[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.
____________________