Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honorable chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for once again working in a bipartisan manner to bring before this House H.R. 4909, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I don't agree with everything that is in this bill. In fact, there is a lot I do disagree with. But I appreciate that the chairman and the ranking member always treat all Members submitting amendments to the NDAA with respect, and that is very much appreciated.

But I must rise in very strong opposition to this structured rule because there are very serious issues that merit the time and attention of this House that were submitted to the Rules Committee by Members from both sides of the aisle, which have not been included in this structured rule. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. As a Democrat, I am used to being shut out by the Republican majority, but dozens of Republican amendments were blocked as well.

Let me say to my Republican friends who did not have their amendment made in order: If you don't want this to be a pattern, then vote ``no'' on this rule; if you don't want this to be a precedent, then vote ``no'' on this rule. Send a message to your leadership that, in fact, you want a more open and transparent process. Don't go along just to get along. Don't be a cheap date when it comes to an open process in this House. The issues that are involved with the Defense Authorization Act are too important to be just blocked with no debate, no deliberation, and no votes. My friend talks about an open process. Open process, my foot. It is not an open process. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. That is just not right.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that disturbs me in particular about this structured rule, it is how it fails the American people once again in not allowing substantial debate about the issues of war and peace. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical than the issues of war and peace.

And once again, the Republicans on the Rules Committee have ensured that no amendment that deals with authorizing the current U.S. military engagements in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan was made in order. The only amendment made in order is the one offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to repeal the 2001 AUMF for Afghanistan, an amendment that she has courageously offered for several years now.

Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments not made in order was an amendment offered by me and several colleagues to prohibit the use of any U.S. funds after April 30, 2017, for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq or Syria in the fight against the Islamic State if an AUMF has not been enacted. This was a bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Jones, Garamendi, Yoho, Lee of California, Cicilline, and myself.

And let me make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker: this amendment is not an AUMF. There is not one single syllable in this amendment that reflects the language of an AUMF.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was very clear during the committee markup of the NDAA that AUMF amendments were not the jurisdiction of his committee but, rather, the Foreign Affairs Committee. But this amendment is not an AUMF. And it is germane, by the way.

My amendment only prohibits the obligation and expenditure of funds after April 30, which is the chairman's chosen date for the cutoff of all OCO funding, and then only for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, unless an authorization for that purpose has been enacted.

Quite simply, if you want the money to fight a war, then pass an AUMF. This amendment doesn't care who writes it. It doesn't care when it is debated or approved. It just requires that an AUMF be enacted by April 30. If not, no more funds for U.S. troops in the air, on the water, or on the ground until an AUMF is enacted.

All this amendment asks is that Congress do its job. We ask our men and women in the military to do their jobs, and Heaven only knows, they carry out their duty with courage, honor, and professionalism. I only ask that Congress do the same. This should not be too much to ask.

We have sent our uniformed men and women into harm's way in Syria and Iraq for nearly 2 years now and still Congress refuses to do its duty and authorize their deployment. We have been bombing, we have got boots on the ground and engaged in combat, and we have had troops killed in action, yet this Congress can't seem to debate and vote on an AUMF.

I personally believe that endless wars, endless bombing, and an ever- expanding U.S. military footprint in the Middle East is not a substitute for efforts aimed at reconciliation and political solutions. The status quo will not make the world more secure. I know some of my colleagues differ with me, and that is fine, but let's have the debate. Let's have clarity in what we are doing, and let's make sure that what we are doing works. Dodging responsibility only means that these wars will remain on remote control, and that is sad.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard lots and lots and lots of excuses. One of my favorite excuses that we heard last night was that 10 minutes would not be enough time to debate such a serious matter as what my amendment proposes. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee can assign as much time as it wants to debate an amendment. That is what we are there for. Two hours, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks if it wishes. That is what the Rules Committee is supposed to do: provide serious time to debate serious issues.

I heard that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be and would be drafting an AUMF. Fine. Terrific. If it comes out and is enacted before April 30, then it would fit right in with my amendment. But if this House continues to dawdle and whine and shirk its duties, then there should be no more money after April 30 for a war that hasn't been authorized by Congress.

I was told that the Republican leadership doesn't like the AUMF that the President sent to Congress over a year ago. Well, neither do I. I think it is too broad. But, Mr. Speaker, if the majority or anyone here doesn't like the President's AUMF, then it is the duty of Congress to draft debate and vote upon its own version of an AUMF and send the bill back to the President for his signature or veto. That is how the system works, or at least that is how it would work if this House ever managed to do its job.

I was told that the next President wouldn't have enough time to figure out an AUMF for Iraq and Syria by April 30. But, Mr. Speaker, I didn't choose April 30 as a date when all funds for the Overseas Contingency Operations account would be cut off. That date is built into the NDAA already. If April 30 is enough time for a new President and new Congress to ask for more money for these wars that are supplemental, then it should be plenty of time for Congress to take up and debate an AUMF.

Now, of course, this Congress or the next one should and could take up an AUMF any day it so desires. I remember, in 2014, that Speaker Boehner told us that it would be better for the 114th Congress to debate and pass an AUMF for Iraq and Syria rather than the 113th Congress. Well, here we are 16\1/2\ months into the 114th Congress with no thought of taking up an AUMF on battling the Islamic State.

I guess this Congress is just too damned chicken to do its job when it comes to war, and we are going to kick the can into the 115th Congress or maybe the 116th Congress. Enough with the excuses, enough. In fact, I remember, last year, Speaker Ryan said an AUMF for Iraq and Syria for the war against the Islamic State would be one of the first things this Congress would take up this year. Well, here we are in the middle of May and there is no AUMF in sight, just the same old tired excuses, the same cowardice, the same political posturing.

There is no shortage of Members of Congress talking tough against ISIS. We hear it all the time on the House floor. But let's be honest: that takes absolutely no courage at all. None of us are on the frontlines in Syria or Iraq. We are all safe and sound in the U.S. Capitol.

But think for a minute. What must be going through the minds of our troops when they see a Congress that doesn't even have the guts to debate these wars while they have been put in harm's way?

Every single Member of this House should be ashamed. Our collective silence--our collective indifference--is dismissive of our constitutional responsibility. This Chamber is guilty of moral cowardice.

Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 200 reasons to oppose this rule, and that is how many of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee were not made in order under either the first rule to the NDAA or today's rule. Basically, 50 percent of all amendments submitted are not being allowed a chance to be heard.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to show some backbone and demand that the majority leadership of this House carry out its constitutional duty to debate and vote on an AUMF for Iraq and Syria.

With respect to the gentleman, I don't think we agree with each other. The reason why we are doing this is because Congress has failed to act. The time for an AUMF is before you put troops in harm's way. Some of us tried before we entered into this latest Syrian war to actually have a debate on an AUMF, and we were denied that opportunity. We are reengaged in Iraq. We asked before we did that, ``Let's have an AUMF,'' and we were denied that opportunity. We have been denied and denied and denied and denied.

All we are saying is that we ought to do our job. The President submitted an AUMF to Congress. He did his job. You don't like it--I don't like what he submitted either--but he did his job. He doesn't control what we do here. We decide what to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee 2 years ago could have taken this issue up. They didn't. They are not taking it up now. Here we are 2 years into these latest conflicts and nothing. It is shameful. Come on. We ought to come together, even if we disagree on what our strategy should be, and debate this.

We have no trouble sending our young men and women into harm's way; yet when it comes to doing our job, all of a sudden we have 1,000 excuses why we can't do it. That is unacceptable.

In the dead of night in the Committee on Armed Services, House Republicans added what we believe is discriminatory language to the NDAA, which would effectively overturn President Obama's historic executive order that protects LGBT workers in Federal contracts, therefore, enabling discrimination with taxpayer funds. That is what we believe.

We had a very vigorous debate in the Committee on Rules last night, and the gentleman defended his position quite ferociously; but we believe it is discrimination, plain and simple. An amendment was offered by a Republican Member to strike that discriminatory language from the bill. It was germane, and the Committee on Rules decided on its own not to make it in order.

The Committee on Rules shouldn't be about making decisions on issues that, I think, the entire Congress has an interest in debating and in voting on, but, unilaterally, the Republicans in the Committee on Rules last night said: No, we are not going to make a Republican amendment in order that would have struck what we believe is discriminatory language.

That is not an open and transparent process. That is shutting the process down in a way that, I think, demeans this House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Give me a break. To insinuate that this is somehow all on the level or an open process, I take exception to that characterization.

The amendment that the distinguished minority whip was referring to was put into the rule. It was a self-executing amendment so that the majority here did not have an opportunity here to vote up or down on it on its own merits. Instead, they were forced to vote up or down on a rule that made in order a whole bunch of amendments on a variety of issues where they could vote up or down on, but not on this. So to defend this process, a process that is indefensible, is getting a little tired.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Many of us on this side, including many Republicans--because a Republican actually offered the amendment to strike this provision that the gentleman referred to because they thought it was discriminatory-- we think it is potential discrimination against members of the LGBT community.

But here is the deal--I get you disagree with us--but what is wrong with allowing an amendment that is germane, to debate it and vote on it? I mean, where does the Rules Committee get off saying you can't have that debate, you can't have that vote?

It is germane.

Now, we could disagree. We think it is discrimination. We ought to have that vote, and the Rules Committee denied us. This is another reason for Democrats and Republicans to vote down this rule.

Loretta Sanchez).

I appreciate the gentleman reciting the Republican talking points of the Republican leadership, but that doesn't explain why the amendment to strike this provision was not made in order.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this rule. Almost 200 germane amendments, substantive amendments were not made in order.

Again, I am used to, as a Democrat, having the Republicans shut me out every chance they get; but to my Republican colleagues who were shut out on their legitimate amendments, the germane amendments, stand with us and send a signal to your leadership that this closed process is unacceptable.

My colleague, Mr. Byrne, talks about this being an open process. We must have different definitions of openness because when almost 200 amendments are shut out--and, by the way, on top of all of that, there were really kind of unusual shenanigans in the Rules Committee about self-executing amendments so that we don't have an opportunity to even vote up or down on them--that is not an open process. That is something we should try to move away from.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close as I began by saying to my colleagues to please vote against this rule because it does not make in order the opportunity for us to be able to debate the issues of war and peace when it comes to Iraq and Syria.

We have been involved in Syria and again in Iraq now for almost 2 years. By the way, we left Iraq not because President Obama wanted us to, but because the Iraqi Parliament voted us to leave. That is a little bit of history that my colleague left out.

The time to debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of Military Force, was before we commit our forces into harm's way. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans, pleaded with the leadership to let us have that opportunity, for us to work in a bipartisan way to see whether we could come together. And time and time and time again, we were denied that ability, that right.

Now, we are being told: Well, you know, this is not the time. We don't have enough time to do it. Maybe the Committee on Foreign Affairs should do it, but this is not the place to do it.

When is?

You have waited for over 2 years. Nothing. I will say that these excuses, they are insulting to the American people, but more importantly and more significantly, they are insulting to the men and women who are in harm's way. They do their job. They do what we have asked them to do, but yet we don't have the guts to do what we are supposed to do. Shame on all of us for allowing this to go on this long without debating these wars.

The President of the United States submitted an AUMF. I have problems with it. I think it is too broad. If you don't like it, fine. Then come up with a new idea, but doing nothing is not an option.

Read the Constitution. We have an obligation. We are not living up to it. Do what is right by the American people, by the men and women who risk their lives every day because we have put them into harm's way.

It is absolutely unconscionable that we can't even have the ability to debate the amendment that I offered to be able to say that we are not going to continue funding these wars unless Congress does its job. That is the least we can do, and yet the Committee on Rules said no. It is germane, it is in order, there is no problem, but because some majority in the Committee on Rules says, ``No, we are not going to do it,'' everybody is denied that right? It is a bipartisan amendment. This is not just a Democratic concern. There are a lot of Republicans who share my views on this as well.

Let's do our job. Stop being so chicken when it comes to debating issues of war and peace. This is the time when we ought to come together and do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source