[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 72 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PHIL GINGREY

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 17, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4310) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for 
     other purposes:

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of 
amendment #45, offered by Mr. Gohmert. This amendment clarifies that 
the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of 
habeas corpus--or any Constitutional rights--to those detained in the 
United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is necessary because while the intent in 
the FY '12 NDAA was not to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. 
citizens without access to legal representation, some have misconstrued 
it as such. Simply put, this misunderstanding must end today. I support 
this amendment because I believe that providing for the safety and 
security of United States citizens is the paramount responsibility of 
the federal government. As we continue to fight the Global War on 
Terror, we must provide the President, the intelligence community, and 
our troops with all of the tools necessary to carry out this duty. 
Clearly, we must do this within the framework of our Constitution, and 
make certain that the Constitutional rights provided for our citizens 
are not violated.
  Mr. Chair, in order to guarantee our citizens' Constitutional rights, 
I am further pleased that the text of H.R. 4388, the Right to Habeas 
Corpus Act--which was authored by Mr. Rigell of Virginia and of which I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor--was included in the FY '13 NDAA. 
Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states `The Privilege of the 
Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of 
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' This 
legislation affirms that and goes on to state that ``Nothing in the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40; 50 U.S.C. 
1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112 81) shall be construed to deny the availability of 
the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or 
under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in 
the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force.''
  Mr. Chair, with the adoption of Mr. Gohmert's amendment and inclusion 
of Mr. Rigell's legislation, we are taking the steps necessary to 
ensure the protection of our citizens' rights, while at the same time 
denying terrorists the same privileges.
  Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey--as well as other 
high ranking national security officials from both the Reagan and Bush 
Administrations--requested in a May 9 letter to the Chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee that ``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.'' Clearly they are referencing the 
misunderstanding stemming from the FY '12 NDAA. They further wrote that 
``the FY '12 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.''
  As it relates to the other end of the spectrum--providing terrorists 
the same rights as would be conferred to U.S. citizens, as would be the 
case if the amendment authored by Mr. Smith and Mr. Amash were to be 
adopted--their letter states that ``. . . 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.''
  Mr. Chair, I am glad that because of our actions today, we are making 
clear the distinction between the rights provided our citizens and 
those provided to terrorists, while stating unequivocally that U.S. 
citizens will not be stripped of their habeas privileges.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Gohmert's amendment.

                          ____________________