[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3423-H3430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 276

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense and for military construction, 
     to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 
     2012, and for other purposes. No further general debate shall 
     be in order.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en 
     bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.

[[Page H3424]]

       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House 
Resolution 276 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. This resolution contains a waiver of all 
points of order, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The gentleman from California 
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The gentleman has met the 
threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from California and a 
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question 
of consideration. Following debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of 
order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not 
necessarily out of concern for the unfunded and unmet mandates, 
although there are many in this bill. I raise this point of order 
because we have one of the very few opportunities to actually talk 
about one of the provisions in the underlying bill. Thus far, this 
House has been denied the opportunity to properly debate this 
provision, and I believe we must illuminate what it actually does.
  Section 1034 of this bill provides an unlimited opportunity for the 
administrative branch of government, the President, and the Secretary 
of Defense, to engage in war virtually anywhere, any place, anytime on 
this planet. That is an unbelievably broad opportunity that this House 
should never give to any President at any time.
  There are three very specific problems that the authorization for the 
use of military force has, and I want to make sure that we understand 
what those problems are.
  This provision is particularly dangerous because it does undermine 
the Constitution. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet 
this authorization to use military force passes to the President the 
opportunity to engage in war anywhere anytime, really, without any 
particular reservations.
  This thing was snuck into the Defense Authorization Act. No debate in 
committee. And had I not somehow been going through the bill and 
thumbing through and finding page 133 of the legislation, it would 
never have been discussed in committee. But some time near 12 o'clock, 
or actually after 12 o'clock, I was able to present an amendment in the 
committee to strike this section of the bill. That amendment did not 
pass the committee, and hopefully it will be before the floor as we 
discuss the entire legislation.
  So let me begin the discussion now.
  We ought not expand the executive authority to go to war. First of 
all, this particular section, 1034, is harmful because of three 
reasons: one, it's unlimited--anywhere, any place, anytime; second, it 
is very unclear as to who we're going to go to war against; and, third, 
it's not necessary.
  First, section 1034 is unlimited. There's no geographic limitation in 
section 1034. All that needs to be found by the President or the 
Secretary of Defense is there is a terrorist out there somehow 
associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda. And we know that al Qaeda is 
spread throughout the world, including the United States. So the entire 
globe is the subject of this authorization to use military force. And 
it's not just force against an individual terrorist or an individual 
terrorist organization. It's force against any nation that harbors, 
supports, or provides some sort of aid to a terrorist organization.
  What kind of a nation would that be? Well, certainly we would 
consider Yemen, Somalia, maybe even Pakistan. And we did successfully 
go after Pakistan--not Pakistan, but after bin Laden who happened to be 
hiding in Pakistan. But the point here is unlimited authorization to go 
anywhere in the globe to go after terrorists of any color, any stripe, 
anywhere. I don't suppose we intend to declare war against ourselves, 
so maybe America is not included in this.
  Secondly, there's no temporal limit to this, meaning this 
authorization goes on forever. It's not limited in time. It can go for 
1 year, 2 years, 10 years, one century or a millennium. We must never 
allow any President to have that unlimited opportunity to wage war on 
behalf of this Nation.
  Third, this resolution and this section is unclear. It's unclear in 
several ways. What is an ``associated force''? What's the ``Taliban''? 
What is ``al Qaeda''? We know al Qaeda as it existed in Afghanistan. We 
have a sense of what al Qaeda is in Pakistan. But now we have al Qaeda 
in the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, we probably have al Qaeda in Somalia 
and, certainly, according to the FBI, we have al Qaeda in the United 
States.
  So this particular clause, associated forces, is one that we should 
never allow to go into law and allow any President over any time in the 
future to use it to undertake a war somewhere.
  Finally, the provision is unnecessary. The administration is not 
asking for additional power. We have a case in point. The 
administration didn't need additional power to go into Pakistan to get 
bin Laden. The administration doesn't need additional power to go to 
Yemen to deal with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, nor did the 
administration need power way back in the 1990s when President Clinton 
launched Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden and 
al Qaeda in Afghanistan at that time.
  The President, the administration, is not asking for this authority. 
They claim and the courts have provided them with sufficient authority 
to carry out the mission against terrorism as we know it today.
  So in conclusion, I want to raise this issue to this House, to the 
Senate, and to the American public that in the Defense authorization 
there is an unlimited opportunity for any President now and in the 
future to wage war anywhere in the world against any nation that has a 
terrorist in that nation. That we should never do. We should 
aggressively maintain our authority under the Constitution to declare 
war and to authorize the use of military force.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition 
to the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The following discussion we have just had on the 
floor is certainly enlightening and interesting. There is much that I 
think is significant to what has been said by the gentleman from 
California.
  However, Mr. Speaker, if you would forgive me, I need to talk 
directly to the point of order itself.
  The question before the House is, should the House now consider House 
Resolution 276. While this resolution waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee is not aware of 
any point of order. The waiver is prophylactic in its nature. 
Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget 
Office identified any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

[[Page H3425]]

  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, the 
question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and 
extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a 
structured rule for the consideration of 152 individual amendments to 
H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.
  I would like my colleagues to realize that the Rules Committee 
received 220 amendments for consideration of this bill; and of the 220 
filed, 75 percent of them, or a total of 152, are made in order.

                              {time}  1240

  Even more remarkable, the vast majority of those that were not made 
in order were either withdrawn by the sponsor, were duplicative of 
other amendments filed, were redundant restatements of provisions 
already included in the base bill, or violated House rules. So this is 
an overwhelmingly fair and generous rule, and it continues the record 
of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making multiple amendments 
in order as long as they conform to the rules of the House.
  One must commend Chairman Dreier for continuing this record of 
openness. Likewise, I wish to commend the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well 
as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for 
bringing a bill to the floor under a continuing tradition of 
bipartisanship and mutual cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Congress has a reputation of being 
contentious and partisan, and that reputation is, unfortunately, 
occasionally deserved. However, as one who has been a member of the 
Armed Services Committee and is currently on leave from that committee, 
I have been pleased to note that, when it comes to providing for the 
common defense of our country--a core constitutional responsibility--
partisanship has usually been checked at the door with regard to the 
conduct and the product of the Armed Services Committee in their annual 
Defense authorization bill, as was this bill, having passed by a vote 
of 60-1 from committee. This rule builds on that bipartisan tradition 
when it comes to the Defense bill, and it makes more Democrat 
amendments in order than Republican amendments.
  Yes, you're welcome.
  Our Nation faces some daunting challenges: to provide adequate 
resources for our national defense going forward, to pay personnel and 
to provide promised benefits for our all-volunteer force. The 
modernization of our aircraft fleet is slipping further and further 
behind, and the average age of our fighter jets is 150 percent of their 
designed capacity. The age of our bombers is at a record high even as 
demands for their utilization is great in Afghanistan, in Iraq and 
increasingly in other places in the world. The infrastructure needs of 
our military continue to slip further and further behind--the cliche is 
that they're moved to the right--and a backlog of needed improvements 
to fill vital military missions grows even greater.
  A strong national defense is directly related to a strong national 
economy and to a strong jobs outlook. National defense makes everything 
else that we enjoy in this country--our cherished way of life, our 
freedoms--possible.
  The underlying legislation, H.R. 1540, does a remarkable job, given 
all of the fiscal restraints that have been involved, in continuing to 
provide for our common defense. For that purpose, I wish to inform my 
colleagues that this is a good bill, and we are adding to that a good 
and fair rule for the amendments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  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

[[Page H3426]]

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.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 1540.
  As a U.S. marine, I understand the importance of strong national 
defense, especially during this time of war. That's why I'm glad this 
bill provides our troops with the resources they need and enables them 
to carry out the missions we ask of them.

                              {time}  1250

  As a freshman member of the House Armed Services Committee, I would 
like to thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership throughout this 
process. He has been very open in working with me and other colleagues 
on the committee in developing ways to restructure the Quadrennial 
Defense Review process. This process informs the annual defense 
spending bill, of course. So I am proud of the bill we are debating 
today. I am encouraged by our recognition that a restructured QDR 
process will allow us to better identify DOD priorities. And that is 
the key to efficiently spending taxpayer dollars.
  In sum, this bill responsibly addresses military issues facing us 
today, and it is being offered with an eye to improving the defense 
funding process in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the majority and 
the minority for working together for a robust process that we had, but 
I am concerned about two deficiencies in the process, one the 
gentlelady from Guam will speak to momentarily. I think it's really a 
travesty that she is not able to present an idea this House has 
considered many times as part of this bill. And I hope that would be 
reconsidered.
  Secondly, we have all said forever that we agree that there is a 
problem that has to be fixed for people who served our country in 
uniform. And here is what happens. You have a person who is very 
seriously injured in the line of duty in the military, and they retire 
and they would get disability pay for their injury. Let's say they have 
been deafened by a bomb going off near them, and they are very, very 
ill or disabled, and they qualify for disability pay. They also qualify 
for a regular military pension.
  I think most of us on this floor would say, most people in the 
country would say they should get both. If you are injured in the line 
of duty and you are severely disabled as a result, you should get both 
your disability pay and your regular pension. And for years people on 
both sides have said they want to do this. The problem has been it does 
in fact cost money. And there are a couple of other variations here. 
The widows and widowers of these servicemembers have the same problem 
with respect to their benefits. And then there is another problem where 
people who serve in the Reserve get credit toward earlier retirement, 
but they have to make it fit around the Federal fiscal year or they 
don't get it.
  So we have people over in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been deprived 
of earlier retirement. They have been shot at the same as everybody 
else, but because they got shot at after October 1, it doesn't count. 
It's just a bizarre rule that ought to be fixed.
  Now, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee that fixed, to a 
great extent, these three problems. And it had a way to pay for it 
which is controversial. It would take some of the Internet gaming 
that's going on and say, A, it's legal, and B, that the money from it 
should go to help these service personnel who were injured in the line 
of duty. Some people like this idea, some people don't. But I think it 
should have been brought to this floor so we could have a debate about 
it.
  If you talk to any one of our Members, Mr. Speaker, I think he or she 
would tell you they are all for fixing this problem, but it has to be 
paid for. So we had a solution that fixed a large part of the problem 
and was paid for, would not result in an increase in the deficit, but 
it didn't find its way to the floor. I know the technicalities of it. 
But I really think the House should be given a chance to work its will 
on this question.
  It's as simple as this: The guy who lost his hearing because a mortar 
shell went off next to him, should he have to choose between his 
disability pay and his regular retirement instead of getting both? I 
think he should get both. And I think the House should be able to work 
its will on that question. I would urge us to consider during this 
debate process making that possible.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts raised an issue just a minute ago that 
he said we should be discussing regarding the War Powers Act. And I 
certainly agree with him. I would just like to inform him that right 
now the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings on a number of 
pieces of legislation that will deal with and refine the War Powers 
Act, and hopefully correct some of the loopholes that are in it so that 
Congress is included in the loop.
  So I would just like to inform him of that, because although I would 
like to see this in this particular legislation that we are talking 
about and discuss this in some detail, I think the hearings that are 
going on right now will go into in depth the problems that we face with 
that bill. The one thing that I would say is that I think we all agree, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, that this body and the other body 
ought to be involved in the decisionmaking

[[Page H3427]]

process before we go into any conflict. And this issue of Libya is a 
perfect example of where the executive branch has run away from the 
Congress without consulting with us. And that's something that should 
never happen in the future, especially when we are risking American 
lives and American money.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
although I do continue to believe that on these great issues that we 
need more than 5 minutes to be able to present our case. Our entire 
policy in Afghanistan, we are given 5 minutes to debate the issue. I 
don't think that that's right.
  I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  For more than 9 years now our American troops have been executing the 
mission in Afghanistan with extraordinary dedication and competence. 
They have done all we have asked of them. But what started out as a 
quick war on October 7, 2001, to wipe out al Qaeda leader Osama bin 
Laden and other terrorists has turned into a campaign that seemingly 
has no end in sight, ripping our Nation's most precious treasures, our 
brave men and women, from their families and their communities, and 
costing us more than $8 billion a month.
  The cost of this war, again, $8 billion a month, approximately $2 
billion a week, is totally unsustainable, especially at a time when we 
are being asked to make extreme cuts here at home; money, by the way, 
that we are putting on the American credit card.
  Mr. Speaker, my Rhode Island constituents understand that it's time 
to transfer responsibility for Afghanistan to the Afghan people and 
bring our brave men and women home. We should no longer send billions 
of American taxpayer dollars to the Afghan people for their schools and 
hospitals, roads, bridges, and police, at the expense of making those 
same investments in our own country, especially when the Karzai 
government has shown itself incapable of governing effectively or 
honestly.
  For example, a yearlong investigation by a Senate panel has found 
evidence that the mostly Afghan force of private security guards that 
our military depends on to protect supply convoys and bases in 
Afghanistan are rife with criminals, drug users, and insurgents. More 
alarming, the report alleges that some local warlords, who have emerged 
as key labor brokers for private security firms, are also Taliban 
agents.
  It's time to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan so that we can focus 
on rebuilding our economy and making sure Americans can compete in the 
21st century. We need to invest in job creation and reducing our debt, 
instead of sending billions of dollars to a corrupt government abroad. 
That's why I am proud to support and to be a cosponsor of the McGovern 
amendment, which requires the President to provide Congress with an 
exit plan from Afghanistan with a timeframe and a completion date.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CICILLINE. A clear exit plan will stabilize Afghanistan by ending 
an unpopular presence there and improve our country's flexibility to 
respond to more immediate and pressing national security challenges, 
improving our fiscal and economic situation at home. This is about 
setting the right priorities for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of H.R. 
1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, and I want to thank 
Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for bringing this important 
bill to fruition. The legislation we have demonstrates support for our 
troops. It is a good bill that will provide them with the tools and 
support they need as they protect our freedoms and our liberties.
  In funding our military for 2012, we ensure our troops who are 
deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world have the 
equipment and resources they need to succeed in their missions. There 
is no higher priority than advocating on their behalf, and they deserve 
nothing less than the best.

                              {time}  1300

  We need to send a clear message to the men and women fighting for our 
Nation that this Congress is committed to keeping our national defense 
a priority.
  We are a Nation at war with men and women fighting in harm's way at 
this very minute. We need not forget that we face threats throughout 
the world with enemies bent on destroying our way of life. We have a 
constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense.
  I support our troops, and I am proud to stand with them as they 
protect our freedoms.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I hope that someday my Republican 
counterparts will be clear about why my amendment was not made in 
order, and I also hope that they will provide greater explanation as to 
why we were promised an open rule this year but have anything but that 
today.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Bishop, voted for this amendment 
in the last Congress, and I want to thank him, but I can't imagine how 
he could have had such a change of heart in such a short time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule does not afford 
the people of Guam with an opportunity to make their case about the 
matter of Guam war claims before this House. All I want, and all we 
want, is a vote, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I do not understand why my 
Republican colleagues are so concerned about allowing my amendment for 
a vote on the floor, as is regular order.
  Guam war claims have passed this House five times--I have to repeat 
that, five times--and each time with overwhelming bipartisan support. 
The resolution of Guam war claims is so critical to maintaining support 
for the military buildup on Guam. The people of Guam are going to bear 
the brunt of the significant impacts because of this realignment of 
military forces, and it is only right to bring war claims to a 
conclusion. This is what I hear from my constituents every day.
  We reached a compromise with the Senate on this matter last year, 
having both Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain supporting the 
provision. However, because of the time we had last Congress, it was 
struck from the bill due to the objection by a small minority of 
Senators, and we were forced to agree to the defense bill by unanimous 
consent here in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Let history note that I did not object to the unanimous 
consent request last year based on the commitments of my friends across 
the aisle. In fact, Chairman McKeon committed to including war claims 
in this year's defense bill, and I do appreciate his support.
  But the Republican leadership would not allow him to honor his 
commitment to me. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and a true disservice to 
the people of Guam.
  I would like to ask unanimous consent to include the text of my 
amendment, No. 99, to be included for consideration in this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Utah yield for such 
request?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have a great deal of sympathy for the 
gentlelady from Guam, and on the Resources Committee where that bill 
still is, I will work with you on that, but I do object to unanimous 
consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again express my disappointment 
with the lack of time that we are being allowed to debate some 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

[[Page H3428]]

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.

             [From http://www.thenation.com, May 10, 2011]

   End the War in Afghanistan, and Begin Nation-Building Here At Home

              (By Rep. Jim McGovern and Rep. Walter Jones)

       This week we joined with over a dozen of our colleagues--
     Republican and Democrat--to introduce new legislation to 
     require the Obama Administration to present an exit strategy 
     for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
       Specifically, our bill (the ``Afghanistan Exit and 
     Accountability Act'') would: require the President to 
     transmit to Congress a plan with timeframe and completion 
     date on the transition of U.S. military and security 
     operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan; 
     require the President to report quarterly (i.e. every 90 
     days) on the status of that transition, and the human and 
     financial costs of remaining in Afghanistan, including 
     increased deficit and public debt; and; included in those 
     quarterly reports, the President must disclose to Congress 
     the savings in 5-year, 10-year and 20-year time periods were 
     the U.S. to accelerate redeployment and conclude the 
     transition of all U.S. military and security operations to 
     Afghanistan within 180 days (i.e. 6 months).
       The operation that resulted in the killing of Obama bin 
     Laden demonstrated that the men and women of our armed forces 
     and intelligence community are incredible people. The world 
     is now a better, safer place.
       The question then becomes: now what? Now that bin Laden is 
     dead and Al Qaeda is scattered around the globe, does it 
     really make sense to keep using over 100,000 U.S. troops to 
     occupy Afghanistan and prop up a corrupt government? We don't 
     think so.
       Remember--we didn't find bin Laden on the front lines of 
     Afghanistan. He was comfortably holed up in a mansion in 
     Pakistan. We must continue to target Al Qaeda wherever in the 
     world they are. But continuing to be bogged down in 
     Afghanistan makes that mission harder, not easier.
       In December, Afghan President Hamid Kharzai made it clear 
     that he would rather align himself with the Taliban than with 
     the United States. So why on earth are we sacrificing so much 
     in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and billions of dollars 
     to support him?
       We believe that bin Laden's death creates an opportunity to 
     re-examine our policy and to require the Administration to 
     tell us exactly how and when we will end our massive troop 
     presence in Afghanistan.
       Our bill requires the President to give Congress a concrete 
     strategy and timeframe for bringing our servicemen and women 
     home to their families and communities, and it requires 
     quarterly reports on the human and financial costs of 
     continuing the war--and how much we would save if we withdrew 
     our forces within a reasonable time frame.
       That's not too much to ask.
       To make it worse, we're not even paying for the war. It's 
     on the national credit card. The war in Afghanistan adds $100 
     billion a year--$2 billion each week, $8 billion each month--
     to our debt.
       We're told that we can't afford vital domestic funding, but 
     we should continue to borrow billions and billions of dollars 
     for nation-building in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be 
     doing some more nation-building right here at home. Why don't 
     we take some of those billions to build roads and bridges and 
     schools right here in the United States?
       In the end, of course, only President Obama can bring an 
     end to the war. But Congress must play a role, as well. For 
     too long, Congress has ducked its proper oversight 
     responsibilities when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. 
     We've avoided meaningful debate and discussion and have 
     chosen to simply ``go along to get along.''
       The President told us that we will see a substantial 
     drawdown of troops in July. He needs to keep that promise. 
     And he needs to tell us when all of our troops will be coming 
     home, and how much staying in Afghanistan will continue to 
     cost the American people--in sacrificed lives, wounded bodies 
     and minds, and U.S. tax dollars--until this war is finally 
     over.
       That's what our bill would require. We are hopeful that 
     with enough public pressure, we can provide some wind at the 
     back of the President to help him do the right thing.
       This war is the longest in our history. There's no end in 
     sight. It's time to stop digging.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just one moment 
to clarify the record with respect to amendment No. 61 by Mr. Conyers 
in the Rules Committee report. Printed in report 112-88, Mr. Duncan of 
South Carolina was inadvertently added as a cosponsor to the Conyers 
amendment No. 61. I want to clarify for the record that Mr. Duncan of 
South Carolina is not a cosponsor of that particular amendment.
  I appreciate the discussion we have had so far. I would like to 
remind my colleagues here that if every amendment made in order in this 
rule were to have its maximum amount of time, we would have already 
approved a maximum of over--well, we have a minimum of 26 hours of 
debate on this particular issue.
  I am appreciative of the concerns of Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts. I 
also want him to realize there are multiple amendments that were made 
in order dealing with this and similar subjects. And I am very 
appreciative that Mr. McGovern, as a veteran of the House, 
understanding the rules of the House, has been wise enough to use this 
debate time also for speaking about that particular amendment, which 
will vastly extend the amount of time he has to cover that issue. That 
is wise of him; that is good of him.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. First let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership.
  I would just say to the gentleman, you are absolutely correct, and I 
oppose this rule because this is such an important issue that affects 
our national security, but also the economic security of this country.
  This is an issue that warrants much more deliberation and debate. In 
fact, Mr. Speaker, when the authorization to use force to go to war in 
Afghanistan came before us on that terrible day of 9/14, there may have 
been 1 hour of debate, if that long. And so I think at this moment, as 
we are turning the corner, hopefully, we should have a full debate on 
the direction, the timeframe which Mr. McGovern has in his resolution, 
and also a plan to begin to end the war in Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1310

  We must have a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan 
because most military experts have told us there's no military solution 
in Afghanistan. We know and we hear that if it's going well, we need 
more money and more troops; and if it's going poorly, we need more 
money and more troops. So we need here in the House to have this 
debate. What should we do and how should we do it?
  So this amendment, this proposal by Mr. McGovern, warrants much more 
than a 5-minute debate because it's such an important issue to the 
country. Over 70-some percent now of the

[[Page H3429]]

American people believe it's time to wind down. Many of us believe that 
beginning in July we should put forth a proposal for a significant and 
sizeable reduction as the President indicated he would do in the past. 
Many believe that we should not fund any more combat operations in 
Afghanistan and that, in fact, we should only use our funding for force 
protection and to bring our young men and women home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
  What the McGovern-Jones amendment seeks to do is begin that debate, 
to get us on course and to allow this House of Representatives to 
discuss what in the world should come next.
  I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank you for your hard 
work, and just say that I think that it's about time now that we have a 
rule on such an important issue that allows for this body to engage in 
debate. Our troops deserve that, the American people deserve that, and 
certainly we need to begin to reflect public opinion on this because 
the public gets it. They know that $100 billion a year is no drop in 
the bucket in terms of our resources. We have a deficit, we have an 
economic crisis throughout the country, and we certainly need to find 
some balance between our national security interests and our economic 
security interest. Beginning to develop a plan to get out of 
Afghanistan warrants a full-fledged discussion.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Earlier this year, we learned of wrongful home foreclosures on active 
duty military families in violation of the law. And so I submitted a 
very straightforward amendment that would have directed the Secretary 
of Defense in conjunction with the Treasury and the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau to prepare a comprehensive strategy to protect 
members of the Armed Forces and their families from unfair, deceptive 
and abusive financial services practices and to enhance the financial 
readiness of such families, families who are sacrificing so much today.
  The amendment would have no effect on direct spending, and it was 
germane. Yet, despite the majority's high claims of openness and 
transparency and the fact that 152 amendments were made in order, this 
one was not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Campbell). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. One can only conclude that the majority has chosen its 
dislike, or its detest, for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
over protecting military families. Elizabeth Warren is right: attacks 
against the bureau are now happening in the back alley. Yesterday, that 
back alley was the majority side of the Rules Committee, and the 
victims--the victims--were the brave men and women in uniform and their 
families.
  Oppose this rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment specified in section 6 shall be in 
     order in lieu of amendment number 5 in House Report 112-88.
       Sec. 6. The text referred to in section 5 is as follows: 
     Page 113, after line 17, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 317. HEALTH ASSESSMENT REPORTS REQUIRED WHEN WASTE IS 
                   DISPOSED OF IN OPEN-AIR BURN PITS.

       ``Section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2250; 10 
     U.S.C. 2701 note) is amended--
       ``(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub-section (d); 
     and
       ``(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       `` `(c) Health Assessment Reports.--Not later than 180 days 
     after notice is due under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a health assessment 
     report on each open-air burn pit at a location where at least 
     100 personnel have been employed for 90 consecutive days or 
     more. Each such report shall include each of the following:
       `` `(1) An epidemiological description of the short-term 
     and long-term health risks posed to personnel in the area 
     where the burn pit is located because of exposure to the 
     open-air burn pit.
       `` `(2) A copy of the methodology used to determine the 
     health risks described in paragraph (1).
       `` `(3) A copy of the assessment of the operational risks 
     and health risks when making the determination pursuant to 
     subsection (a) that no alternative disposal method is 
     feasible for the open-air burn pit.'.''.


[[Page H3430]]



                              {time}  1320

  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

       An amendment to H. Res. 276 offered by Mr. McGovern of 
     Massachusetts:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, an amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 1979 
     (added as a new title at the end of the bill) shall be in 
     order as though printed as amendment number 153 in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Andrews of New Jersey or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
                                  ____

       The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote On the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________