[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 196 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 14, 2011

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose adoption of the 
Conference Report on H.R. 1540; the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill includes dangerous provisions that put 
fundamental American values at risk.
  Section 1021 of this Conference Report authorizes the President of 
the United States to detain indefinitely--without charge, without 
trial, and without due process--any individual suspected of terrorism. 
The section is written so broadly it raises legal questions about 
whether indefinite detention may be applicable to American citizens 
detained on American soil. Specifically, this provision empowers the 
President to detain anyone who ``substantially supported'' forces 
``associated'' with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that are ``engaged in 
hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.'' It 
is troubling and problematic that the legislation fails to define any 
of these terms.
  In an editorial today titled ``Politics Over Principle'' the New York 
Times argued against the legislation saying it could grant presidents 
``the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without 
charges or a trial.'' Senator Lindsey Graham, a sponsor of the Senate's 
defense authorization bill, stated clearly the far-reaching intent of 
this section. He said the indefinite detention provision: ``does apply 
to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield, 
including the homeland.''
  Proponents of these indefinite detention powers argue the language 
merely codifies policies instituted by the George W. Bush 
Administration and continued under the current administration. This 
argument ignores the fact these policies are quite possibly 
unconstitutional. Congress should be investigating and reforming 
existing policies, not codifying them as permanent American law.
  Congress has a sacred duty to defend the liberties that generations 
of Americans fought to establish and preserve. This conference report 
sacrifices the most fundamental of those liberties while gaining 
little, if any, additional security. If the provisions of Section 1021 
are enacted, it would be the first time Congress has enshrined 
indefinite detention into law since the McCarthy Era.
  In addition, the Conference Report before us today is a disappointing 
statement about fiscal responsibility. When the Defense Authorization 
bill passed the House in May, it included my amendment to cap funding 
for military bands at $200 million. This amendment would have saved 
taxpayers $125 million. Unfortunately, the Senate stripped this 
relatively modest but sensible cut from the bill. By protecting a 
bloated budget for the military's bands, it would appear that the 
Senate is elevating pomp and circumstance to a national security 
priority at the expense of fiscal responsibility. If Congress does not 
have the gumption to limit spending on military bands to $200 million 
in a time of financial crisis, how will we be able to cut the $600 
billion from the defense budget required by the upcoming budget 
sequestration?
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this national defense authorization. 
Congress should pass a bill that supports our troops and their 
families, responds to emerging threats to our national security. 
However, I cannot support legislation that erodes basic American 
freedoms.
  I request unanimous consent to insert a copy of the aforementioned 
New York Times editorial into the Record with my remarks.

                [From The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2011]

                        Politics Over Principle

       The trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, gave rise to a dangerous myth 
     that, to be safe, America had to give up basic rights and 
     restructure its legal system. The United States was now in a 
     perpetual state of war, the argument went, and the criminal 
     approach to fighting terrorism--and the due process that goes 
     along with it--wasn't tough enough.
       President George W. Bush used this insidious formula to 
     claim that his office had the inherent power to detain anyone 
     he chose, for as long as he chose, without a trial; to 
     authorize the torture of prisoners; and to spy on Americans 
     without a warrant. President Obama came into office pledging 
     his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush-
     era policies. He has fallen far short.
       Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the 
     abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far 
     too willing to adopt Mr. Bush's extravagant claims of 
     national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for 
     those abuses. This week, he is poised to sign into law 
     terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and 
     military trials a permanent part of American law.
       The measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, 
     will strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts 
     of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute 
     terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made 
     clear that it doesn't want the job. The legislation could 
     also give future presidents the authority to throw American 
     citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial. The 
     bill, championed by Republicans in the House and Senate, was 
     attached to the military budget bill to make it harder for 
     Mr. Obama to veto it.
       Nearly every top American official with knowledge and 
     experience spoke out against the provisions, including the 
     attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of the 
     F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of 
     intelligence agencies. And, for weeks, the White House vowed 
     that Mr. Obama would veto the military budget if the 
     provisions were left in. On Wednesday, the White House 
     reversed field, declaring that the bill had been improved 
     enough for the president to sign it now that it had passed 
     the Senate.
       This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces 
     the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this 
     bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and 
     federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, 
     while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.
       And the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, 
     his spokesman said, is prepared to sign this law because it 
     allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular 
     prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the 
     legislation's ban on spending any money for civilian trials 
     for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely 
     meaningless.
       The bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we 
     can't go into them all. Among the worst: It leaves open the 
     possibility of subjecting American citizens to military 
     detention and trial by a military court. It will make it 
     impossible to shut the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And it 
     includes an unneeded expansion of the authorization for the 
     use of military force in Afghanistan to include indefinite 
     detention of anyone suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda 
     or an amorphous group of ``associated forces'' that could 
     cover just about anyone arrested anywhere in the world.
       There is no doubt. This bill will make it harder to fight 
     terrorism and do more harm to the country's international 
     reputation. The White House said that if implementing it 
     jeopardizes the rule of law, it expects Congress to work 
     ``quickly and tirelessly'' to undo the damage. The White 
     House will have to make that happen. After it abdicated its 
     responsibility this week, we're not convinced it will.

                          ____________________