Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 1735, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, 355 amendments were submitted to the House Rules Committee on a wide variety of issues relevant to the National Defense Authorization Act. Of those, only 135 were made in order, or about 38 percent. That means that the Republican majority of the Rules Committee rejected over 60 percent of amendments submitted by their House colleagues.

This is a very exclusive structured rule. The amendments included under this rule are important amendments, worthy of the time and attention of this House, but I believe that all the amendments submitted merited debate and should have been included under an open rule.

Further, each amendment included under this rule only receives 10 minutes of debate maximum, equally divided. That is no way to treat debate of significant issues regarding our national security.

Madam Speaker, I have served in Congress long enough that I remember when it used to take 4 or 5 entire days to debate the NDAA. Amendments that would significantly affect our defense policies and operations were provided with enough debate time so that all Members had the opportunity to speak and air their views.

Of course, that was back in the days when the House actually worked 4 or 5 full days each week. That simply doesn't happen anymore. There are fewer and fewer Members in this Chamber who remember when matters of substance were given the time, attention, and debate that they deserve.

There is much to admire in the FY 2016 defense authorization bill, but there is also much to be concerned about, from dangerous spending to increase our nuclear arsenal, to continuing to tie the hands of the administration on how to handle the transfer of prisoners out of Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges.

One of the most blatant and egregious demonstrations of excess spending in the NDAA is what the bill has done to the President's overseas contingency operations fund, the so-called OCO fund.

This bill adds $38 billion to the OCO fund on top of the $51 billion requested by the President to fund our various wars. This $38 billion will not be spent on war-related costs, but instead, it transfers money from the operations and maintenance account to the OCO to fund what should be base bill requirements, all as a ruse to evade the Budget Control Act caps.

In the coming weeks, my House colleagues will see at least four appropriations bills come to the House floor that are prepared to cut more than $20 billion in urgently needed domestic programs, all in the name of staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act; yet, when it comes to the Pentagon, nearly twice that amount is added to the OCO as a slush fund in order to avoid those very same caps. This is madness, Madam Speaker, absolute madness.

The strength of our Nation--the health, welfare, and prosperity of our people and our communities--requires that we invest in our transportation and infrastructure; in our urban and rural development; in science, engineering, and technology; in medical research and our healthcare and education systems; in our children, our families, our workers; in our local businesses and new entrepreneurs.

Our national and economic security is based on so much more than just our force of arms. It is based on the role of the Federal Government in supporting strong quality of life for each and every one of our people, regardless of age, income, geography, or political affiliation. No one is offering them a slush fund; instead, we are cutting those programs to the bare bone.

When it comes to helping the neediest among us, Madam Speaker, the majority in this House has, once again, prevented debate on this critical issue. I am disappointed that an amendment offered by my friend from California (Mr. Vargas) was not made in order for debate under this rule.

Under current law, military servicemembers who do not live on base are provided with a basic allowance for housing. Because this stipend is offered to military families in lieu of on-base housing, it is exempted from Federal taxes and from being considered as income when determining eligibility for certain tax credits. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of uniformity in how the allowance is treated for various basic needs programs.

For example, the basic housing allowance is being considered as income for the purpose of calculating SNAP benefits, which results in eligible households receiving a lesser SNAP benefit or being cut off from the program altogether. These are families who are struggling, and it makes absolutely no sense that receiving housing assistance means our military families should receive less food assistance.

It is shameful that an ever-increasing number of military families are struggling to make ends meet. More and more of these families are relying on SNAP benefits to put food on their tables, and we need to be having a larger conversation about how to make sure that our servicemen and servicewomen and their families who have sacrificed so much for our country have economic security.

Military families have unique needs, and we must make sure that they are receiving all the necessary assistance that they deserve.

Mr. Vargas' amendment would have simply excluded the basic housing allowance from any calculation of income or resources for any purpose under Federal, State, and local law. It is a good amendment, and it is a commonsense amendment, and this House should have had the opportunity to debate this important amendment; but while we shortchange the American people, local communities, and our neighbors living in poverty, we have plenty of time to add to the national deficit and debt by funding a myriad of wars on the national credit card.

Speaking of the many wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged, last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee--Congressman Adam Smith of Washington--and I offered an amendment that would do one simple thing: it would have the President tell Congress next year what our mission is in Afghanistan and how much longer our servicemen and servicewomen would continue to be deployed over there. Then Congress would have 30 days to vote on whether or not to authorize or to modify that mission.

We have been in Afghanistan for nearly 14 years. It is the longest military engagement in U.S. history. Over the past few years, the mission of our Armed Forces has been constantly altered. Supposedly, we ended combat operations at the end of last December; yet our forces still engage in combat. We are now supposed to be engaged in training the Afghan military and police forces and be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016; but every day, I open up the newspaper, and I read how we are going to need to remain in Afghanistan for much, much, much longer.

In the underlying bill, this NDAA says that the U.S. should remain engaged in counterterrorism and special operations after 2016. All the President is required to do is let us know if he wants to keep our troops in Afghanistan to continue training Afghan forces until they can stand on their own.

Is it too much to ask for the President to tell us next spring what the plan is for keeping our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan and then having a vote on that plan? Don't our troops and don't their families deserve much more from us?

I guess it is too much to ask because this Congress--once again, the majority on the Rules Committee--decided not to make the McGovern-Jones-Smith amendment in order.

So U.S. engagement in Afghanistan--our blood and our treasure--simply continues on and on and on and on. It is a long, endless war that Congress barely pays attention to anymore, not even as members of our Armed Forces come home in coffins or wounded in body, heart, and mind. One of my constituents was the first to fall this year under our new post-combat operations mission in Afghanistan. Who will be the last U.S. servicemember to die in Afghanistan?

These are brave and honorable men and women. This House, however, is a disgrace.

This House--this Congress--is incapable of being accountable for the wars we so easily send our servicemembers to fight and die in, and it is completely incapable of carrying out its constitutional responsibilities to specifically and explicitly authorize these military operations.

It has been over 8 months since the United States began sustained combat operations in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State. Last year, the Speaker said that it was not right for the 113th Congress to vote on this new war started on its watch. It should be up to the next Congress--this Congress, the 114th Congress--to authorize the war. Then the Speaker complained that Congress couldn't act until the President sent us an AUMF. Madam Speaker, the President sent Congress an AUMF on February 11. That was over 3 months ago. It is not an AUMF that I would support, but the President did his job, and still Congress fails to act. Why? Because the leadership of this House says it can't find its way to 218 on an AUMF.

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but that is not how it works. The job of the Congress is to take a vote on an AUMF--period. If you don't like what the President's proposal is, then change it, vote against it, or bring another version to the House floor. Congress has the constitutional obligation to authorize the use of military force to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. Congress has the responsibility to specifically debate and authorize sending servicemen and servicewomen into hostilities in Iraq and Syria. The party in charge of the House and the Senate has a responsibility to legislate. We don't have the right to say, ``Oh, this is just too tough of a job, and we don't want to deal with it.''

If you want to be in charge, then you have to govern. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I don't see the leadership interested in governing on this most serious matter.

Once again, reluctantly, Congressman Walter Jones, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and I will be introducing a privileged resolution under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution to force a debate on whether our troops should remain engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or whether they should withdraw.

We have been patient. We have waited and waited and waited for the Republican leadership of this House to tell us when it would act on an AUMF for Iraq and Syria, but it has now become clear that this House has no intention of debating an AUMF on the fight against the Islamic State. It is perfectly happy to just drift along and not take any responsibility whatsoever for the lives that we are putting at risk in Iraq and Syria and for the millions of taxpayer dollars that we are spending each and every day.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to respond to something that my friend on the Rules Committee said when he said that this bill is all about issues that have to do with the national defense of our country.

I don't know what we are doing in Afghanistan or what we are doing in Iraq again or what we are doing in Syria now if it isn't supposedly in the name of the national defense of our country. I mean, this is the bill considered by the Armed Services Committee. If this is not an appropriate place to talk about war and about all of the military equipment we are sending halfway around the world, then I don't know what bill is appropriate. We are told over and over and over again that these are inappropriate vehicles in which to talk about war. This is the Armed Services Committee. This is the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the bill. This funds the wars.

There is this notion that it doesn't belong here. Well, where the hell does it belong? This is important stuff, and we treat war as if it is nothing.

We have men and women in harm's way, and we don't even debate whether or not the mission is something that we support or not. This is ridiculous. This is disgraceful. It is outrageous that amendments that are germane to this bill--that the Parliamentarian tells us are germane to this bill--are denied over and over and over again. These aren't just mine. Ms. Lee has amendments on repealing the old AUMFs from 2001 to 2002--denied, denied. They are germane, but no one wants to talk about it. We are going to force you to talk about it. We are going to have a privileged resolution. We are going to force this debate.

Just one other thing on the Gallego amendment. I have to tell you that I am always amazed at the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the other side of the aisle. The notion that we can't allow the Secretary of Defense to make decisions on whether or not DREAMers can actually serve our country in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation is ludicrous.

Just so people understand this, unlike a lot of things that my friends on the other side of the aisle do, this was not snuck into something. This actually went through regular order. It was actually debated and voted on by the House Armed Services Committee. They voted ``yes'' to accept it. By the way, the Army has already allowed almost 50 DREAMers to enlist in our Armed Forces.

What are you going to do--go and try to find these people and tell them that they have now been discharged?

I feel a great kind of sense of pride that there are people in this country who have been mostly raised in this country and who want to serve this country. That is something, I think, that every American takes pride in. That the rhetoric is so nasty and so demeaning, I think, is beneath what this House is about.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source