvantaged, and that is undermining our ability to get access to those companies to build technologies we need to defend ourselves. Inaction is not the safe and correct course here. We have the evidence we need. I believe we need to go forward. And Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment makes sure that we're not selling this to China and other places we don't want to, but it does free up our companies to begin to compete before it's too late, before we lose that edge. Now, we've got the interim report. We don't have the final report. We've analyzed this thing for a long period of time. I personally don't think we need to wait for the final report. But I will be optimistic that we will get that final report between now and when we go to conference. And we'll get something done on this critical issue-- critical not just for U.S. companies, though certainly jobs and economic strength are matters of national security, but also critical for national security, itself, to make sure that U.S. companies can maintain the leadership role to help provide for our defense, to help work with our Defense Department as they do. So I would hope that we would adopt this. I know Mr. Rohrabacher is planning on withdrawing it, but I hope we continue to work on this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute 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. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Again, I just want to thank the chairman and the staff for putting together an outstanding bill. This is no small enterprise. It is $691 billion. It is critical policy to provide for the national security for our country, critical policy to make sure that our troops and their families are properly taken care of, they have the equipment and support that they need to do the job that we ask them to do. And I think Mr. McKeon, the members of the committee, and the staff have done an outstanding job. I do want to also recognize our past chairman, Mr. Skelton. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a strong bipartisan tradition on this committee. Mr. Skelton upheld that very well, and Mr. McKeon has done so as well. It was an honor to work with Mr. Skelton. I appreciate his leadership and guidance for all of us on the committee. I do just want to mention one issue that I neglected to mention in my opening remarks, and that is to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Langevin with regard to the energy amendment that was contained in this bill. I think it's critical that we give the Department of Defense the ability to pursue alternative sources of energy that actually do improve our position in terms of greenhouse gases, and improve our position in terms of reducing our dependency--well, sorry, increasing our ability to use clean-burning sources of fuel. The amendment that was attached to this would allow to be considered alternative the use of fuels that really aren't. They are not clean burning or renewable. So I think that it is imperative that we strike that provision from this bill. But overall I am very supportive of the bill. I appreciate the chairman's leadership. I look forward to working with him over the course of the next couple of days as we deal with the amendments that are coming our way, and as we go into conference with the Senate to hopefully get this bill done, to the President for signature. It is critical to our national security interests that we do that. I thank the chairman again for his leadership. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise in support of this bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and our staffs for the outstanding work that they have done putting together this bill. I think Mr. McKeon has more than risen to the level of the bipartisan tradition of our committee. He has upheld the tradition held by our predecessors that this committee should work together, Republicans and Democrats, that it should be an open and transparent process. I can say that I and my staff feel very, very good about the open process that we have had, although we have not agreed on everything--we do not agree on everything--that is in the bill; but where there were disagreements, we had an open and honest dialogue. We had votes in the committee, and now we will have votes on the floor. And overall I think the chairman and the members of both parties and staffs have put together a very strong bill that will protect our national defense and meet the primary duty of this Congress, and that is provide for the national defense and the national security of our country. So I thank the chairman and his staff for that work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him throughout this process. I also want to note one of our members, who was not able to be there during the course of our markup as she usually is, but nonetheless contributed greatly to the process. We all miss Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords' presence on the committee, but we work very closely with her staff on issues and priorities that have been important to her during her time on the committee, and she and her staff are still doing an outstanding job with the committee in contributing to this process. So I thank them, and we all look forward to Gabby coming back to this body and continuing her work. In putting together this bill, there are five main areas of priorities that I think we should focus on. First and foremost, whenever we have troops out in the battlefield, as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also spread out in a whole lot of other countries, priority number one has to be to make sure that we give them the support, the equipment and the means necessary to carry out the mission that we have given them. I believe that this bill prioritizes that, both within the base bill and within the overseas contingency operations funding to make sure that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, elsewhere, have the equipment they need to carry out the mission that we have given them. Second, I believe the counterterrorism in the fight against al Qaeda must continue to be a top priority of this committee, and I believe that we strongly support that once again. We all learned as a Nation and the world, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, how effective our Special Operations Command and other elements of our counterterrorism policy can be, but we also need to be mindful that the job is not done, and we continue to fund those priorities. I do want to specifically commend the folks at the Special Operations Command. I had the great privilege of chairing the subcommittee that has had jurisdiction over the Special Operations Command for 3 years. They do a fantastic job for our Nation. Certainly, everybody saw that in the case of getting bin Laden; but they do it every day in many, many ways that many people do not know and do not recognize, so I thank them for their outstanding work. We also have a huge challenge with the budget. As the chairman mentioned, finding efficiencies in the Defense budget is going to be critical. As we have heard on this floor over and over in many contexts, we have a massive deficit. We have a deficit that is over 33 percent of what we spend. The Defense budget is 20 percent of the overall budget. You cannot take 20 percent of the overall budget off the table and effectively deal with a deficit of that size. We are going to have to look carefully at where we spend our money in defense, just like everywhere else, to make sure that we're getting the most for our dollar. I believe we have done that effectively in this bill, but I also believe that going forward that task is going to get harder, not easier. We must find ways to save money and spend it more efficiently within the Department of Defense. I also believe that our policy in Afghanistan is going to be critical. As I mentioned, we certainly fund our troops in the effort that they are performing right now in Afghanistan, but going forward, we are going to really need to begin to bring those troops home to complete that mission. We will have some amendments that address that issue during the course of this bill. I look forward to that debate because I think that Congress needs to play a strong role in concluding our mission successfully in Afghanistan. Lastly, the issue that the chairman mentioned that I think is very important in this bill is detainee policy and the AUMF. The chairman very early on identified this as a clear priority, and I think he is absolutely right that Congress' voice should be heard on these very, very important issues. We've worked closely on that. We have reached some agreement. We have some areas of disagreement. The biggest one we're going to have an amendment on this is the idea of whether or not article 3 courts should continue to be available for Guantanamo Bay detainees and those who would be captured in similar situations in the future. I believe that it should. We shouldn't always have them in article 3 courts. Military commissions have their place. Indefinite detention of enemy combatants has its place. But article 3 courts have effectively served this country for over 200 years. We have tried and convicted over 400 terrorists in article 3 Federal courts. Right now in the United States of America, we have over 300 of them safely locked up. We can do it. It's an option we should not take away from the President. So, again, I want to thank the chairman for a very open process. Bipartisanship is the tradition of this committee. He has upheld that very well. I look forward to working with him as we go forward in this process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.0

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor members of the University of Washington Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), as well as the Pacific Lutheran University Army Reserve Officer Training Corps, for creating the First Annual ``22 to the U'' march to raise money for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. During ``22 to the U'' on May 22, cadets from the University of Washington and Pacific Lutheran University participated in a march, called a `ruck,' wearing 45-pound packs. Beginning at midnight, marching through the night and most of the day, the cadets traveled 45 miles from Joint Base Lewis-McChord to the Medal of Honor Memorial at the University of Washington. This challenging event raised funds for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides college scholarships to the children of fallen Special Operations personnel, as well as immediate financial assistance to severely wounded service members to allow families to join them at their bedsides. By establishing the ``22 to the U'' fundraiser, these Air Force and Army cadets not only accomplished an extreme physical feat, but also demonstrated an admirable commitment to helping their fellow service members and the families of wounded warriors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring the members of the University of Washington AFROTC, as well as the Pacific Lutheran University Army ROTC, whose efforts embody the spirit of selflessness and sacrifice that makes our Armed Forces truly great. These cadets have started a tradition of honoring the legacy of Special Operations members which I am confident will endure for years to come.