National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The problem is--just two quick points here--first of all, as we have discussed throughout the conversation about the Department of Defense authorization bill this year, the threat environment has grown much more complex, and the rise in the size of the national security staff is a reflection of that, of the various different challenges that are throughout the world.

They have tried to find expertise in all of these different areas, and limiting them to 100, at this point, given the responsibilities that they have, would basically take it all the way down to the point where the admin staff would be the most that they could put in place. They have needs for the number of people that they have.

Now, the second problem that Mr. Thornberry points out, I think, is a very legitimate problem. The thing is, whether you have 100 or 400, the President's NSC staff can do the same thing; they can not pay attention to the Department of Defense to the degree that they should. That has nothing to do with how many people there happen to be at the NSC. I agree with Mr. Thornberry that that has been a problem.

Certainly we would like Commanders in Chief to be more in touch with the Department of Defense and with the commanders in the field, and not be overridden by the NSC, but that is a problem that exists, regardless of the numbers or even what you call the President's staff.

So I think this amendment would significantly hamper the ability of the National Security Council to do the job that it was appointed or created to do, which is to keep the President advised of all the various different threats that are out there. And to give them the ability to do that, they are going to need more than 100 people.

So I will oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time just to reiterate the argument.

The National Security Council was formed for the very specific purpose of allowing the President to have that type of confidential advisement where people could speak frankly and give the President the advice that he needs to make decisions on matters of national security. Regrettably, our national security environment has grown more complex.

I will point out that the current National Security Adviser has actually shrunk the size of the National Security Council since she took over. It was 411, and it is now down to 365. So they are making efforts to get that under control. But to shrink this to 100 and, as Mr. Connolly pointed out, to make it subject to Senate confirmation would simply lock it in as a competing force to the very entities that the sponsor of this amendment would like to see have a greater voice, and therefore it would be counterproductive and would not achieve its goal even though, again, I certainly agree that there should be greater transparency.

I don't think there is a Member of Congress who has not complained at some point throughout the history about the lack of transparency between the White House and Congress on matters of national security. That battle will continue whether this amendment passes or not. I don't think this amendment will advance the interests of national security, and, therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the other side have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, none of what has been said really changes under these amendments. What all this really is is an argument to get rid of the NSC, to say that this group of folks should not exist. As we argued before, the reason the National Security Council was created was to offer the President close and confidential advice.

Now, that National Security Council, as was pointed out by other people who have made arguments about this, has consistently been criticized by the other Departments, going all the way back, I imagine, to when the NSC was formed. Whether there is 100, 200, or 300 of them, that really doesn't change that basic conflict.

Do you believe the President needs these confidential advisers? If you do, then you should oppose these amendments. They should get rid of the NSC. If you are going to take away the advice and their ability to do that, then we should just have the DOD and the President shouldn't have these advisers.

But there is a reason the NSC was created in the first place, to give the President those close advisers. Further restricting it in this manner effectively eliminates the NSC.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose this amendment because it restricts, the President restricts, the Department of Defense from taking actions that they feel are necessary in the best interest of the national security of our country by prohibiting their ability to get rid of the landmines that they wish to get rid of.

The problem with landmines and the reason there was such an international outcry is, after conflicts, they tend to be left in the areas of conflict; and throughout the world, many innocents have wound up being killed by these landmines that are left over. They are a weapon that can indiscriminately hit civilians.

I think the IED example is an excellent example of how pernicious these weapons are. They do attack, indiscriminately, civilians and military personnel alike.

What the President is attempting to do is to get us to the point we are in compliance with the treaty that was reached. It has not been confirmed by the Senate, that is true. But as Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to decide what weapons we should or should not have.

And it is important that they do maintain the exception of Korea, where we have the very specific threat from North Korea, to make sure that we preserve that option. Outside of that, the President and our commanders at the Department of Defense have determined that this option is not one that we need to provide for national security, and it is one that the international community has condemned.

We have had attempts--the Geneva Convention and others--at limiting the carnage given by warfare. One of the ways to limit that would be to limit the amount of landmines that are available. That is what the President is attempting to do. This amendment, I believe, would unfairly restrict him in his ability to do that. He has the ability, as Commander in Chief, to make those decisions in consultation with the DOD. This restricts him in a way that I do not support, and I urge this body to oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We are going to make the responsible decisions about what is best to protect our Armed Forces, and I believe the President will do that. This restricts him in one specific area that has not been shown--yes, we are the most responsible users of landmines, but that is not exactly a high bar to jump over. No matter how you use them, no matter where you use them--yes, we are trying to clear them, and I think that is great. But if we didn't put them out there in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about, then, going in there and clearing them.

What has been determined by the Department of Defense and by the President is that there are other, better ways to protect our troops that do not unnecessarily endanger civilian populations. That is why the President is going down the path that he is going down. I think he is right to do it, and I think we should reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are 80 detainees left at Guantanamo. A number have been transferred. Of those 80, I could be wrong, but I believe it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 34 of them have been cleared for transfer, basically deemed not to be risks to the United States. Restricting their ability to be transferred simply drives up the cost of Guantanamo unnecessarily.

We have transferred a great many detainees out of Guantanamo. The statistics cited go all the way back to the Bush administration when, regrettably, we did let people go without proper vetting.

We, through this bill, in past years, have put a number of provisions in place that require national security certifications that the people being transferred are not a risk to the United States. That is already required. This simply makes it more difficult to do that for no good reason.

The recidivism in recent years has been drastically lower. It has been less than 10 percent, nowhere near the 33 percent figure cited. And the ones that are left to be transferred, like I said, are ones that have been determined not to be a risk.

Now, we take our time in transferring these people to make sure that we have a place to transfer them, that it is safe and secure, willing to accept them and all of that. There are already multiple provisions in law to try and make sure that we don't take any chances.

Unfortunately, when you release people, there are always risks; but detaining people forever without charge and after you have determined that they are not a risk is also a risk. Basically, it goes against the very values of the United States of America. We could just never release anyone from prison in the United States under these standards, under the fact that, well, they might commit another crime. And they might. So why don't we just lock them up forever?

We have a process, a very careful process, that has been worked out in a bipartisan fashion to determine who needs to be held and who can be released. Then, after we determine they can be released, even then, we go through a process of where they are released to and work with the host country and try to determine what the best and safest available alternative is. This piles on to the bureaucracy and makes it more difficult to do transfers that are in the best interest of the national security of our country.

I oppose the amendment for those reasons.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I think that is the question: Why are they there? In the case of 26 of them, they are there because mistakes were made in picking them up. This happened with many people at Guantanamo, particularly in the early days, and these people have been there for a long time, where we basically weren't taking any chances on whom we picked up. We threw out a wide net and brought people in.

Now, there are estimated to be 44 of the folks there who are the baddest of the bad, who we have direct connections to active terrorism, who we know are a threat to the United States of America, and I am not proposing whatsoever that we should release those.

But the question of why are they there is absolutely right, and it is not for the reasons that the previous gentleman stated in the cases of at least 26 of these inmates. They are there through a combination of mistakes, misidentification, misinformation, many different reasons why they were picked up, and the problem is, now: How do we transfer them out? How do we find a home country to send them to?

I totally agree, if you are talking about incredibly dangerous people who have done what the previous speaker said, we have got to keep those people to protect America, but that is not the case with some of the inmates at Guantanamo. That is why we have been working to return these inmates to countries where they can be safely returned.

It is not everybody at Guantanamo who falls into that category. That is the reason I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source