[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.
____________________