Rep. Doug Lamborn: Obama is “playing with national security in a dangerous way”

Click Here for Audio Version

Frank Gaffney: Doug Lamborn, a man who I’ve have privilege of knowing and working with now for quite some time, from his perspective as a Representative of the people of the 5^th District in Colorado, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Vice Chairman of its Strategic Forces Subcommittee, also a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Veteran’s Affairs. A very important and influential legislator, we’re also delighted to have him with us especially on the occasion of the President’s veto of one of your major legislative initiatives, Congressman Lamborn, the National Defense Authorization Act. Welcome back it’s good to have you with us sir.

Rep. Doug Lamborn: Well Frank I appreciate the work you do to promote our national security.

Frank Gaffney: Thanks. Lets talks about this Defense National Authorization Act. It’s not everyday that the President of the United States wields his veto pen to strike this legislation down. Remind our listeners Doug, if you would, what’s this Bill about, why is it important, and then we’ll talk about why the President is seen fit to veto it?

DL: There are two bills that deal with the military each year. The first is the Authorization Bill which this is, which describes all of the programs – sometimes new programs that have to be opened up, or modifications in existing programs, other changes – and then the appropriators give the money, in a separate bill, for all of those changes, and they might even have some input as well on where the dollars go, and the two of those make the package. This President has vetoed the NDAA, the Authorization Act, for this year and the first time in history its ever been vetoed for something that’s not even in bill itself.

FG: This is sort of the crux of the matter I think. There is one provision of this legislation that apparently the President found particularly objectionable, and it happens that at least it sounds as though the administration has Colorado in mind as a place that would have bearing on this objection. Give us a flavor of the legislation’s current treatment of the Guantanamo Bay Prison and the disposition of its jihadist detainees and why the President seems to be interested in your state as a place to put them?

DL: I know, this is a specific thing in the bill, the other issue is he just wants to get more funding for outside projects in other parts of the budget unrelated to the military, and that shouldn’t even be a reason for veto. But on this issue, and we will come back to that, but on Gitmo itself Frank, like you pointed out, the bill says ‘there will be no funds for no ability of power to transfer these people to U.S. soil’, and the President does not like that. He wants to shutdown Guantanamo Bay, he feels like that’s an incitement to people that just hate our way of life. Even if he had his way, God forbid, they would find other reasons and they have has other reasons to hate us because of their perverse philosophy, so Frank it was not going to help at all. In fact it’ll do a lot of harm. You send these people to U.S. soil you’ll have federal judges giving them constitutional rights, which will make it almost impossible to try them because it will force the disclosure of means and operations, methods and operations that we use for our most sensitive intelligence gathering, they’ll get into prison into the civilian population and start radicalizing, there will be security threats, people will find ways to do harm to our facilities and our personnel, some of who are my constituents, because they want to bring these people possibly to Colorado even. So Frank it’s just bad on so many fronts.

FG: What kinds of prisons are they talking about possibly putting them in, in Colorado? I saw one, I think, was a state penitentiary. Is it your judgment Congressman Doug Lamborn that those facilities are going to be adequate to deal with threats from perhaps outside to them or certainly to the safe incarceration of these guys, even if federal judges don’t muck things up?

DL: Frank I think whether they can be sprung loose, I don’t know about that. I don’t known if the bad guys could pull that off, but they could certainly bring violence and death to the people guarding the place, going to work in these places, coming home from work in these places.

FG: The surrounding communities too.

DL: Yeah, they could give it their best shot and do a lot of damage. Whether they would actually spring people free that I don’t know. There is a state and federal facility both that they’re looking at.

FG: Yeah, this is ill advised in the extreme and the bipartisan majorities that have consistently been blocking this kind of action are the sort of thing that you’d think would cause the President to relent, but he seems to be doubling down. Let’s turn to the other issue that you raised Congressman Doug Lamborn, and your right it is outrageous that the President seems to be trying to essentially euchre further pork barrel spending, perhaps you might call it, or at least additional domestic spending that may or may not be justified on the backs of our military personnel. How is that being seen by members of Congress? I would think that would be an affront even for some Democrats who’ve recognized the importance of this legislation.

DL: Well Frank there was a lot of support in both the House and the Senate by Democrats for the NDAA as it passed, so there’s a fighting chance of getting an override, which takes two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. The Senate was more than two-thirds, but we fell a little bit short in the House, but well over a majority well over 50 percent. The fact that he wants leverage he’s using our men and women in uniform and our national security as a pawn to leverage his demand that we spend more money on his pet projects, and the American people are sick and tired of the IRS and EPA these bureaucracies running rough shot over us, and they don’t want to give them even more money, but yet the President and the looming 18 trillion dollar plus national debt that we have, we have to get spending under control. He’s going in the opposite direction on the backs of our military.

FG: Amen, Congressman let me turn to one other provision in this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, with which I know you have been particularly involved. You represent some of the people most immediately providing for our space capabilities, particularly national security space capabilities out in Colorado. What is going on, as you see it, with respect to threats to our ability to operate in the high frontier as it’s been called, and to, if necessary, project power from there, and the counterpart efforts being made to those who might deny us such capabilities notably communist China?

DL: Well Frank space use to be a sanctuary, it is no longer a sanctuary. We know that China and to a lesser extent Russia have tremendous capabilities that could do harm to key assets we have in space for communications, for intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, and for other vital military missions for our war fighters and for security. You know detecting incoming possible, God forbid, nuclear ballistic missiles. There are all kinds of things we need space for and our near peers China and Russia are very well aware of what our assets are, and now they’re developing the technology to do something about it and we have to fight back.

FG: And what does the Defense Authorization Bill do in that regard to assure that we have in fact the kind of capabilities we need for space control?

DL: Well General Hyten who runs Space Command, has a major new initiative to expand our ability to do just this, to develop the capabilities to stay in front technologically of what the Russians and Chinese are trying to do, and if we veto this Bill and it’s sustained, we can’t initiate new programs, or do major modifications of existing programs. We just have to at best continue with existing programs in a rigid lockstep fashion without any amendments or changes possible, and even there funding becomes an issue because funding might run out, so we are in deep trouble if the President gets his way. He’s playing with our national security in a dangerous way Frank.

FG: And a dangerous time. Congressman Doug Lamborn of the 5^th District of Colorado I salute you for your leadership, particularly on trying to get a major force program introduced here on the space control front both to deter our adversaries and to assure our security and economic wellbeing as you say. Keep up that good work sir come back to us again if you would very soon. In the meantime we appreciate all that your doing.