the protection -- sir, they took my time i would like to take another 15 seconds that was taken from me. >> go ahead. >> thank you. >> so where are we here? are we going to -- are we going to inject this nation further into this war or are we going to say, wait a minute. this language is inappropriate. the amendment would strike the language and leave us where we are. i yield. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what this strikes is a requirement that the president explain troop reductions, and i don't understand why people would be so opposed to that. there is at least among a considerable portion of the american people a concern that

what's going on is some sort of arbitrary or political timetable for forcing our troops out of afghanistan before the afghans are ready to stand on their own two feet, and a requirement that the president explain reductions and explain the risk associated with them, and explain the, give us an assessment of how the afghan security forces are coming doesn't seem to me to be a bridge too far. and -- and so because of the concern that exists, i think the language in the bill makes good sense. and -- frankly, i don't think that however you feel about afghanistan, and we can get into all of these debates about the afghan government and what we're doing there and all these other things that have come up, but regardless of how one feels about those things, it seems to me that this ought to be the minimum amount of information that we expect from the executive in order to do our

job. so i -- i don't completely understand the opposition to requiring that information come to the committee. >> gentleman yields back. anybody else wish to speak? gentleman from florida, mr. west, recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and you know, i can't agree with both sides of the argument that i'm hearing here. i spent 2.5 wonderful years over in afghanistan, and i think one of the confusing things that we have down at the tactical level, we have a lack of strategic vision, a lack of strategic clarity in the objectives that we're looking at. i think that we continue to narrow our focus, talking about, you know, different groups, being it al qaeda or taliban or whatever. you know, we didn't go into world war ii fighting against the japanese 12th infantry regimen or the 55th german tank regimen, and i think if we don't

recognize that this is a very adaptable enemy. you know, a couple years ago, no one knew about the haqqani network and now they're afflicting terrible casualties. the taliban can change they are name. mr. clinton lk can change their name. i think we need to define who this enemy is and understand if we do not do something about these sanctuaries of the enemy that are across the boarder in fak stan, there be never be a secure environment in afghanistan. so i'm going to put this in very simple soldier language. you're pissing up a rope if you don't do better in defining a clear strategic vision and guidance. i think somewhere in the middle, we don't need to strike it all, and the language go have can be probably refined a little bit better. so that we have a clear strategic vision that enables us to be able to do the five basic tactical tasks. find the enemy, fix him in position, engage him with his weapon system, destroy him when in place and do as necessary.

we need that at the ground level and we need that at the strategic level and i think that's what's been missing the past several years, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. we recognize the gentleman from new jersey. >> a support mr. president smith's amendment. the underlying bill asked for something asked and answered and in the normal course of discourse will be answered again. strategic vision over the last three years, the tide has turned. we broke the taliban's momentum. we built strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership taking out 20 of their top 30 leaders and one year ago from base in afghanistan our troops lost the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that was set to defeat al qaeda and deny the chance to rebuild is within reach. that's what the president said last week. in afghanistan, in laying this out. when general allen was here -- >> will the gentleman yield me

ten seconds? >> i have -- >> just ten seconds vgtsz yeah, ten seconds. yep. >> the taliban gave us a very clear response within 90 minutes of the president taking off last week. they're not done. they're not -- >> reclaiming my time. we're not done either, and when general allen was asked about our ability to finish the job, here's what he said. he was asked about the timeline. he said to one of our colleagues, "congressman, i'll be honest with you now and i'll be honest with the next administration. i believe this strategy will work. th ." this is general allen speaking. it's not about forces fighting right to the end of 2014 and bearing the burden of this campaign. this campaign very clearly envisages that the ais will move out to the front, have the lead and secure the population of afghanistan. you can disagree with that vision. that's the democratic process, but to say the president hasn't put a vision or a strategy out isn't correct. to say it's been doubted by the military leadership, isn't

correct. and the amendment i think for mr. smith is correct, because it fixes it, a problem in the bill. i yield back. >> jamg yields back. anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? the chair recognizes mr. hunter for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would disagree with my friend from new jersey, the president didn't articulate a strategic vision. the president, you can say, spiked the football. the president went over on the one-year anniversary of bin laden being killed and gave a nice speech about what has happened recently in afghanistan. this section 1216, we haven't talked about what it actually says. here are things it actually spepz clearly states the u.s. should not maintain an indefinite combat mission in transition to a counterterrorism and advise and assist mission as soon as practicable. we can agree that's a very good thing. section 12916 emphasizes the need to maintain the security gains in afghanistan, and address the capacity of the afghan national security forces

to fill the void upon u.s. withdrawal of u.s. troops. it's consistent with general allen's position regarding future force levels. he stated in here, about a month and a half ago, that by december 2012 he'll evaluate and provide a recommendation to the president on the military fore structure that he will need the following withdrawal of the surge forces. all this says is it asks the president to consider general allen's recommendations and lastly it requires the administration to notify us upon his decision to withdraw additional u.s. troops and to include any assessment of enabling conditions on the ground. those aren't bad things. and the reason that we're having to do this is because the administration hasn't. it's that simple. this is one of the, probably, the best articulated in as few words, this section 1216, as i've seen given anywhere and the only reason we're having to do this ises to explain to the american people what we're doing over there, because this president seems to go over there

once a year, give a nice speech and as commander in chief, i'm happy that he did. but he needs to do more and we're going to help him do that with this section. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> the chair -- recognizes mr. johnson for two minutes. >> thank you. we've had a lot of armchair general -- general -- >> if the yield would yield, i'm just a captain in the marine corps reserve. >> we've had a lot of armchair generals spouting off about how things used to be, and i believe that they were, there was no clear strategic vision in afghanistan, perhaps when you gentlem gentlemen served there. that's clear. there's was no vision past tora bora, and we let osama bin laden off the hook there, and then

went to war in iraq and everybody in here support that on the other side, i'm sure, and president obama promised to end that quagmire, brought the troops home, true to his word. he has stepped up the pace in afghanistan, put a strategic vision in place to eliminate al qaeda, and top bring some stability to afghanistan, and he has also said that he's going to bring the troops home. we cannot stay in iraq. forever. we've got to transition out of there. and i think that's the responsible thing to do and try to make it appear that the president has been ineffective or just a fumbling idiot in the our affairs in afghanistan is just not -- not true. and so i think the amendment

here, mr. smith's amendment, it's a good amendment, and let's let this president keep working so that we can get our troops out of iraq -- excuse me -- afghanistan as quickly as we can, as is reason, and i'll yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. kaufman, for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was in afghanistan with several of my colleagues. mostly from this committee. and we had met with -- ambassador crocker and we met with general allen and both of them said the same thing in separate meetings. that they would like to see the presence of 68,000 that would be drawn down to september. stay through the end of 2014.

the good thing about this amendment is, it says that if we could achieve our objective prior to that, and shift operational control earlier, then certainly do so. you know, i'm reminded having served in iraq with the united states marine corps, in my last assignment during my tour of duty, being in meetings with tribal leaders, convincing them to cooperate with the united states, that we -- we there -- we were in it to win it, and knowing that if that was not accurate that they would be dead, that they would subsequently be killed for having cooperated with us, if, in fact, the insurgents or the al qaeda elements took back that particular river valley. the -- i was in a shirra in november in afghanistan, meeting with some village elders, and expressed that same anxiety to.

so whether or not we should have been in afghanistan in the first place, and i don't believe we should have, once in we have an obligation to bring the war to a just conclusion, and i believe the way this amendment is written right now, i mean, not the -- not the amendment to strike it but the language right now achieves that -- certainly is responsible. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. mr. smith is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i'll try to do this quickly just to close. i agree with a lot of what mr. kaufman said, that the goal here is to bring this to a responsible end and i think there's a lot in the underlying language that makes sense. it's the part about 68,000 troops through december 31st. now it sdm says unless fewer

troops can neat objective. a strong toint, 68,000 through december 311 and then a credible troop presence even after that, and my concern in the region is the ability of a large troop presence to force stability on afghanistan. the other thing i'll dit disagree with. the president on many occasions not just once a year when he goes to afghanistan, on many occasions articulated his vision for afghanistan. we have to stop al qaeda and bringingal tan ban with them. until we to train the afghan national security forces to provide that level of security. there are now over 300,000 of them trained but we also have to be mindful of the limitations of u.s. military force in that part of the world just simply through our sheer numbers and might to force stability on that region. it's not going to happen. at some point, the responsibility is going to vpg to shift to the afghan people to dom it, and that's a dangerous point, but it would be a

dangerous point if we waited 20 years to do it. we have done what we can. we need to make the transition. my problem with the substantive language in this underlying bill is it is a strong deployment a sub special troop presencens for a longer period of time than tie think is warranted and lfr urge support for the amendment. i yield back. >> you know, i met a few weeks ago with general allen, and he had not decided yet what force should be there. he was in the process, he said, are evaluating and studying, and it seems to me that this language that we have here gives him that ability to do that. you know, we hear that the american people want us out of afghanistan as soon as possible. i did a poll in my district just a few weeks ago. and i asked the question, do you think that we should pull the troops out immediately or do you think we should follow the

counsel of the generals and bring them out over a period of time? i was surprised. 60% said follow the counsel of the generals. we have not received the counsel of general allen yet, because he hasn't completed it yet. what this says is, we maintain a force of at least 68,000 troops which is what the drawdown will bring the surge troops down to within the next short period, by september, and this would give the flexibility to general allen. say he comes up with -- he needs 68,000 troops through '14. we've already made the commitment that through -- and signed the agreement. the president has committed to that to have the war fighters out by the end of 2014. i don't see any -- any inconsistency here with that, and then he just signed an agreement with president karzai

to have a force remain for another ten years. this gives him the flexibility for that. maintain a credible troop presence doesn't indicate any number. it gives the president time to work that out. at the chicago meeting where they meet. so i think that this language s is -- is proper and does the, gives the flexibility for general input up through the chain of command, which he will do shortly, and then we should see what he has to say. i think this gives us the flexibility to carry that out. so is there any other discussion on the amendment? hearing none, the question is on the adoption the amendment offered by mr. smith. so many in favor say aye. those opposed will say, no. the nos have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. and the -- ranking member asked for a roll call vote. we will take that up at the end of the chairman's mark. are there any other amendments? >> yes, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. actually, while we're doing that, on these next two amendments i'm going to offer and withdraw. so in the interests of timish we could pass both now by, just consider them as one for a brief moment until tear both withdrawn. >> will the clerk, please, distribute 102 and 103 and without objection, we will consider them in block, and the ranking member will explain them and then withdraw. >> thank you, mr. chairman. these are parentalials, at least three years now. this is the underlying portion of the bill that restricts the president's ability, one, to

transfer inmates out of guantanamo bay, and, two, prohibits any effort to build facilities to accommodate any of those prisoners here in the u.s. we have had this debate at great length. i know that i do not have the votes in this committee to change it. i simply want to raise the objection and let folks know that i still think it is the wrong policy to limit the president's flexibility on how to handle those inmates. and at some point we're going to have to deal with it. i forget the number. i think it's 171. at this point, given where we're at policy wise, all of them will be there forever. limiting the alternatives is not a sustainable practice. at some point we're going to have to make a decision on what to do there, and i hope this committee will consider that going forward. i realize this is something that's been attached to all the appropriations bills and everything now has just become an accepted part of our policy and therefore is not going to be

reversed. as i said earlier on other things i merely wish to note the objection answers urge the committee to consider this question in some detail as we go forward in future defense authorizing acts, because at some point we're going to have to figure out what to do with all of those folks down in guantanamo. with that, mr. chairman, i will withdraw both of these amenamen >> the gentleman withdraws. are there oh amendments? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. reading dispersonsed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. hunter for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last year this committee required secretary of defense to give this committee 30 days notice prior to releasing a detainee from guantanamo bay. all we asked is that the secretary provide us the information on where that detainee was going to. this adds to that certification.

we've had time to sleep on the last ndaa, and i think that we can improve upon this section in the way that this improves upon it, is that it makes that 30 days 90 days and it makes the secretary of defense inform this congress and this committee not only where those detainees are going to be going to, but what they did wrong, who they are, their affiliations and what the chances are that the secretary of defense thinks of that person doing bad things to americans again, or planning to do bad things to americans. it's simply allows this committee to exercise its jurisdiction and oversight on hoop gets released from guantanamo and i would urge a yes vote. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment?

mr. -- ranking member smith is recognized. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. as i've discussed earlier on some of the other things i have problems with many of the restrictions that we've placed on a transfer and on the ability of the department of defense and the president to make transfers there. i don't see this as fundamentally altering that underlying debate. so i don't have -- i'm not going to raise an objection at this time. i may not support it long term, but like i said, the underlying question doesn't really change that much based on that amendment so i'm not going to raise an objection to it. >> gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? >> hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. hunter. so many are in favor will say aye. those opposed -- no. thee ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments? mr. garamendi has an amendment. will the clerk, please, distribute the amendment. the without objection reading of the amendment will be dispense pd with. the chair recognizes mr. garamendi for two minutes to explain the amendment. >> gentleman's recognize to offer and explain his amendment. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. this issue deals with the civil liberties that all of us ought to be paying a great deal of attention to.

in last year's ndaa, the question of the apprehension and detention or indefinite detention of persons within the united states became a critical issue. this amendment is an effort to try to clarify that language. and to make it clear that within the united states, a person cannot be held without access to an article 3 court. that's what it does. it's extraordinarily important issue of civil liberties, whether you are on the left or right or wherever else in between. we need to really make it very clear that the united states constitution is clear about access to court, and that this amendment is language that is being debated and discussed and improved upon, i suspect. we'll see where it goes. i'm going to not bring this to a

vote. i will withdraw it and there may be others that want to comment on it, but this will -- between now and when this bill comes to the floor, they'll be language that will deal with this issue, and hopefully on the floor will pass and clarify that in the united states, we do not apprehend people and hold them indefinitely without access to an article 3 court, or a state court. so i'm going to withdraw this, if anybody would like to comment, they certainly can have the -- i'll hold until somebody, if they want to take it up. >> mr. connolly? >> i'm actually look at section 1033 where it says, nothing in the authorization for use of

military force public law 107.40 or the national defense organization act 2091279 shall be con screwed to deny the availability of habeas corpus established under article 3 of the constitution for any person who's detained in the united states pursuant to the authorization for use of military force. so i'm not sure of the difference between the two, but looks like we've got it taken care of and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any other discussion? gentleman withdraws his amendment. any other discussion? any other amendments? >> yes, mr. chairman. i put an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk, please, distribute the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. and ranking member smith is recognized to explain and offer his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to offer throughout this again, because we have a

sequential referral problem. this debate will happen on the floor next we're, however, and this does deal with the indefinite detention issue. the first thing i want to clarify, because another piece of this amendment is strike the underlying portion of the bill that mr. president conaway just referenced. there was a considerable amount of controversy over the nda last year and how it handled indefinite detention as everybody on the committee knows. there's a part of me that was deeply troubleed by that criticism, because the problems that people were pointing to pre-dated last year's ndaa. and yet somehow all kinds of criticism were heaped upon that, but in 2001, congress passed the aumf and courts subsequently interpreted it to allow for the indefinite detention and for the military custody of people all over the world by the president if they are considered to be a covered person under the aumf. in other words, found to have committed certain acts in

support of terrorism, they can be held indefinitely by our country, or put in military custody and then put up for military tribunal. that existed prior to last year's ndaa. and i argued quite vociferously on that point. we also heard last year at many points that somehow last year's ndaa suspended habeas corpus. it did not. it never did. now, the underlying bill attempts to address that fictional problem by saying, well, if you think we did this, we really didn't, and furthermore, we're going to emphasize that habeas corpus applies to everybody. that is not really helpful overall, because habeas corpus does apply to everybody. now, that was the whole purpose of setting up guantanamo bay in the first place, considered outside the united states control and therefore not subject to habeas corpus. supreme court came along, in a

decision, i get them mixed up said, no, guantanamo bay is effectively under u.s. control. pick them up, send them there, they get habeas. that's subtle law. we didn't touch it last year and putting it in last year's bill doesn't do anything. if you couldn't convince them last year based on the law and you're gotting to convince them baup you put it in there one more time mip bill goes out to the substantive problem created in 2001, that the indefinite detention power given to the president is an enormous amount of power. he basically, if he declares someone to be an enemy combatant, can take and hold that person indefinitely and all that person gets in terms of process is the habeas corps us. all habeas corpus is, a minimum finding before a court when they say, do you have the right to hold this person under the law? it does not have any of the due process of the adversarial, the lengthy trial, everything that's contained in the norm's article

3 court constitutional process. it is an enormous amount of power and i think the people that were raising concerns about the ndaa last year were right to raise concern answer this issue. it is very, very rare in this country to give that amount of power to the president, to take away any person's fundamental freedom and lock them um without the normal due process of law, without all of the civil liberties praeotected in our constitution to take that away is an enormous step. so we have to ask ourselves the question, is it necessary? did we need to do this? and that is fundamental of the argument for opposing my amendment. we have to take this step, because it's necessary to protect us against the terrorists threat that al qaeda and associated forces present. the only trouble with that argument is there's very little evidence that it's true that we have to have that amount of power. so what my amendment does is takes away the ability to indefinitely detain or place in