Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security regardless of party, region or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual Defense authorization bill.

I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality.

Given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies: from warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called ``updated'' authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America but, instead, gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere and for any length of time.

Such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.

Yesterday, I expressed my hope that the Rules Committee would make in order amendments so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body. Over 200 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and 152 amendments were made in order; but each amendment only receives 10 minutes of debate time, evenly divided between supporters and opponents.

When the House is debating whether to significantly change and expand the authority under which the President--any President--may send our servicemen and -women into harm's way without consulting Congress and under the vague terminology of fighting global terrorism, is 10 minutes really enough time to give this grave matter the attention it deserves?

When military operations are underway in Libya, is 10 minutes really enough time to debate whether ground troops should not be deployed under any circumstances?

A number of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee focused on the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan. As most of my colleagues know, I believe we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It has demanded the lives of 1,573 of our servicemen and -women, and has gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. Suicide rates among our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq have soared; and right now, there is no genuine path aimed at ending our military footprint in Afghanistan--no exit strategy.

The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and to ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and to their communities.

This is a moment to bring fresh eyes to the question of what kind of defense priorities and budget best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times. This is a matter that touches every single American and especially our uniformed men and women, their families and their communities.

How can we make any decision on budget priorities unless we know how much longer this war is going to last?

Already, it is the longest war in our Nation's history. It is bankrupting our Nation. Every day, every week, every month, we see billions and billions of
dollars charged to the national credit card, increasing the deficit, increasing the debt--with no end in sight.

We see corruption everywhere within the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and we see the basic needs of our own communities--roads, bridges, clean water systems, education, health care, and hunger programs--cut or eliminated for lack of funds.

Where does it all end? When does it all end? On a matter this important, shouldn't we be engaged in debate for more than 10 minutes?

I am pleased that the amendment I submitted with cosponsors Walter Jones, Loretta Sanchez, Justin Amash, John Lewis, Ron Paul, David Cicilline, and Peter Welch was made in order. We have 5 minutes to describe why the President needs to clearly lay out to Congress, to the American people, to our military men and women, and to our military families exactly how and when we will complete the accelerated transition of our military operations to the Afghan authorities--5 minutes, Mr. Speaker--not to mention why the President needs to accelerate talks to achieve a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan and why we need to have a new National Intelligence Estimate, not just a report from the National Counterterrorism Center on the leadership, locations and capacity of al Qaeda.

Five minutes.

This Defense bill would give the executive branch carte blanche to fight global terrorism anywhere and by any means, but we don't even have an up-to-date NIE on al Qaeda.

That's not debate, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, it's an insult, not to mention that, if we add up the time of all the amendments, at best, the debate on the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan might begin as early as 10 or 11 o'clock tonight--but, most likely, even later. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to rush this bill through just because Members were told they could fly out of town at 3 o'clock tomorrow. We could stay on Friday or we could continue the debate on the amendments next week.

War. The very lives of our uniformed men and women. Libya. Unchecked power granted to the executive versus the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war or to authorize the specific use of our military might around the world. These are matters that deserve much greater attention than what is granted under this rule.

I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Jones-Sanchez-Amash-Lewis-Paul-Cicilline-Welch amendment on Afghanistan when it comes up for debate late this evening; and I ask my colleagues to reject this rule, which denies this House the ability to debate these grave matters in the manner they deserve and require.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

very, very important issues that impact everybody, every single person in our country: issues of war; issues of granting the executive branch this new broad authority to be able to go to war any time they want without even consulting the United States Congress, giving them these unilateral powers which I believe is not what our Founding Fathers ever anticipated; issues involving Libya; and I could go on and on and on, not to mention some of the issues that were not allowed to be brought up at all, and Ms. Bordallo just mentioned one of them. I don't understand why that was not made in order.

But in this House of Representatives, since the new majority took over, we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. You know, we spent hours debating whether we should defund National Public Radio. But on the issue of Afghanistan, what our policy should be in Afghanistan, we have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, we are borrowing over $8.2 billion a month--a month, a month--to pay for Afghanistan, that is all going on our credit card. That is going, adding to our deficit, to our debt. Our kids and grandkids are going to pay for the fact that we are not paying for it now. Those issues deserve more than a few minutes of debate.

Again, I have an amendment on Afghanistan to encourage the President to rethink our policy and to develop an exit strategy, and I and all the other Members who are cosponsoring my bill, my amendment, are given 5 minutes--5 minutes--to talk about this issue. Surely we could spend at least another 5 minutes on top of that--I mean, hopefully even longer--being able to discuss this important issue.

I regret that, because I think we need to be debating and discussing what we are doing in Afghanistan. I think it is important. I think the American people want us to figure a way out, and yet we give them 5 minutes to be able to debate this issue. I think that is regrettable.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would again remind my colleagues that on the issue of what our future should be in Afghanistan, those of us who want us to rethink our policy and develop an exit strategy are given 5 minutes--5 minutes. We could debate whether we should fund National Public Radio or not for hours, and all the other items on the Republican social agenda for hours and hours and hours, but when it comes to the issue of war, we are told you get 5 minutes. I don't think that's adequate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by making a couple of points here. First, I would urge everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to support the McGovern-Jones amendment on Afghanistan. I think there is bipartisan concern and bipartisan anxiety about our policy. I think there are Republicans, as well as Democrats, who believe that it's time to rethink this strategy and to come up with an exit strategy to bring our troops home, to bring them back to their families and to bring them back to their communities.

We need to make our voices heard. The President has said in July he is going to make an announcement about the drawdown of American troops. We're hearing from some sources that it may be only a token drawdown. We need a real drawdown, a significant drawdown, because if not, we are going to be engaged in a war that has no end.

We are borrowing money like there's no tomorrow to pay for this war; $8.2 billion a month we're borrowing. We're not even paying for it. For those who support this war, I would say that if you support it, then pay for it. And I will tell you that most of the people across this country believe it's time to leave. We're supporting a corrupt government. The Karzai government is corrupt. There's no question about it. By every measure, they are wasting our money. And this is not a man, quite frankly, who our American servicemen and -women should have to die for.

We are nation-building in Afghanistan when we should be doing nation-building here in the United States. My district is not unique in its need for more investments in roads and bridges. We need more investments in job creation to put people back to work. People want to invest here in the United States because national security also means whether or not people have a job, whether or not people can earn a living.

I would urge, again, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me and help Mr. Jones and the others who cosponsored this amendment, put a little wind behind the President's back in July so that he makes a meaningful announcement so that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel so that there is an exit strategy.

Mr. Speaker, let me also urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order H.R. 1979 by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, to expand eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation to include chapter 61 disability retirees, to increase the monthly amount of special survivor indemnity allowance for widows and widowers of deceased members of the Armed Forces and to enhance the ability of members of the Reserve components who serve on active duty or perform active service in support of a contingency operation or in other emergency situations to receive credit for such service in determining eligibility for early receipt of nonregular service retired pay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source