Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would simply want to point out that Members have a variety of opinions about Afghanistan, and a number of Members have come to the floor to voice their opinion that we ought to leave Afghanistan. I understand that. That's not what this amendment says. This amendment basically restates the President's policy with regard to Afghanistan, and then, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, it says Congress ought to exercise its responsibilities under the Constitution. Now, we can do that in a variety of ways. We can have oversight hearings, and we can have amendments dealing with funding. And we've had those sorts of things before. But the point is that some of the rhetoric doesn't match the amendment. As the chairman pointed out, the underlying bill tries to encourage a Bilateral Security Agreement so that looking ahead beyond 2014, it is very important to many of us that any American troops who are remaining in Afghanistan have the protections that they should have under such an agreement. So the underlying bill has a fence on some of the funding going to Afghanistan until there is that sort of Bilateral Security Agreement. So the point is, moving ahead beyond 2014, there are lots of unknowns at this stage. We're trying to help shape it in a way that is beneficial for our security but also protects our troops. But the underlying amendment, to get back to what's before us, basically restates the President's position and says that Congress ought to exercise its responsibilities. I think that's true. Meanwhile, Members can have their own opinions about Afghanistan and what should happen between now and then. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the chairman yielding. I think the first thing that should be said is that it is a tremendous credit to the chairman and the ranking member that we are where we are today. It may be true that for 51 straight years a defense authorization bill has been signed into law, but that doesn't make it easy to do number 52. There are still a number of complex and even some controversial issues. And so to have this bill before us today coming out of the committee on a vote that is so strong I think is truly a credit to the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member and the staff who have worked very well together. I also want to express particular appreciation to the ranking member on our subcommittee, Mr. Langevin, because that, too, has been a partnership in dealing with a number of complex issues, including Special Operations, cybersecurity, science and technology, and military intelligence issues. One of the key priorities for us on this subcommittee has been oversight. If you think back 2 years ago, in this bill we instituted a quarterly reporting requirement for certain counterterrorism operations involving Special Operations. Last year, we had a quarterly reporting requirement on cyber operations. This year, in the full committee mark, is a reporting requirement involving sensitive military operations, including lethal and capture operations that is designed for oversight before, just after, and, in a broader sense, after these events have occurred. Oversight is a critically important part of everything the committee does, especially in these complex areas. There are a number of other provisions, Mr. Chairman, dealing with military intelligence, cyber, Special Operations, and science and technology that take important steps forward in helping this country to be safer. I will note I find it strange, the administration seems to oppose requiring the Defense Clandestine Service to focus its collection on defense priorities. That is what we require in this bill, and for some reason that gives the administration heartburn. I hope we can continue to have conversations with them about it because it seems to me that's exactly what a defense clandestine service should be focused on. There are other priorities here dealing with chem/biodefense and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency that deal with some of the issues most in the news today--think of Syria and other problem spots around the world. The key point, Mr. Chairman, is it has taken a lot of work to get to this point; we have a lot of amendment debate to come. But it is truly a credit to the staff, to the chairman, to the ranking member of this committee that something so important, so complex has come to the floor with such overwhelming bipartisan support. We'll have differences, but I hope and trust that it will leave the floor in the same way.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of very important report language included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which will sustain inland Border Patrol stations in states along our nation's southern border. In 2012, the U.S. Border Patrol proposed to close nine interior Border Patrol stations as part of a cost-savings proposal. Six of the nine proposed closures are located in Texas, including one located in my district in the city of Amarillo. The U.S. Border Patrol made this announcement without first ensuring that local law enforcement agencies will have the necessary resources to deal with the serious illegal immigration problems in our area. The inland stations proposed for closure apprehend hundreds of illegal aliens every year. If these closures are allowed, several hundred illegal aliens would have to be let go due to the lack of federal presence. Since the proposal was unveiled last year, I have repeatedly heard from numerous local law enforcement officials who have serious concerns about the detrimental effect this would have on our local communities. They also believe this impact could reverberate throughout the country. You do not have to be on--or even near--the border to see and feel the effects of illegal immigration on our local communities, and that is something we want to make sure the folks in Washington understand. Enforcement of our immigration laws does not stop at the border. Interior enforcement is essential as well. The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is the federal government's job to enforce these laws. The Border Patrol cited ``cost-saving measures'' as a reason for this proposal, but it is simply penny-wise and pound-foolish. Although the agency anticipates closing these nine stations could save $1.3 million, they admit it will cost $2.47 million to transfer all the agents to other stations. When I first brought these concerns to the U.S. Border Patrol, I was told time and time again that the agency was working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to develop a transition plan to ensure that someone from the federal government will be there to pick up the phone when local law enforcement needs their help. To date, I have seen no evidence of a viable plan. There appears to be no draft plan or even an outline of a plan. There are simply too many unanswered questions to allow these inland border patrol station closures to proceed. Any country must be able to control who and what comes across its borders. A government that cannot or will not do so fails in one of its most basic responsibilities. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee Chairman Carter for including this important language. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our country is not left with a gaping hole in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank both gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend and express my appreciation to Chairman Hastings and Mr. Holt and others who have worked on this legislation. Indeed, we have come a long way from the days when helium was essentially a government-run monopoly to this legislation, which helps bring in more market forces, more competition, more free enterprise, and, I think, will help move toward developing more supplies of helium in the future, as was just discussed on the last amendment. It is in exactly that spirit that I offer this amendment which seeks to affirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to allow others who are not currently connected to the helium repository to connect to it and to store their helium there, assuming, of course, they've got to pay their own way. So whatever costs are incurred with allowing others to connect and to store, those costs have to be met by the individuals, not by the taxpayer. But by doing that, I think we do at least take a step towards encouraging more helium supplies to be developed. And the side benefit is, as these other helium supplies are stored in the repository, that helps keep the pressure up in the dome so that, ultimately, more helium, government helium and private helium, can be extracted. So I think this is perfectly in keeping with the theme of the bill. It moves in the right direction to encourage the expansion of more helium supplies, and I hope that the Members will consider it favorably.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 15, 2013, I was unable to be in Washington and missed rollcall votes No. 103 ``To amend title 31, United States Code, to make improvements in the Government Accountability Office,'' No. 104 ``To prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes,'' and No. 105 ``To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three bills.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I've got to observe that I wish that all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who decry sequestration today had voted with those of us who passed bills twice last year to target cuts rather than having this across-the-board approach. This bill, like sequestration, is not what any of us would like. If it were up to me, for example, I would replace the money that it takes out of Defense and probably rearrange a lot of the domestic spending as well. Imperfect as this measure is, I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass it today. I want to focus for just a second on Defense. Even if you spend the same amount of money on a continuing resolution or on an appropriation bill, it makes an enormous amount of difference which of those vehicles one uses because, in a regular appropriation bill, you can have the flexibility to meet the current needs. With a CR, you are locked into last year's levels, and that breeds inefficiencies and waste. So just to get the same amount of equipment, for example, it takes more money under a CR than it does under a regular appropriation bill. You just had the question posed: Why do this just for Defense? Why treat Defense differently and have a full appropriation bill for Defense and MILCON and Veterans and not the rest of it? Let me offer some answers: Number one is because we can. Both the House and Senate appropriators have negotiated a Defense appropriation bill. It is there for us to take and include in this measure, so Chairman Rogers has picked it up and included it in this CR. A second reason is that the House and Senate have passed and the President has signed into law a Defense authorization bill that is consistent with this appropriation bill. There is no other area of government that has done that. So if you look at what already is the law, passing an appropriation bill to implement it makes sense. A third reason is that Defense took a disproportionate share of the cuts under sequestration. Defense is 18 percent of the Federal budget. It had to absorb 50 percent of the cuts. It took a disproportionate share, and therefore some relief from the constraints will be had by the continuing resolution and make sense especially for Defense. I'll tell you a fourth reason to treat Defense differently is that defense is the first job of the Federal Government. We send our soldiers and intelligence community personnel to all parts of the world to risk their lives to defend us, and it seems to me that the least we could do is give them the flexibility and support they need to do their jobs. Therefore, I think it is absolutely essential for the country's defense that we pass this appropriation bill, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it was the issue of taxes that led to me running for Congress in the first place. The question of how much of your money the government forces from us is central to the relationship of the individual with government and to the freedom of the individual. And in the past several years through calls, emails, and personal meetings, I have heard from many of my constituents about the necessity of having stability in the tax code. Making the current tax rates permanent for the vast majority of Americans, as this bill does, is a major accomplishment. No longer will the threat of major tax increases because of an expiring law hang over the heads of taxpayers. Providing tax certainty for individuals and businesses has long been needed and will allow them to plan and make decisions. Hopefully, it will help the economy grow. And finally having an answer on the death tax, although I prefer to abolish it entirely, is also critical for every farmer, rancher, and small business person in the country. The clearest reason to vote against this bill is because of what it does not do--limit spending. Too much spending, along with low economic growth, is the reason that our debt is mounting and that our children's future is in peril. This bill is a missed opportunity to take meaningful action to deal with that problem, and I supported efforts to have significant spending cuts included in this measure. But it is not our last opportunity. It is always possible to justify voting against a bill for what is not included in it. One must go further and ask, ``What happens if this bill is defeated? Will the result be better or worse for the country?'' We also have to make a judgment on what is possible with the current cast of characters that the American people have elected to office. It does no good to imagine some ideal measure that could never pass the Democratically-controlled Senate or that President Barack Obama would never sign into law. I am a conservative, and I am also a realist. The answers to those questions lead me to conclude that it is better to approve this bill at this time, understanding that we must use the next few weeks of discussion about the debt limit to find a way to significantly reduce spending and begin to get our economic house in order. House Republicans do not have to accomplish everything in one bill, but time is running out for us to get spending under control. In coming weeks, we will need to consider every tool at our disposal to convince the White House and the Senate on the imperative of cutting spending. Of course, there are provisions in this bill with which I disagree. For example, extending some of the tax credits from the stimulus bill and continuing to pay unemployment for an additional year discourage work and encourage further dependency on government. But they total about $100 billion out of a $4 trillion bill; the rest of the ``cost'' is due to extending tax provisions that have been in place for more than a decade. Stepping back and looking at the whole picture, it seems clear to me that preventing a tax increase for most Americans and making all tax rates permanent is an important step for families all across the country and for the economy as a whole. Other provisions contained in this bill are important to the people in my district. One would extend the current farm bill for the remainder of the fiscal year, allowing farmers and their bankers to make decisions on planting. That provision also prevents the price of milk from doubling this week. Another section prevents the 27% cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors, which would have made it very difficult for Medicare patients to find a physician to treat them. Approving this measure is just a step. Next, we must do whatever is required to control spending, especially spending in mandatory programs that constitute nearly two-thirds of the budget. I continue to support comprehensive tax reform, which can ease the pain to taxpayers, help us be more competitive in the world, and give our economy a real boost. We do not have to do all of these things in one bill--and it would be a mistake to try--but we must do them for the sake of our country and our future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. First, let me commend the chairman, the ranking member, and all the staff members for getting us here. Unfortunately, it is all too rare for the House to consider a bill with over 140 amendments on the floor here, have it passed, have a bill pass the Senate, go to a conference committee, and then have the conference report come back out to go to the President. It is all too rare, but if it's going to happen, it ought to happen on a bill dealing with the country's national security, and obviously that's what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill that makes significant progress in a number of areas. From the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which I'm pleased to lead with Mr. Langevin, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, we enhance oversight of cyber-operations in this bill, although we both acknowledge there is much more work to be done in the field of cyber. We meet some of the unfunded requirements of our special operations forces. We take steps to improve the management of our science and technology programs. And there are improvements to acquisition of information technology, which is an increasing challenge to the Pentagon because it does not fit within our normal acquisition methods. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment briefly. The gentleman from New York read the provision in this bill that deals with detention. It is absolutely true that this bill affirms yet again that the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 or last year's NDAA does not change the basic constitutional rights to which all persons in the United States are entitled. Now, it may be that there are some people who are unhappy with those basic constitutional rights; they think it should be more, or they think the Supreme Court has misinterpreted some of those rights. That is a different debate. But there has been a fair amount of misinformation on this point, and I think for all Members who are concerned about this issue who get questioned about this issue, just read the language which says nothing changes those basic constitutional rights.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great community program in my district. For thirty years, Mineral Wells ISD and the American Legion Post 75 have co-sponsored an outstanding program to recognize and honor our nation's veterans. This program is held in the high school stadium and is open to all people of the community and the area. All school students of Mineral Wells ISD are driven by bus to the stadium. This year the program was held on November 12th for an audience of approximately 5500. Some of the neighboring schools also bring their students to the program. The program comprises performances from all campuses of Mineral Wells ISD including the kindergarten drill team, choirs from the middle school, and students from the junior and senior high schools. The high school band performs a pre-ceremony concert while attendees get seated. A dance team from the high school performs as well. This year, Lt. General Richard E. ``Tex'' Brown III (USAF, Ret.) was the guest speaker. He was a former graduate of Mineral Wells High School. Lt. General Brown spoke of the great respect this area has for the military and for veterans. The Master of Ceremonies was LTC Robert Clayton Evans (US Army, Ret.). He also was a former graduate of Mineral Wells High School, a West Point graduate, and a member of the American Legion Post 75. It was a great homecoming for both men. American Legion, Sons of the Legion, and American Legion Auxiliary state commanders and presidents attended this program. Elected officials of the county and school officials also were among the platform guests. Students from Mineral Wells High School also helped with other duties involved with the program. Some passed out programs or helped seat groups in the stands. Some passed out small flags to the crowd or helped fill red, white, and blue balloons for the final song. Local Legion members performed a flag service and presented service flags in the program. Another member manned a small cannon to open the program after a local pilot presented a flyover to honor our veterans. Lunch was served after the program by more local members of the American Legion Post 75 family. Mineral Wells recognizes the service that veterans have given to our country now and in the past with this outstanding program. For that reason, Mineral Wells ISD and American Legion Post 75 should be noted for their efforts.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I am supporting H.R. 915, the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act. This measure would establish Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) teams within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to facilitate ``collaboration among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies to execute coordinated activities in furtherance of border security, and homeland security'' and enhance information sharing among the agencies. This mission is a very important one. And I encourage DHS to consult with local and state law enforcement on how these teams could best be used to fill gaps in border security. I am particularly concerned about a proposal to close several interior border patrol stations. As an example, from 2007 through 2011 Border Patrol agents assigned to the Amarillo station made from 383 to 745 apprehensions per year. Despite this volume, the Border Patrol proposed closing its Amarillo station--along with eight other interior stations, six of them in Texas. The absence of the Amarillo interior Border Patrol station would leave no federal agency for hundreds of miles to take custody of illegal aliens or to assist local law enforcement with investigations. I do not know whether the BEST teams authorized in this measure could fulfill the responsibilities of the border patrol stations that are proposed for closure. But I strongly recommend that DHS continue to examine ways to ensure that this vital federal responsibility is fulfilled.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 94 veterans from Texas who will be visiting Washington, D.C., this week through the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. On behalf of a grateful state and nation, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital. The veterans on this flight are: Charles Allen, U.S. Army Air Corps; Larry K. Baggett, U.S. Marine Corps; Wayne Baker, U.S. Army Air Corps; Jack Barnes, U.S. Navy; John Barnes, U.S. Navy; Donald E. Barton, U.S. Navy; Emmett L. Barton, U.S. Army; Clarence A. Betzen, U.S. Air Force; Kenneth S. Bjork, U.S. Navy; Albert Bland, U.S. Air Force; Clarence O. Bodling, U.S. Marine Corps; Van E. Bradford, U.S. Army; Roy M. Bradstreet, U.S. Army; Billy F. Brown, U.S. Army; Jerry Buttel, U.S. Air Force; Herbert R. Bytheway, U.S. Air Force; Lewis Cates, U.S. Army; Michael Cattaneo, U.S. Army; Paul E. Cattaneo, U.S. Army; Ernest Clark, U.S. Air Force; Lee J. Clark, U.S. Navy; Rodney E. Clark, U.S. Air Force; Ronald E. Clark, U.S. Army; Richard L. Collins, U.S. Navy; Michael Colon-Mateo, U.S. Army; Robert O. Counts, U.S. Army; Nicholas Devito, U.S. Army; William M. Edes, Texas Army National Guard; Warren Farris, U.S. Air Force; Donald E. Fine, U.S. Air Force; Antonio C. Flores, U.S. Army; John M. Gilbreath, U.S. Army; Kenneth G. Hammit, U.S. Navy; Homer Hampton, U.S. Navy; William J. Harris, U.S. Navy; James M. Hash, U.S. Army; Kenneth Holcomb, U.S. Army; Arthur L. Hulsey, U.S. Navy; Walton R. Humphrey, U.S. Navy; Joe R. Irwen, U.S. Marine Corps; Blythe Johnson, U.S. Navy; Robert Johnson, U.S. Army; Carl R. Lee, U.S. Navy; Elmer H. Lehnick, U.S. Army; Delwood Locke, U.S. Navy; Cecil E. McCarrell, U.S. Navy; Bill McCarty, U.S. Army; James O. McCracken, U.S. Army; Larry M. McCracken, U.S. Navy; Arch R. Moseley, U.S. Army; Felix P. Mote, U.S. Army; Frank Muratori, U.S. Army; Stephen L. Myers, U.S. Air Force; Wayne Nevins, U.S. Army; Clarence H. Nichols, U.S. Army; Anthony L. Paschel, U.S. Army; Don L. Patterson, U.S. Navy; Travis W. Peninger, U.S. Air Force; Jeffrey W. Pickard, U.S. Navy; Ellis B. Posey, U.S. Army; Jerald B. Post, U.S. Navy; Ronnie D. Powell, U.S. Army; William N. Quattlebaum, U.S. Navy; Ernest H. Ramm, U.S. Army; Roger Redman, U.S. Army; Donald E. Ricks, U.S. Army; E.J. Riley, U.S. Coast Guard; Joe C. Rivera, U.S. Army; Joe M. Rivera, U.S. Air Force; William W. Rowell, U.S. Army Air Corps; Jacquelynn R. Salek, U.S. Navy; Richard G. Schacher, U.S. Air Force; Danny W. Schilling, U.S. Army; Calvin W. Skipper, U.S. Navy; Milton M. Skipper, U.S. Army; David S. Stear, U.S. Army; Charles R. Stokesberry, U.S. Army Air Corps; Larry D. Teague, U.S. Navy; Robert A. Thompson, Sr., U.S. Marine Corps; Clifford W. Thornton, U.S. Army; Bobby J. Thorpe, U.S. Navy; Brent V. Thorpe, U.S. Marine Corps; Fredric E. Tout, U.S. Air Force; Scott Tout, U.S. Army; William P. Vann, Texas Army National Guard; Eugene S. Waits, U.S. Navy; Jack D. Waller, U.S. Army; Butch G. Warren, U.S. Navy; Forrest W. Warren, U.S. Army; Robert C. Whitney, U.S. Navy; Roy L. Wilhite, U.S. Army; Reece Wilterding, U.S. Army; James Windor, U.S. Army; Otho Wiseman, U.S. Army. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the opportunity to meet these men and women who exemplify the greatness of America. The services they rendered to our country can never be fully repaid, but I hope that when they visit Washington, D.C., it will reflect the gratitude and respect we have for them. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I would also like to extend a special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and Mr. Jack Barnes for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all of the financial and emotional support of the people who have put in so much hard work and personal time to make sure this trip could be possible.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House must vote on whether to hold the Attorney General in contempt for refusing to produce documents in his Department. The underlying facts are disturbing and tragic, leading to the death of a Border Patrol officer and several hundred people in Mexico. The Attorney General should work with Congress to understand what went wrong rather than to withhold information and attempt to thwart the investigation. The power of Congress to investigate and conduct oversight of federal agencies has been well established throughout our history. The late claim of Executive Privilege made here, on the other hand, is not consistent with precedent or previous court rulings. One can only conclude that the Attorney General, perhaps on the instruction of the President, is trying to prevent Congress and the American people from learning the truth.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, my amendment would require the President to create a charter that codifies the formal establishment of an interagency body to coordinate and deconflict full-spectrum military cyber operations for the Federal Government. It supports and complements initiatives already included in the National Defense Authorization Act to improve the efficient use of military cyber operations that support military missions and objectives. At the same time, I want to be clear what this amendment does not do. I want to assure those who may have been confused by the language that it does not authorize the interagency body to manage spectrum resources, whether federal, state, or non-governmental. Nor does it authorize the interagency body to impose obligations or other regulations on the private sector. It is based on research the Government Accountability Office carried out for the committee, and it will improve the ability of the Department to integrate cyber effects into its operational planning.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Smith's earlier acknowledgment that last year's NDAA did not take away rights of Americans. The Gohmert amendment, which we debated, I think removes all doubt and actually adds some extra procedural safeguards to make sure that Americans' rights are absolutely protected. To his credit, Mr. Smith's amendment, as he admits, does change the law from what it's been not only the past 11 years, but it changes the law from what it's been basically since World War II. And my suggestion is that we all ought to be very careful about changing the law. With the exception of Fort Hood and the Little Rock shooting, we have gone 11 years without a successful terrorist attack here in the United States. There are a lot of reasons for that. But part of the reason is the legal framework that has given the tools to the military, the intelligence community, and law enforcement that have all made that possible. Mr. Smith's amendment changes that, and the biggest way it changes it is that it automatically gives foreigners constitutional rights that we all have thought of as belonging to Americans. So the second that a foreign terrorist, a member of al Qaeda, sets foot on U.S. soil, he is told: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford one, one will be provided to you. Now, that is a significant change. The gentleman from Washington says, well, look, our criminal justice system works all the time. And it is true; we can prosecute people. But the key here, as Mr. Landry said, is not just prosecuting people after they have committed their acts or after their bomb has failed to blow up, if we're lucky. The point is to prevent those attacks. That means have you to get the information from them. And that means, if you say, You have the right to remain silent, it is going to be harder to get that information from them. And we're talking about foreigners here. American citizens absolutely have the right to contest their detention. No American citizen will ever be tried in a military commission. Any American citizen has the right to contest his detention. To keep us safe, this amendment must be rejected. May 9, 2012. Hon. Howard P. McKeon, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: As former government officials with significant national security experience, we write to you in support of provisions that were included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 relating to the detention of enemy combatants. As the House will soon begin consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we also write to address misconceptions about the FY12 provisions and efforts by others to exploit those misconceptions. Importantly, the FY12 NDAA included an affirmation of the detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat terror. Some have argued that the FY 12 NDAA's affirmation of detention authority altered the status quo, and is an ``expansion'' of the power of the federal government. This is false. The FY12 NDAA explicitly states that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites States.'' As the Heritage Foundation recently wrote, ``The NDAA has not impacted the conditions under which a U.S. citizen may (or may not) be detained . . . The law regarding how U.S. citizens are handled, including the right to habeas corpus, is the same today as it was the day before it [the NDAA] was passed.'' The detainee provisions of the NDAA merely codified existing case law related to detainees, period. On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the AUMF, which authorizes the President to ``use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . .'' As you are well aware, the law of armed conflict, also called the law of war, allows for a country engaged in armed conflict to detain the enemy for the duration of hostilities. That age old principle existed well before September 11, 2011 and is a right that all countries must retain during a time of war. Furthermore, the law of armed conflict does not discriminate between enemy combatants who are citizens of the United States and those that are not. Any citizen who joins al Qaeda or its affiliates is properly classified as an unlawful enemy combatant and may be treated as such. We find the notion propagated by some, that a citizen who has nothing to do with al Qaeda could be picked up off an American street and detained by the military, to be ridiculous. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the United States had the legal authority to detain a U.S. citizen captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan who was later detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that such detainees must have the right to challenge the legality of their detention before a federal judge. The Court noted that ``[a]bsent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.'' As you know, several members of Congress have introduced legislation relating to the detainee provisions in the FY12 NDAA. Representative Scott Rigell recently introduced H.R. 4388, the ``Right to Habeas Corpus Act,'' which would affirm the right of any person detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF to challenge the legality of their detention in an Article III court. Representative Rigell's bill is entirely consistent both with the FY12 NDAA and existing case law. Unfortunately, other members of Congress have introduced proposed legislation that would instead erode the authorities provided by the AUMF and limit the military's ability to pursue terrorists. For instance, Representative Adam Smith and Senator Mark Udall have introduced legislation that would prevent the President from ever detaining anyone, including foreign terrorists, in the United States pursuant to the AUMF. Representative John Garamendi and Senator Dianne Feinstein have introduced similar legislation that would leave it up to Congress to decide when the President has the authority to detain U.S. citizens who have joined the enemy. It is highly questionable whether either of these proposed pieces of legislation would be constitutional as they would deprive any president of lawful options that he may need in order to fulfill his constitutional duties as commander in chief to defend the United States and protect American citizens. Rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making it to the United States would actually incentivize them to come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American people. Such a result is perverse. Although we believe the FY12 NDAA detainee provisions, read along with the AUMF and pertinent case law is clear, we understand the urge to affirm the availability of habeas corpus rights of any terrorist captured in the United States. Should that affirmation be necessary to erase doubts, we would respectfully encourage you to consider incorporating the language from Representative Rigell's ``Right to Habeas Corpus Act'' in the FY13 NDAA to address misconceptions and to defend against these other attempts to undermine the critical wartime authorities provided by the AUMF. As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming U.S. national security. Sincerely, Edwin Meese III, Former U.S. Attorney General; Michael B. Mukasey, Former U.S. Attorney General and Former U.S. District Judge; Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of Homeland Security; Steven G. Bradbury, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy AAG, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Former Principal Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense; David Rivkin, Former Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development, U.S. Department of Justice; Charles D. Stimson, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense For Detainee Affairs and Former Assistant US Attorney, District of Columbia; Paul Butler, Former Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, SOLIC and Former Assistant US Attorney, SDNY; Steven A. Engel, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Paul Rosenzweig, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Homeland Security.