Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, our ranking member, for yielding me the time.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this restrictive rule. The gentleman from Alabama talks about a poison pill. The poison pill amendment he is talking about is an amendment that would prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community. That is the poison pill. It is pathetic that an anti-discrimination measure would be considered a poison pill, but only in this Republican-controlled House would that be the case.

I would also say to the gentleman that the last time I checked, Republicans have the majority in this place. You have 247; we have 188. You can do whatever you want to do. That is why we see these restrictive rules one after another after another coming before the House.

When I hear that we are limiting the appropriations amendment process only to get rid of poison pills, there are other amendments that I don't think would be considered poison pills that were denied. My colleague from California, Jackie Speier, had an amendment dealing with littoral combat ships. That was not made in order. If we had an open rule under the appropriations process that we should have had, that we were promised, she could have offered her amendment. But that was denied as well.

In terms of how the whole bill is funded with this overseas contingency account, it is one gimmick after another. It is embarrassing to try to defend this OCO account and how my colleagues have tried to get around the budget caps by going in and taking money to lift up the overall amounts in the base bill.

But here is the deal: I will say that I am grateful that an amendment was made in order that I authored along with Congressman Jones and many of my other colleagues that would basically say that it is about time Congress has a debate and a vote on an AUMF. We are at war in Syria, and we are at war in Iraq again. Our troops are in combat situations. That is the way the Secretary of Defense describes it. Our troops are being wounded. We have lost soldiers in these recent battles, and we have not had the courage in this institution to actually debate these wars and to vote up or down on whether we should continue these wars.

My friends have all kinds of excuses why we can't do this. First they say: Well, the White House has to come up with a plan.

The White House did.

Now it is: Well, we can't debate this because it is a delicate time.

We should have debated these wars before we entered these wars, yet the leadership of this House prevented us time and time again.

Now we have 10 minutes, 5 on both sides, to debate this amendment. But my amendment is very simple. It basically says no AUMF, no money. If we don't have the courage to have this debate and to authorize these wars, then our troops ought to come home. It is that simple. It is very, very straightforward. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would vote against this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. If some of my colleagues want to expand these wars, then this is the opportunity for you to do it. If some of my colleagues, like me, want to lessen our military footprint in the Middle East, this is the opportunity. But to do nothing is unconscionable, and voting for this would force us--would force us--to do our job and to live up to our constitutional responsibility.

We cannot hide behind all these excuses anymore. There is no more excuse. Our brave men and women are in harm's way. The least we can do is show them that we care enough about what is going on to have this debate and vote on an AUMF.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote for the McGovern-Jones amendment. Vote to force this House to have a debate and a vote on an AUMF. If not, let us bring our troops back home to safety with their families.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source