During a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) introduced an amendment that would allow the military to work "in a whole of government approach to conduct counterterrorism operations and prevent transnational crime." Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) objected to the amendment on the grounds that he believes it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
00:00We will now consider log number 5629 by Mr. Van Ordens. What purpose is the gentleman from Wisconsin to seek recognition?
00:11Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
00:13Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
00:18The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
00:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Navy SEAL, I have participated in many different joint task forces.
00:29And it's critical that we take a whole-of-government approach when we are fighting narco-terrorists
00:36and trying to prevent the importation of fentanyl into the United States.
00:41As I've repeatedly said, it cost the lives of more Americans than died in World War II.
00:47So currently, the ability for our Department of Defense to work hand-in-glove with other agencies is set to expire.
00:58And this amendment is very, very simple. We just want to codify and reaffirming the Modernization Joint Task Force Authority
01:05for Counterterrorism and Transnational Crimes. So what we want to do is make sure that our military can work in a whole-of-government approach
01:17to conduct counterterrorism operations and prevent transnational crime, which, as we know, are a long series of narco-terrorists
01:27that are responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's just that simple.
01:34It will codify the authority under Title X, make it permanent, so that our folks know that we will continuously have their back
01:41and the American people will know that we here in Congress are acting in a manner that's commiserate
01:47with a whole-of-government approach to protect them and their families.
01:51I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and with that I yield back.
01:55The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gary Mindy, is recognized.
02:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be a bore here, but I do want to try to parse out what's really important here.
02:09Our colleague is putting forth an amendment that may raise the question, the way this amendment is written,
02:19may raise the question of going around the posse comitatus prohibitions in which the military cannot be a domestic police force.
02:33We've seen in recent weeks that there are some indications that the military deployed on the southern border
02:42and also in southern California, Los Angeles area, may be engaging in policing activities beyond the stated purpose,
02:52which was to protect federal assets and lives, which is perfectly appropriate.
02:58So I want to be quite certain that we do not inadvertently drive a hole through the posse comitatus act.
03:08I'm going to end with a question to my colleague that he can answer in some time, but not quite yet.
03:15So as we go through the amendments, all of which are important, the previous ones dealt with the issue of where's the money coming from?
03:23F.S.R.M. funds, barracks and the like. I kind of caught myself early on when a billion dollars was taken out of the Sentinel to do to do the plane.
03:35I thought that was a fine idea, but I may be less open on this set.
03:41So we need to be careful here. We need to be thoughtful. I know all the committee members, Democrat and Republican, are.
03:49And I suspect once we get past the rigors of the current debate back and forth,
03:55president's good, president's bad, so on and so forth, we are writing law.
04:00And in this case, it's an extension of existing authority.
04:05It's not clear as I read this as to the limitations of that authority.
04:10And so leaving aside the issues of how it's just paid for, which we debated previously, my question goes to my colleague.
04:19Is it your intent to broaden or, excuse me, to limit the posse comitatus law with regard to the military engaging in policing activities?
04:32Absolutely not.
04:34I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
04:35Mr. Garamani, I appreciate it tremendously.
04:38Absolutely not.
04:40American civil liberties must be protected at all costs.
04:46Reclaiming my time. Thank you, sir.
04:49In many ways, as we put together this NDAA and the final version after we work with the Senate,
04:57we need to be very aware of what we are doing.
05:02There are some principles, this being one, that we care deeply about.
05:06Where the money comes from, that comes and goes every year.
05:09And I think all of us, Democrat and Republican, are very concerned about the quality of life issues.
05:16Money coming from barracks and housing and so forth.
05:20And, of course, the readiness issues that we always deal with.
05:24But this gets to be, this amendment deals with a fundamental issue.
05:28I thank the gentleman's, and I'm sure that as this moves forward, he and I will both be watching.
05:34Thank you so very much. I yield back.
05:36And I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.
05:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:42Look, I think we all here on this committee can agree that fentanyl is a huge issue.
05:48And we should be talking about how to address it.
05:51I'm happy to have that conversation with anyone on this committee because it's an urgent issue.
05:57But military assistance to law enforcement should never be routine or permanent.
06:01And that's what this amendment seeks to do.
06:03You see, we have a clear military and civilian divide for many reasons.
06:07One is to prevent creeping authoritarianism where the military might be used to suppress political opposition, dissent, or control the population.
06:15Two is that there are very different rules of engagement for law enforcement and the military.
06:21Tactics, oversight, they're all different.
06:24Three, the military and law enforcement are trained differently.
06:28The police are trained in tactics like de-escalation, crowd control, and due process.
06:33The military is trained for combat.
06:35We literally all call them the most lethal fighting force in the world.
06:38Why would we want the most lethal fighting force in the world?
06:41On American streets, talking to American civilians.
06:45And four, the posse comatitis act rightly limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement to prevent misuse and abuse of the military against our own people.
06:54I believe that we should be strengthening that law.
06:57But this amendment blurs that line even more, even if you don't mean it to.
07:01This amendment is vague and ripe for abuse.
07:04So, despite its good intentions, I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
07:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
07:10I yield back.
07:11The gentlelady yields back.
07:12Is any gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland, recognized?
07:16Great.
07:17Well, thank you, Congressman Van Orden, for clarifying that this is not a sneaky way to try and turn the military on U.S. citizens.
07:24I think you've heard that expressed by my colleagues here on this side of the aisle.
07:28And, you know, we think about dissent, we think about peaceful protest, and we think about freedom of expression as fundamental American traditions.
07:38And when that oath of office is taken to protect and defend the Constitution, that's what this is about.
07:44So, I will, you know, I agree with my colleagues about making sure that we are crystal clear that this does not take the U.S. military and use it as a way to turn it on U.S. citizens.
07:55And I will use the example.
07:56I mean, we've seen this president militarize domestic law enforcement duties and even allowing people who wear masks and are unidentified ICE agents roaming our cities, rolling up on people, and hurting U.S. citizens and detaining them.
08:12So, we want to make sure that scope creep does not happen.
08:16And because I cannot trust this administration to do that, I'm going to vehemently recommend a no vote.
08:23I yield back.
08:25Gentle lady yields back.
08:27Any additional members?
08:29Is that as strong as vociferously?
08:32I think it's stronger for all y'all.
08:34Stronger.
08:35Okay.
08:36Okay.
08:37All right.
08:38There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Van Orden.
Be the first to comment