Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 661, THE GENTLEWOMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MS. LEE, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL SIX MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS,
IT IS DOWN RIGHT OUTRAGEOUS
THAT THE MCGOVERN-JONES
AMENDMENT WAS RULED OUT OF
ORDER BY THE RULE COMMITTEES,
DENYING THIS HOUSE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE AND VOTE
ON THEIR AMENDMENT.
SECONDLY, WE REALLY DO NEED A
CLEAR AND TWO-DAY, AT LEAST,
THE BAIT, NOT 20 MINUTES ON
THIS CRITICAL ISSUE OF
AFGHANISTAN.
SO FOR THE LIFE OF ME, YOU
KNOW, 20 MINUTES IS NOT LONG
ENOUGH AND I DON'T QUITE
UNDERSTAND WHY IN FACT THE
MCGOVERN-JONES AMENDMENT WAS
NOT GIVEN THE FULL AMOUNT OF
TIME BECAUSE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR BOTH
SIDES OF THIS ISSUE FROM A
VARIETY OF POLICY PERSPECTIVES.
MY AMENDMENT TODAY WOULD PUT A
RESPONSIBLE END TO COMBAT
OPERATIONS IN AFTER GAP STAN BY
LIMITING THE FUNDING TO THE
SAFE AND ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL OF
U.S. TROOPS AND MILITARY
CONTRACTORS.
I HAVE TO THANK THE CO-SPONSORS
OF THIS BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT,
REPRESENTATIVES JONES AND
CONYERS, PAUL, WOOLSEY, WELCH,
NADLER AND HASTINGS, AND ALL OF
OUR COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE WORKED
ON THIS ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE
YEARS TO RESPONSIBLY END THE
WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
I HAVE OFFERED THIS AMENDMENT
IN THE PAST AND IT HAS BEEN A
BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT.
IT'S CLEAR THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FAR AHEAD OF
CONGRESS IN SUPPORTING AN END
TO THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
MY AMENDMENT ALLOWS CONGRESS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND
SQUARELY WITH THE WAR-WEARY
AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH WANT TO
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
THE CALL HAS BEEN GROWING
ACROSS THE LAND TO BRING THIS
WAR TO AN END.
IT'S TIME NOW FOR THE CONGRESS
ANSWER THE CALL HERE TODAY.
THE REALITY IS THAT THERE IS NO
MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN.
OUR BRAVE TROOPS HAVE DONE
EVERYTHING THAT WAS ASKED OF
THEM AND MORE.
AS THE DAUGHTER OF A MILITARY
VETERAN, I ALSO KNOW FIRSTHAND
THE SACRIFICES AND COMMITMENT
NATION.
BUT THE TRUTH IS, THEY HAVE
BEEN PUT IN AN IMPOSSIBLE
SITUATION, THERE'S NO MILITARY
SOLUTION, AND IT'S PASTIME TO
END THE WAR AND TO BRING THE
TROOPS HOME.
OVER A DECADE NOW, OVER $500
BILLION SPENT IN DIRECT COSTS
AND MIND YOU, NOT A PENNY OF IT
HAS BEEN PAID FOR.
INSTEAD, WE SHOULD BEEN
INVESTING IN JOBS AND OUR
ECONOMY HERE AT HOME AND A
SMARTER NATIONAL SECURITY
STRATEGY.
IT IS TIME TO SAY ENOUGH IS
ENOUGH.
WITH ALMOST 2,000 UNITED STATES
TROOPS KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN
AND MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE
MAIMED WITH INJURIES BOTH
HIDDEN AND VISIBLE WE MUST
RECOGNIZE THAT THE BOOTS ON THE
GROUND STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN
MUST END.
IT'S CRITICAL TO OUR ECONOMY
AND THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY
THAT WE STOP POURING BILLIONS
ON A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE MILITARY
PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE MADE
IT CLEAR THAT THE WAR IS NO
LONGER WORTH FIGHTING.
NOT FOR ANOTHER YEAR, NOT FOR
NOT FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS.
TODAY, CONGRESS SHOULD STAND
WITH SEVEN OUT OF 10 AMERICANS
WHO OPPOSE THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN.
AFTER 11 LONG YEARS, IT IS TIME
TO BRNG OUR TROOPS HOME.
WE CAN DO THAT RESPONSIBLY BY
VOTING YES ON THE LEE AMENDMENT
TODAY.
TIME.
THE GENTLELADY
RESERVES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS,
MR. THORNBERRY.
RECOGNIZED.
ESSENTIALLY
THIS AMENDMENT SAYS GET OUT
NOW.
LEAVE AFGHANISTAN REGARDLESS OF
THE CONSEQUENCES.
I APPRECIATE THE HONSY, THE
FORTHRIGHT NATURE OF THIS
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
IT IS BETTER TO SAY UP FRONT
WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO
RATHER THAN TO PUT VARIOUS
CONDITIONS ON IT OR TO TIE OUR
TROOPS' HANDS IN SOME WAY OR TO
NOT PUT ENOUGH TROOPS IN THE
FIELD IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH
THE MISSION WE ASKED THEM TO
THIS IS VERY CLEAR.
IT SAYS LEAVE NOW.
AND IT IS TEMPTING FOR ALL OF
US BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN THERE
FOR A WHILE.
I WANT OUR TROOPS TO LEAVE AS
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
THE UNDERLYING BILL SAYS THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY SHOULD
NOT MAINTAIN AN INDEFINITE
COMBAT PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN
AND SHOULD TRANSITION TO A
COUNTERTERRORISM AND ADVISE AND
ASSIST MISSION AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE DATE CONSISTENT WITH
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONS
ON THE GROUND.
WE BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT
YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF
WHAT THE SITUATION IS THERE.
AND YOU CAN IN THE JUST ABANDON
AFGHANISTAN AND IGNORE, STICK
YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND
PRETEND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE
CONSEQUENCES.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER WHY WE'RE THERE TO
BEGIN WITH.
WE'RE NOT THERE BECAUSE OF
THEM, WE'RE THERE BECAUSE OF
US.
WE'RE THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT
AFGHANISTAN IS NO LONGER USED
AS A SAFE HAVEN, AS A BASE FROM
WHICH -- WHICH WILL BE USED TO
LAUNCH ATTACKS AGAINST US.
THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.
AS SOON AS THEY ARE ABLE TO
PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN SECURITY
AND PREVENT A RETURN OF THE
TALL PAN AN RETURN OF AL QAEDA,
THEN WE CAN GO AND WE WILL HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED OUR MISSION AND
THEY'LL HAVE TO SORT THROUGH
THEIR DOMESTIC ISSUES ON THEIR
OWN.
BUT IF WE LEAVE TOO EARLY AND
AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN RETURN
AND USE IT AS A BASE TO LAUNCH
ATTACKS AGAINST US, THEN I'M
AFRAID MORE AMERICANS WILL
SUFFER AND WE WILL SEE -- WE
COULD SEE REPEATS OF PAST
TERRORIST ATTACKS.
SO AS TEMPTING AS IT IS, MR.
CHAIRMAN, WE CANNOT IGNORE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS,
LEAVING TOO FAST WOULD BE BAD
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD
TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLELADY
FROM CALIFORNIA, MS. WOOL SE --
MS. WOOLSEY.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
I RISE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF MY FRIEND, BARBARA
LEE'S, AMENDMENT.
LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS.
2/3 OF AMERICANS OPPOSE OUR
MILITARY OCCUPATION OF
AFGHANISTAN.
SO IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE
TO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT TODAY
IT WOULD PASS OVERWHELMINGLY
WITH SUPPORT FROM BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
AFTER NEARLY 11 YEARS, MR.
CHAIRMAN, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
CONGRESS MUST CATCH UP TO THE
PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT AND
EMBRACE A RESPONSIBLE END TO
THIS WAR.
INSTEAD OF DUMPING $10 BILLION
A MONTH INTO AN UNWINNABLE WAR,
LET'S REDIRECT OUR RESOURCES
TOWARD A SMART SECURITY
APPROACH.
PEOPLE, LET'S
INVEST IN DEVELOPMENT, LET'S
INVEST IN HUMANITARIAN
PROGRESS.
LET'S BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
VOTE YES ON THE LEE AMENDMENT.
VOTE YES FOR SMART SECURITY.
VOTE YES FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
I YELLED BACK.
THE GENTLELADY
YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
IS RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD THREE
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS, MR. CONAWAY.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
I THANK THE
CHAIRMAN AND I APPRECIATE THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDING THE TIME.
I STAND IN OPPOSITION TO
THEAMENT.
MY COLLEAGUE SAID IT VERY WELL
EARLIER, THIS IS JUST SAYING
GET OUT NOW.
MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT
USE THE WORD RESPONSIBLE OVER
AND OVER.
THERE IS NOTHING RESPONSIBLE
ABOUT AN ABAN DONNING THE
EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN TODAY
WITHOUT PROPER CONDITIONS ON
THE PRESIDENT HAS A PLAN IN
PLACE, SOME OF US MAY HAVE HAD
DIFFERING IDEAS WITH HIM BUT HE
PUT A PLAN IN PLACE AND SAYS
OUR COMBAT TROOPS WILL BE OUT
OF THERE BY 2014 CONTINGENT
WITH THE CONDITIONS ON THE
THE AFGHAN PEOPLE ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN
SECURITY AND WE'RE TRYING TO
HELP THEM GET TO THE PLACE WITH
THE AFTER BEGAN NATIONAL ARMY
AND POLICE, THOSE EFFORTS ARE
GOING ON ACROSS THE PROVINCES
OF AFGHANISTAN AS WE SPEAK AND
THEY'RE GETTING IN THE LEAD TO
TAKE CARE OF THEIR SECURITY.
BUT ABANDONING AFGHANISTAN
TODAY WOULD PUT AT RISK
THOUSANDS OF AFGHANIS WHO ARE
DOWNING ON US TO GET THIS RIGHT
AND PUTTING THEM IN A POSITION
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WHEN WE DO
LEAVE IN 2014.
GETTING OUT NOW, MR. SPEAKER,
IS IRRESPONSIBLE RATHER THAN
RESPONSIBLE.
OF US LIKE TO GO -- NONE OF US
LIKE TO GO TO THOSE FUNERALS.
I GO TO FUNERALS OF THOSE KILLED
IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND I
STAND WITH THOSE FAMILIES ON THE
WORST DAY OF THEIR LIVES.
IT'S GRINDING GRIEF THAT'S
ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
BUT THERE'S A PRIDE ALSO
ATTACHED TO THAT THAT THEIR
LOVED ONE GAVE THEIR LIFE FOR
SOMETHING POSITIVE, FOR
THE 27 MILLION EAVEYS COULD
CREATE A GOVERNMENT THAT ALLOWED
THEM TO RULE THEMSELVES AND NOT
HAVE THE THUGS OF THE TALIBAN DO
WHAT THEY DID IN THE MID 1990'S,
SLAUGHTER ALL THE
THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE, ALL THE
TEACHERS, ALL THE FOLKS WHO
WOULD LEAD IN ORDER TO SUBJUGATE
WHAT THOSE PEOPLE IN WAYS THAT
ARE JUST HORRENDOUS TWHEEFMENT
DO THAT AGAIN TO -- HORRENDOUS.
THEY WOULD DO THAT AGAIN TO
ANYONE WHO HELPED US OVER THE
LAST YEARS.
THE NATO MEETING IS THIS WEEKEND
IN CHICAGO TO DETERMINE ONGOING
CONDITIONS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE
DONE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR
COMMITMENTS AND THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD UNDERMINE ALL OF THOSE
EFFORTS GOING ON THERE.
SO I STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD ONE MINUTE TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN, MR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I THANK THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA AND
APPRECIATE THAT ENDING AMERICA'S
NOT
AN UNREASONABLE NOTION BECAUSE
THERE IS A SERIOUS
MISUNDERSTANDING GOING ON ABOUT
THIS AMENDMENT.
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
WITHDRAWING UNITED STATES TROOPS
DOES NOT MEAN WE'RE ABANDONING
AFGHANISTAN.
PLEASE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE
DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS THAT CAN'T BE WON AT
GUN POINT.
DON'T YOU GET IT?
HOW MANY -- IF WE'RE LESKING --
LEAVING IN 2014 WE'RE JUST
SAYING, LET'S SPEED IT UP, LET'S
BEGIN A RATIONAL WITHDRAWAL AND
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP
A COMMITMENT TO AFGHANISTAN.
IT DOESN'T MEAN TROOPS, IT
DOESN'T MEAN OUR MILITARY HAS TO
YIELDING.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD TWO MINUTES AT THIS TIME
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, A
GENTLEMAN WHO HAS LED TROOPS IN
BATTLE, MR. WEST.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
AND THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I WILL SAY THIS ONE THING.
I'VE BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN FOR 2
AND HAVING BEEN A GROUND COMBAT
COMMANDER I SAY ONE THING.
IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS,
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD RESTRICT
THE AUTHORIZATION AND USE OF
FUNDS FOR CONTINUATION OF COMBAT
OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN.
JUST TODAY IN A PROVINCE WHERE
I'VE BEEN TO, THE TALIBAN
ATTACKED AN AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
COMPOUND KILLING SEVEN PEOPLE.
WHAT YOU ARE TELLING TO OUR MEN
AND WOMEN IN COMBAT, WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING TO THE ENEMY IS THAT
WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THOSE MEN
AND WOMEN HANGING.
THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE
THEM THE RESOURCES.
NOW, I SEE WHERE THIS AMENDMENT
SAYS IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR
RESTRICT THE USE OF FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR THE U.S. TO CARRY
OUT DIPLOMATIC, HUMANITARIAN,
DEVELOPMENT OR GENERAL
RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE
HAD IN AFGHANISTAN IS WE GOT
INVOLVED IN NATION BUILDING, WE
GOT INVOLVED IN OCCUPATION-STYLE
WARFARE AND TRULY NOT BEING
COUNTERTERRORISM-STYLE OF
WARFARE AND GOING AFTER THE
THIS IS WHERE OUR PRIMARY FOCUS
SHOULD BE AND WE HAVE GENERALS
THAT ARE ON THE GROUND THAT KNOW
WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY'VE BEEN TO WAR COLLEGE.
WHY IS IT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WE
HAVE PLACED TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
IN TO LEAD OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN
COMBAPT IN THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD
-- COMBAT IN?
THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD IN 2014 THAT
WE WILL BE DRAWING DOWN AND
LEAVING AFGHANISTAN.
WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD WE WANT
TO REPEAT SOME OF THE HORRIBLE
THINGS THAT I SAW MY OLDER
BROTHER GO THROUGH IN VIETNAM
WHEN WERY STRICTED FUNDED AND --
I'M TELLING YOU, I'VE BEEN IN
AFGHANISTAN, I KNOW THIS ENEMY.
AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE OVER
THERE, MY DEAR CLEEPINGS ON THE
OTHER SIDE, THAT I WOULD TRUST
THAN GENERAL ALLEN WHO SON
THE GROUND, WHO KNOWS WHAT HE
HAS TO DO.
THE MESSAGE THAT YOU SEND TO OUR
TROOPS IS THAT YOU'RE ABANDONING
THEM.
THE MESSAGE THAT YOU SEND TO THE
TALIBAN, TO AL QAEDA, TO THE
NETWORK, TO L.E.T., TO EVERY
SINGLE RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUP IS
THAT WE HAVE TURNED OUR BACKS ON
OUR MILITARY AND YOU CAN
CONTINUE TO KILL THEM AND I WANT
TO SAY ONE SIMPLE THING.
TWO WEEKS AGO I WENT TO THE
MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR P.F.C.
MICHAEL J. METCALFE OF FLORIDA
WHO WAS LAID TO REST TODAY IN
ARLINGTON.
I WILL NOT TURN MY BACKS ON
THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE
STILL MY FRIENDS, SOME OF THEM
EVEN MY RELATIVES, AND I ASK
THAT MY COLLEAGUES DO NOT VOTE
FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU AND YIELD BACK.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
REMAINING?
THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS 4 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
HAS FOUR MINUTES REMAINING.
LET ME JUST YIELD
MYSELF 30 SECONDS AND JUST
RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA AND SAY, THIS AMENDMENT,
I THINK HE PROBABLY IS NOT
READING THE AMENDMENT THAT I
HAVE OFFERED.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS
RESTRICT OUR FUNDING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE SAFE AND THE
ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL FROM
AFGHANISTAN OF ALL MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
IT IS NOT A CUT AND RUN
AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A FORCE PROTECTION
IT WOULD BRING OUR YOUNG MEN AND
WOMEN OUT OF HARM'S WAY AND IT
WOULD PROVIDE THE RESOURCES TO
MOVE FORWARD TO HELP STABILIZE
THE REGION.
I'D LIKE NOW TO YIELD A MINUTE
TO THE GENTLELADY FROM HAWAII,
CONGRESSWOMAN HANABUSA.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
HAWAII IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
I RISE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE LEE AMENDMENT.
WHEN I WAS IN THE HAWAII STATE
LEGISLATURE, WE WERE THE ONLY
STATE THAT DID A HAWAII MEDAL OF
HONOR AND THE FORTUNATE PART
ABOUT IT IS WE GAVE THOSE MEDALS
TO THE SPOUSES AND THE FAMILIES
AND THE FRIENDS OF THOSE WHO HAD
FALLEN IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
AS LONG AS THEY HAD SOME
CONNECTION TO HAWAII, THEY'RE
SERVING AT YOU ARE WITH OF OUR
BASES OR BEING FROM THERE --
SERVING AT ONE OF OUR BASES OR
BEING FROM THERE.
I BELIEVE THE TIME HAS COME FOR
US WE MUST SAFELY -- US, WE MUST
SAFELY REMOVE OUR TROOPS AND THE
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL BECAUSE WE
OWE IT TO THEM.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER OR
NOT WE ARE ABDICATING OR WE ARE
TURNING OUR BACKS ON THEM.
THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY WERE
SENT THERE TO DO.
11 YEARS OF FIGHTING.
SADDAM HUSSEIN -- OSAMA BIN
LADEN IS DEAD.
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THEY ARE ASKING US TO REMOVE
THE MEN AND WOMEN.
WAY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE
TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE SENT
THERE TO DO.
AND THAT IS WHY I STAND IN
SUPPORT OF THE LEE AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, AT
THIS TIME I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO
MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, AIR
FORCE PILOT, MR. KISSINGER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ILLINOIS IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN --
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THESE ARE LESSONS WE LEARNED
THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
I LEARNED IT IN OFFICER TRAINING
AS A PILOT IN THE MILITARY AND I
LEARNED IT IN MY EXPERIENCE
OVERSEAS.
THINK OF THE SACRIFICE THAT OUR
TROOPS HAVE MADE IN AFGHANISTAN.
NOW, WE UNDERSTAND IT'S BEEN TOO
BUT THINK OF THE SACRIFICE
THEY'VE MADE.
AND NOW WE'RE GETTING READY VERY
QUICKLY WITH THE PASSAGE OF AN
AMENDMENT IF THIS PASSES TO SAY,
WE'RE JUST GETTING OUT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE
COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND WITH
THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HOW WE DO
IT OR WHAT WE DO.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SAY TO OUR
TROOPS IF THIS PASSES AND WHAT
ARE WE GOING TO SAY TO B.B.?
B.B. IS A YOUNG WOMAN WHO IN
AFGHANISTAN WHO AT THE AGE OF 12
WAS SOLD INTO SLAVERY BECAUSE
SOMEONE COMMITTED A CRIME IN HER
FAMILY AND THE TALIBAN MADE HER
BE SOLD TO SLAVERY.
OFF.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SAY TO HER
WHEN WE PICK UP AND SAY, WE'VE
HAD ENOUGH, WE'RE JUST GOING TO
PICK UP AND LEAVE TODAY?
THIS IS A BIG DEAL AND I WOULD
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE
THIS ILL-THOUGHT OUT AMENDMENT
AND I YIELD BACK.
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
REMAINING?
THE GENTLELADY FROM
REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
HAS THREE MINUTES REMAINING.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD NOW
ONE MINUTE TO THE GENTLELADY
FROM TEXAS, CONGRESSWOMAN
JACKSON LEE.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE GENTLELADY FOR A VERY
THOUGHTFUL AMENDMENT AND I
ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMENDMENT THAT
HAD.
AND CLEARLY WHAT THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE TO SPEAK THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES HERE ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
NONE OF US WANT TO PROMOTE THE
KILLING OF WOMEN, THE CUTTING
OFF OF EARS AND MUTELYIZATION OF
I HAVE FOUNDED AND CHAIRED THE
AFGHAN CAUCUS.
TIMES.
SCHOOLS.
WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT
THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF OUR
SOLDIERS, FIRST GOING THERE
AFTER THE HORRIFIC INCIDENT OF
9/11, THEY AFTER 10 YEARS HAVE
GIVEN THE FULLEST MEASURE AND
WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT WE
BRING THEM HOME SAFELY AND
ORDERLY AND THAT WE BEGIN TO USE
THE DIPLOMATIC RESOURCES, WE
ENHANCE NATO, WE MAKE SURE WE
WORK WITH OUR ALLIES AND WE HAVE
THE AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY
FORCES STAND UP.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
WE'VE GIVEN ENOUGH RIBBONS AND
HERO AWARDS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
OUR SOLDIERS WOULD NOT STEP
THEY WANT TO BE THERE WITH THEIR
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US AS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO MAKE
DECISIONS TO SEND YOUNG MEN AND
WOMEN INTO WAR TO MAKE A
DECISION THAT THEIR JOB IS WELL
DONE AND THAT AFGHANISTAN BEGINS
TO IN ESSENCE DEVELOP THE
DEMOCRAT PROCESSES AND HAVE
NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES
UP.
ENOUGH KILLING OF OUR SOLDIERS
BY INTERNAL ACTS BY AFGHAN
POLICE AND SOLDIERS.
LET US BRING THEM HOME NOW IN AN
ORLANDOERLY WAY.
GOD WLESS OUR TROOPS AND -- GOD
-- IN AN ORLANDOERLY WAY.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOP -- IN AN
ORDERLY WAY.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS AND GOD
BLESS MERCK -- AMERICA.
MR. MCKEON:EN I YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM #, MR. PIERCE.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I FLEW COMBAT MISSIONS IN
VIETNAM IN 1971, 1972 AND 1973.
I WAS THERE WHEN MEMBERS OF THIS
HOUSE VOTED TO CUT THE FUNDS TO
TROOPS IN COMBAT.
I'M HEARING THE WORDS SAFE AND
ORDERLY WITHDRAW.
HAS ANYONE ON THE OTHER SIDE
LOOKED AT THE SAFE AND ORDERLY
WITHDRAWAL THAT OCCURRED IN
VIETNAM?
AS WE FELL HEAD OVER HEELS, WE
THERE.
THAT WAS A SAFE AND ORDERLY
WITHDRAWAL WE HAD IN WHEN THIS
BODY AREY BEGAN TO IMAGINE
VIETNAM.
WE LOST THE VIETNAM WAR BECAUSE
WE TOOK THE CONTROL OF THE WAR
AWAY FROM THE GENERALS AND
PLACED IT INTO THIS BODY.
PEOPLE WHO HAD NEVER BEEN IN
COMBAT WHO HAD NEVER BEEN IN
HARM'S WAY.
I'M TELLING YOU AS SOMEONE WHO
WAS THERE DURING A TIME WHEN
CONGRESS CHOKED OFF THE FUNDS TO
PEOPLE THAT WERE IN HARM'S WAY,
I HAD A BURNINGING AN THAT ARE
BURNS TODAY AND WHEN I SEE THIS
AMENDMENT AND VISUALIZE THE
YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVER THERE
WHO YOU'RE CUTTING FUNDS OFF AND
SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE YOU
WITH AN ORDERLY AND QUIET
WITHDRAWAL, IT'S NOT HUMANLY
POSSIBLE.
THE OTHER SIDE DOESN'T PLAY BY
YOUR ORDERLY RULES.
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WAR.
OUR TROOPS' LIVES ARE AT RISK
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
IS RECOGNIZED.
I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
CALIFORNIA RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
CAN I ASK THE TIME
REMAINING?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS TWO MINUTES
REMAINING.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
HAS ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
TO CLOSE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS THE RIGHT TO
CLOSE.
I'LL RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA RESERVES.
THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
LET ME JUST FIRST SAY
THAT I APPRECIATE THE 20-MINUTE
DEBATE BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A
COUPLE OF DAYS TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE A FULL DEBATE ON WHY WE
NEED TO, ONE, PROTECT OUR TROOPS
AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR IS A SAFE
AND ORDERLY -- PROVIDE FOR THEIR
SAFE AND ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
WAR-WEARY.
WE NEED TO REUNITE OUR BRAVE MEN
AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WITH THEIR
FAMILIES AT HOME, WE SHOULD
TRANSFER THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON WAR TO
CREATE JOBS AT HOME, WE SHOULD
ENSURE THAT OUR TROOPS ARE
PROVIDED WITH THE RESOURCES THAT
THEY DESERVE AND THEY NEED
DURING THIS WITHDRAWAL, WE'RE
ASKING FOR A SAFE AND ORDERLY
WITHDRAWAL, WE'RE SAYING OUR
YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN HAVE FOUGHT,
THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'VE
WE THINK THAT
NOW AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
SAYING, THAT COMBAT MISSION, THE
FIGHTING SHOULD END AND WE
SHOULD BEGIN BY PROTECTING OUR
TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS AND WE
SHOULD BEGIN TO END THE LONGEST
WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
IT'S TIME TO END THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN.
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD MYSELF THE BALANCE OF THE
RECOGNIZED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN I
WAS IN AFGHANISTAN A FEW YEARS
AGO I VISITED CAMP LEGISLATOR --
LEATHERNECK.
A GENERAL WAS JUST SETTING UP
BASE AND MEN WERE SETTING UP
FOREIGN OPERATING BASES, TRYING
TO TAKE BACK TERRITORY THAT THE
TALIBAN COMMANDED.
THE GENERAL TOLD ME THAT HIS
TROOPS WERE BEING ASKED EVERY
DAY BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE, WHEN
ARE YOU LEAVING?
HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO BE
CAN WE TRUST YOU TO BE HERE TO
US?
LAST YEAR WHEN I RETURNED, I
WENT TO THE SAME AREA, WE WERE
ABLE TO GO TO MARJA THIS TIME
WHICH WE COULDN'T GO TO BEFORE
BECAUSE THAT WAS A TALIBAN
STRONGHOLD.
LAST YEAR WE WERE ABLE TO WALK
DOWN THE STREET THERE.
I SAW MARINES AND AFTER BEGAN
SOLDIERS EMBRACING THAT THEY
WERE HAPPEN HI -- HAPPY TO SEE
OACH OTHER, MAYBE THEY'D BEEN
APART FOR A WHILE.
THE MARINES HAD PUT UP LIGHT
STANDARDS DOWN THE STREET AND
THE MERCHANTS WERE ABLE TO KEEP
THEIR STORES OPEN A LITTLE BIT
LONGER.
WE OPENED A SCHOOL WHILE WE
WERE THERE, NOT A COOL LIKE WE
ENJOY BUT IT WAS A COOL BUILT
OUT OF ADEE -- ADOBE AND TENTS,
THEY HAD ABOUT 500 KIDS, ABOUT
A THIRD OF THEM GIRLS, THEY
WERE ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL THEY
HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO GO TO
BEFORE.
THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE
I SITTED WITH THE LOCAL
GOVEPBOR THERE I ASKED HIM WHAT
-- GOVERNOR THERE.
I ASKED HIM WHAT MOTIVATED HIM
LINE?
HE SAID, GOD WILLING, WE'LL
PREVAIL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT PULLING THESE PEOPLE
OUT BEFORE THEY HAVE A CHANCE
TO COMPLETE THEIR MISSION, I
WAS ON A STREET THERE IN SIMI
VALLEY, LAST WEEK, I TALKED TO
A LADY WORKING IN THE -- IN A
BOOTH FOR THE TROOPS, SHE SAID,
MY GRANDSON CAME HOPE FROM --
HOME FROM AFGHANISTAN, AND SHE
SAID TO HIM, WE SHOULD JUST GET
OUT.
AND HE SAID, GRAN NEE --
GRANNY, THAT'S WRONG, WE'RE
DOING GREAT THINGS THERE.
WE NEED TO STAY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
THE GENTLELADY SEEKS
A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEED OPTION THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA WILL
BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-485.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
CONNOLLY OF VIRGINIA.
PURSUANT TO HOZZ
REGISTRATION LOO -- RESOLUTION
661, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, MR. CONNOLLY, AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
I THANK THE CHAIR
AND I WANT TO CONGRATULATION
THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STAFFS WHO
OFFER US A MODEL FOR BIPARTISAN
COLLABORATION ON MAJOR
LEGISLATION.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THE
FUTURE DRAWDOWN IN AFGHANISTAN
WHICH WILL REQUIRE NATO TO REV
MOVE $30 BILLION OF EQUIPMENT
FROM AFGHANISTAN BY THE END OF
2014.
THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM
VEHICLES TO EQUIPMENT.
LOGISTICALLY, THIS IS QUITE A
THE UNITED STATES AND ITS
ALLIES RELIED ON TWO MAJOR
ROUTES TO GET THE EQUIPMENT TO
AFGHANISTAN, THE LAND ROUTE AND
THE NORTHERN ROUTE THROUGH
ASIA.
FOR NEARLY SIX MONTHS, ACT
PAKISTAN HAS CLOSED THE ROUTE
IN RESPONSE TO AN ACCIDENTAL
SHOOTING OF PAKISTANIS ON THE
WHILE TALKS HAVE BEEN POSITIVE,
THE FINAL OUTCOME IS FAR FROM
CERTAIN THIS SIMPLE AMENDMENT
ADDRESSES THE ISSUE HEAD ON BY
WITHHOLDING FUNDS TO THE
COALITION SUPPORT FUND UNTIL
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
CERTIFIES THAT PAKISTAN HAS
OPENED THE GROUND LINES OF
COMMUNICATION, IS ALLOWING THE
TRANSIT OF NATO SUPPLIES
THROUGH PAKISTAN INTO
AFGHANISTAN, AND THREE IS
SUPPORTING RETRIEVAL OF
EQUIPMENT OUT OF AFGHANISTAN.
THIS WILL BE NO EASY FEAT AND
IT WILL REQUIRE THE HELP OF
ALLIES NO MATTER HOW STRAINED
THE TIES.
SOME QUESTION WHY WE CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE WITH PAKISTAN AT ALL.
SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON SAID
IT BEST, PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR
ARMED STATE SITTING IN THE
CROSSROADS IN A REGION AND WE
HAVE SEEN THE COSTS OF
WITHDRAWING FROM THAT REGION
BEFORE.
THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL
COMPETING ACTORS IN SOUTH AND
CENTRAL ASIA NECESSITATES ON
GOING U.S. ENGAGEMENT IN THE
REGION.
A KEY REQUIREMENT FOR A
SUCCESSFUL -- A DEEP AND
NUANCED UNDERSTANDING OF ALL
THE PLAYERS IN THE REGION, THIS
INCLUDES EACH ACTOR'S THE
STIRED END GAME AND ITS
WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOWARD A
PEACEFUL PAKISTAN AND ANY
DOUBLE TALK IMPEDES THAT
PROGRESS.
WE SHOULD OUTLINE OUR MISSION,
IDENTIFY OUR ALLIES AND SPECIFY
OUR EXPECTATIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT DOES JUST THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE
CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING ON ME
WITH -- WITH ME ON THIS AND
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY.
WE ARE WORKING TO STRENGTHEN
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESSES AND
SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY AND I
SUPPORT THE COMMITTEE'S
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER 96 I SUBMITTED ALONG
WITH MR. LANKFORD OF OKLAHOMA
TO COMBAT MUME TRAFFICKING BY
FEDERAL SUBCONTRACTORS.
I THINK IT WILL GO A LONG WAY
TO ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM.
WITH THAT, I RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION THOUGH I DON'T
OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT.
DOES ANY MEMBER
CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
WE HAD AN AMENDMENT
EARLIER TO CUT OFF ALL FUNDS TO
PAKISTAN.
THIS IS A MORE MODERATE
PAKISTAN IS PART OF THE
PROBLEM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
THEY LIVE IN A TOUGH
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE KNOW THAT IN SOME WAYS THEY
HELP US, IN SOME WAYS THEY
DON'T HELP US.
THIS AMENDMENT IS KIND OF A
CARROT AND STICK APPROACH.
WE SAY WHEN YOU DO THE THINGS
THAT YOU SAY YOU'LL DO, WHEN
YOU THOPE GROUND LIVENSE
COMMUNICATION, WE'LL BE GIVING
YOU SOME OF THE FUNDS.
I THINK THAT'S THE PROPER
APPROACH WE SHOULD TAKE AND I
THINK THAT WILL HELP US IN
MOVING FORWARD OUR EFFORT IN
THAT AREA.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR HIS
AMENDMENT, I THINK IT MAKES THE
BILL STRONGER.
I THANK HIM FOR HIS WORK IN
THIS REGARD.
I ASK SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT
AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
CHAIR: THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA.
MAY I ASK HOW
MUCH TIME IS REMAINING?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS
TWO MINUTES.
I YIELD ONE
WASHINGTON.
THIS AMENDMENT.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE PROBLEMS IN
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PAKISTAN,
WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PUT
PRESSURE ON THEM TO IMPROVE THE
RELATIONSHIP, OPENING UP SUPPLY
LEANS ARE CRITICAL TO OUR
TROOPS.
IT IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
THAT WE SHOULD ASK AND THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT IS WELL
THOUGHT OUT AND IT'S THE
DEALING WITH OUR DIFFICULT
ALLY.
AS MR. ROHRABACHER MENTIONED,
THERE IS MUCH THAT PAKISTAN
DOES THAT CAUSES US TROUBLE BUT
THEY ARE A COUNTRY WE NEED TO
WORK WITH IF WE'RE GOING TO
PROPERLY CONTAIN THE AL QAEDA
AND TERRORIST THREAT THAT COMES
FROM THAT REYP OF THE WORLD.
I THINK THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT STRIKES THAT BALANCE
JUST RIGHT AND I URGE THE --
URGE THIS BDY TO SUPPORT IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA.
I YIELD 30
SECONDS TO THE GENTLELADY FROM
TEXAS, MS. SHEILA JACKSON LEE.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 30 SECONDS.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR HIS HARD WORK AND
LET ME HAVE AN OPEN LETTER TO
OUR FRIENDS IN PAKISTAN,
PAKISTANI AMERICANS, THAT YOUR
FRIENDSSHIP IS APPRECIATED, THE
HARD WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE
TOGETHER IS APPRECIATED, BUT WE
ARE LOOKING TO BEGIN THE
REOPENING OF THOSE BORDERS THAT
ARE CRUCIAL TO THE SURVIVAL AND
THE EFFORTS OF OUR MEN AND
WOMEN WHO ARE PRESENTLY IN
AFGHANISTAN AND ON THAT BORDER.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WITH THE
LEADERSHIP OF THE NEW
AMBASSADOR, WITH THE EFFORTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE
FOREIGN MINISTER OF PAKISTAN,
THEY UNDERSTAND AND HAVE MADE
ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT THEY WOULD
BEGIN THE OPENING OF THOSE
LINES, NOT ONLY OF
COMMUNICATION BUT TRAVEL AND WE
WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD
HAPPEN SOON.
AGAIN, I EMPHASIZE WORKING WITH
THE PAKISTANMY PEOPLE IS
CRUCIAL, DEVELOPING ALLIES IS
CRUCIAL IN THAT VERY DIFFICULT
NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PAKISTANIS
THEMSELVESES ARE SUBJECT TO
TERRORIST ACTS.
YIELDING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA.
I THANK THE
CHAIRMAN AND THE WONDERFUL
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON
THE BILL.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE
AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE ON THAT
MATTER.
THE -- PURSUANT TO
CLAUSE 6 OF RULE 18, FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-485.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NURMENT 7
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT
OF FLORIDA.
3UR SUNT TO THE
RULE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA, MR. ROONEY AND A
MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I P MIGHT CONSUME.
RECOGNIZED.
MY AMENDMENT
CODIFIES IN THE NDAA THAT ANY
FOREIGN TERRORIST DETAINED BE
TRIED IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL
SET UP BY THIS CONGRESS RATHER
THAN AN ARTICLE 3 COURT.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS QUITE
SIMPLE.
ARTICLE 3 COURTS, WHICH ARE
RESERVED FOR OUR CITIZENS,
AFFORD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
RIGHTS OF ATTORNEYS, RIGHTS TO
REMAIN SILENT, RIGHT TO FACE
YOUR ACCUSER, AND TO CONTRADICT
YOU.
SOMETIMES WHICH ARE BEING
OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY
PEOPLE IN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY WITH INFORMATION AND
SOURCES THAT NEED TO BE
PROTECTED.
MILITARY TRIBUNALS I THINK ARE
THE MORE ADEQUATE VENUE FOR
FOREIGN TERRORIST ENEMY
COMBATANTS TO BE TRIED AND TO
BE GIVEN DUE PROCESS FAIRLY
WHICH WOULD ALSO PROTECT OUR
SOURCES, WHICH WOULD ALSO
PROTECT THE WAY THAT WE GATHER
EVIDENCE BY MEN AND WOMEN IN
UNIFORM AND PANELS OF MEN AND
WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHICH I HAD
THE PLEASURE OF SERVING IN THE
UNITED STATES ARMY JAG CORPS,
PEOPLE OF THE UTMOST INTEGRITY
AND UTMOST FAIRNESS.
SPECIFICALLY, IN LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT
WE MOVE FURTHER AWAY FROM 9/11,
THE WAR ON TERROR CONTINUES AS
WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE UNDERWEAR
BOMBER, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH
MAJOR HASAN IN THE FORT HOOD
SHOOTINGS, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH
THE TIMES SQUARE BOMBING, AS
WE'VE SEEN WITH JUST RECENTLY,
AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK, A
AN UNDERWEAR
TYPE BOMBING ON AN AIRPLANE.
SO FOR THESE REASONS AND FOR
REASONS STATED PREVIOUSLY WITH
REGARD TO DETAINEES AT
GUANTANAMO BAY WHO ARE NOT U.S.
CITIZENS WHO ARE FOREIGN
TERRORISTS, DETAINEES THAT I
BELIEVE SHOULD GET DUE PROCESS,
THAT I BELIEVE HAVE THE DUE
PROCESS VENUE OF THE MILITARY
TRIBUNALS AND MILITARY COURT
DOWN AT GUANTANAMO BAY TO GET
THEIR DAY IN COURT.
AND GET SO IN A FAIR WAY THAT
IS HUMANE AND JUST AND WITH
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I RISE TO CLAIM TIME
IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
I AM NOT AGAINST MILITARY
TRIBUNALS.
PARTICULARLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
CAPTURED OVERSEAS.
THERE ARE INSTANCES WHEN THE
EVIDENCE NECESSARY REQUIRES A
MILITARY COMMISSION.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS AMENDMENT
IS, IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE A
MILITARY COMMISSION.
THAT ARTICLE 3 COURTS ARE NEVER
AN OPTION.
AND WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE
HISTORY OF CAPTURING TERRORISTS
OVERSEAS, BRINGING THEM BACK TO
THE UNITED STATES, TRYING THEM
IN ARTICLE 3 COURTS, CONVICTING
THEM AND PUTTING THEM IN
WE'VE DONE THAT A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT TIMES AND IT IS AN
OPTION THAT SHOULD BE ON THE
TABLE.
I CANNOT SUPPORT TAKING THAT
OPTION COMPLETELY AWAY UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS
WITH MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR MANY OF
THE REASONS THAT MR. ROONEY
STATED.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE ALSO
RELATIVELY NEW.
WE HAD SOME MILITARY
COMMISSIONS IN WORLD WAR II, I
BELIEVE JUST ONE FOR A
PARTICULAR GROUP OF GERMAN
SPIES WHO WERE HERE IN THE U.S.
AND WE'VE DONE A COUPLE SINCE
THEN.
BUT THEY'RE UNTESTED.
THERE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE
APPEALS.
THE BEAUTY OF THE ARTICLE 3
COURT, YOU HAVE 230 YEARS OF
OFFER A
LITTLE BIT THERE BUT IT'S WELL
DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW WHAT'S
COMING, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S
GOING TO COME FROM A MILITARY
THE SECOND PROBLEM WITH
MILITARY COMMISSIONS IS OUR
OVERSEAS ALLIES ARE NOT AS FOND
OF THEM AS WE ARE.
IT MAY INHIBIT OUR ABILITY TO
GET THEM TO TURN TERRORISTS
OVER TO US FOR PROSECUTION IF
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO GO TO
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE.
TO TAKE ARTICLE 3 COURTS
COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE IS
TAKING AN OPTION AWAY FROM THE
PRESIDENT, FROM THIS COUNTRY,
TO PROPERLY PROTECT US, AND
THERE ARE GOING TO BE INSTANCES
WHEN WE'LL WANT TO USE THAT
TOOL.
THIS AMENDMENT TAKES AWAY THAT
OPTION IN A WAY THAT I BELIEVE
WILL HAMPER NATIONAL SECURITY.
IT WILL LIMIT OUR OPTIONS FOR
HOW TO PROSECUTE TERRORISTS AND
I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN AND I WILL
EMPHASIZE THIS, WE SEEM TO HAVE
TOTALLY LOST TRACK OF THE FACT
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
THE F.B.I., OUR ARTICLE 3 COURTS
HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MOST
IN SUCCESSFULLY
STOPPING THE TERRORISTS.
OVER 400 TRIED, CONVICTED AND
LOCKED UP FOR LIFE.
THAT IS A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL.
THE F.B.I. KNOWS HOW TO
INVESTIGATE CRIMES.
THEY KNOW HOW TO INTERROGATE
THEY CAN DO THE JOB.
WHY WOULD WE TAKE THAT TOOL IN
OUR TOOL BOX AND THROW IT AWAY?
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND FOR
THAT REASON I HAVE TO OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT.
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD 90
SECONDS TO MY FRIEND FROM
ARKANSAS, MR. GRIFFIN.
THANK YOU.
I SUPPORT MR. ROONEY'S
AMENDMENT.
THIS SAYS THOSE HELD THIS THE
HTH GUANTANAMO BAY SHOULD BE
HELD BY THE MILITARY.
IT'S A STRONG AMENDMENT.
I VISITED GITMO, IT WAS THE
FIRST TRIP THAT I TOOK WHEN I
GOT TO CONGRESS.
AND THEY HAD THE FACILITIES AND
THE EXPERTISE THERE.
I'M ALSO CURRENTLY SERVING AS A
JAG OFFICER IN THE ARMY, IN MY
16TH YEAR, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS
THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO TRY
THEM.
ARTICLE 3 COURTS ARE NOT
EQUIPPED TO TRY FOREIGN
TERRORISTS.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL
STANDARDS FOR EVIDENCE GATHERING
AND PROSECUTION IN CIVILIAN
CASES ARE SIMPLY NOT ADEQUATE
FOR THE TRIAL OF AN ENEMY
COMBATANT.
THESE CASES OFTEN RELY ON
CLASSIFIED EVIDENCE, INFORMANTS
AND INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ON THE
OTHER HAND ARE SET UP TO PROTECT
CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS
AND EVIDENCE WHILE STILL
PROVIDING FAIR AND DUE PROCESS
FOR THE ACCUSED.
AND I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT
BRINGING TERRORISTS UP TO NEW
YORK CITY IS A VERY EXPENSIVE
PROPOSITION AND MY CONSTITUENTS
HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO ME THAT
THEY WANT THE TERRORISTS KEPT
WHERE THEY ARE AT GITMO, WHERE
OUR STATE OF THE ART FACILES --
FACILITY HOUSES THEM.
WE'VE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THERE, INCLUDING A LARGE
COURTROOM TO TRY DETAINEES.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SPEND
MILLIONS MORE TO BRING THEM HERE
FOR TRIALS WHEN WE HAVE THE
FACILITY AND THE PROCESS TO TRY
THEM AT GITMO.
I'M CONFIDENT THAT TRYING ENEMY
COMBATANTS IN MILITARY TRIBUNALS
AT GITMO IS THE BEST WAY TO HOLD
THEM OUT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND PREVENT THEM FROM REJOINING
THE FIGHT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
MAY I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH TIME REMAINS?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS 2
1/2 MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT.
IF A SUSPECTED TERRORIST CAN
ONLY BE TRIED SUCCESSFULLY IN
MAILTARY COMMISSION BECAUSE
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT
JEOPARDIZING THE CONFIDENTIALITY
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OR
OTHER CONCERNS, THEN THEN I
EMPHATICALLY AGREE THAT PERSON
SHOULD BE TRIED IN A MILITARY
COMMISSION.
PRESUPPOSE THAT ALL SUCH
DETAINEES PROPERLY BELONG IN A
MILITARY COMMISSION I THINK IS A
MISTAKE FOR TWO REASONS.
FIRST, IT REALLY PREJUDGES THE
RECORD OF EVIDENCE AND THE
STANDING OF LAW IN THAT CASE
WHEN WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY
COMPETENT TO DO THAT.
THAT'S THE DECISION THE
PROSECUTORS OUGHT TO MAKE.
AND THEN SECONDLY I THINK
ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT THE INTENTION
OF THE AUTHORS, I'M SURE, IT
BELIES A CERTAIN LACK OF
CONFIDENCE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF OUR
IT'S ONE THAT OPERATES ON
PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, IT
INNOCENCE.
I THINK TO ABANDON THAT
UNWITTINGLY UNDERCUTS CONFIDENCE
IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR
ARTICLE 3 COURTS.
I WOULD URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
FLORIDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I
INQUIRE THE TIME?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA HAS RUN MINUTE REMAIN
DIAGNOSE ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
HAS ONE MINUTE REMAINING -- THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA HAS ONE
MINUTE REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
HAS ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
I RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
HAS THE RIGHT TO CLOSE.
I WILL RESERVE.
I ONLY HAVE ONE SPEAKER LEFT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
WOULD JUST SAY TO SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID THAT
I DON'T THINK THAT WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT IS SAYING IS IN ANY
WAY DISPARAGING WHAT ARTICLE 3
COURTS CAN DO OR WOULD BE
SUCCESSFUL DOING.
CERTAINLY I WOULD AGREE THAT
THEY COULD BE ADEQUATE IN
PROSECUTING CRIMINALS AND PEOPLE
THAT DO CRIMES IN THIS COUNTRY.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE
FOREIGN ENEMY TERRORIST
COMBATANTS, PEOPLE THAT COMMIT
ACTS OF WAR AGAINST THIS COUNTRY
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
ALLINGTIZATION THAT THIS
CONGRESS PASSED -- AUTHORIZATION
THAT THIS CONGRESS PASSED.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE AS A CONGRESS
IS SET UP MILITARY COMMISSIONS
IN WAYS THAT CAN PROTECT
EVIDENCE, WAYS THAT CAN PROTECT
WITNESSES AND SOURCES.
IN MY OPINION IN A WAY THAT THE
ARTICLE 3 COURTS MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY
COULDN'T, I'M SAYING THAT IT'S A
BETTER VENUE.
JUST LIKE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
EARLIER, THE RANKING MEMBER
SMITH AND AMASH AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD PRECLUDE THE USE OF
MILITARY TRIBUNALS, MUCH AS THE
RANKING MEMBER IS SAYING THAT
OPTIONS SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE,
WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
AND SO WITH THAT I HOPE PEOPLE
WILL VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT AND
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I YIELD MYSELF THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
THREE QUICK POINTS.
I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE AND
I DRAFTED MY
AMENDMENT TO SAY JUST IN THE
U.S., A LEGITIMATE POINT,
OVERSEAS WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME
CONTROL OVER THE INVESTIGATETORY
PROCESS THAT WE HAVE HERE
THERE'S A CLEAR DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DEALING WITH SOMEONE
HERE DOMESTICALLY.
THAT'S WHY IN THE LAST 10 YEARS
WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING OTHER
THAN TRY PEOPLE HERE IN THE U.S.
UNDER ARTICLE 3 COURTS.
WE HAVEN'T NEEDED MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD
TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM THE
PRESIDENT BECAUSE IT'S AN
EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF POWER TO
GIVE HIM THAT ISN'T NECESSARY.
BUT OVERSEAS THEY ARE TAKING
AWAY THE OPTIONS IN THIS
AMENDMENT AND SAYING IT HAS TO
BE MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
AND THEY ARE ALSO SAYING THAT
ARTICLE 3 COURTS ARE INADEQUATE
TO DO THAT, WHEN IN FACT THEY'VE
DONE IT REPEATEDLY.
THE PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE
BOMBING AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE
TOWERS IN 1993 WERE CAPTURED
OVERSEAS, BROUGHT BACK, TRIED
HERE IN DOMESTIC COURTS.
ARTICLE 3 COURTS WORK SOMETIMES
IN THESE INSTANCES.
THEIR AMENDMENT TAKES THOSE
OPTIONS AWAY COMPLETELY.
ALSO POINT OUT THAT GUANTANAMO
BAY IS NOT AN ENORMOUS FACILITY.
THEY ALREADY HAVE 40 PEOPLE
WAITING IN LINE FOR MILITARY
TRIBUNALS.
MANY MORE WILL BACKLOG THAT.
BUT I WANT TO COME BACK TO MY
AMENDMENT THAT'S GOING TO COME
UP LATER.
DOMESTICALLY WE HAVE PROVE THAN
ARTICLE 3 COURTS ARE MORE THAN
ADEQUATE, YOFESEAS WE'VE PROVEN
THAT WE NEED -- OVERSEAS WE'VE
PROVE THAN WE NEED MULTIPLE
OPTIONS.
I URGE OPPOSITION TO IT.
THE QUESTION OCCURS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
OFFERED BY .-- ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA WILL BE POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-485.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 11-485
OFFERED BY MR. BARTLETT OF
MARYLAND.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 661, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MARYLAND, MR. BARTLETT, AND
A MEMBER OPPOSED EACH WILL
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
BATTER ABOUT A --
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
IS A VERY SIMPLE AMENDMENT.
I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO MAKE TWO
STATEMENTS THAT I THINK ARE
GENERALLY RECOGNIZED FACTS.
ONE OF THOSE IS THAT ONLY 11.8%
OF OUR WORK FORCE BELONGS TO A
P.L.A. AND SECONDLY THAT P.L.A.
CONTRACTS IN THE GOVERNMENT ON
THE AVERAGE COST THE TAXPAYER
12% TO 18% MORE THAN A
NON-P.L.A. CONTRACT.
OUR AMENDMENT IS VERY SIMPLE.
IT IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE, IT IS
SIMPLY PERMISSIVE.
IT SAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL
NOT DISCRIMINATE IN AWARDING
CONTRACTS WHETHER YOU ARE
P.L.A., NOT P.L.A., WHETHER IT'S
A MIXTURE OF P.L.A. AND
NON-P.L.A. COMPANIES, THAT THEY
WILL BE CONSIDERED EQUALLY AND
FAIRLY.
IF IN FACT A P.L.A. CONTRACTOR
IS MORE EFFICIENT AND BETTER
WORK AS THEY CONTEND,
THEN THAT WILL BE TAKEN INTO
CONTRACT.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AWARD THE
LOWEST BIDDER, YOU CAN AWARD ON
THE BASIS OF BEST VALUE.
I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS A
COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT THAT
ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES IN FREE
SUPPORT.
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT RISE?
I CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION,
MR. SPEAKER.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
MY FRIEND, MR. BARTLETT'S,
AMENDMENT WHICH DOES THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT IS PURPORTED.
CURRENTLY THE
STATUS QUO OF THE DEPARTMENT
DEAF FENCE HAS TWO CHOICES.
THEY CAN USE THE PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT OR PRI HIRING LABOR
AGREEMENT OR NOW THEY CAN ELECT
NOT TO ENTER INTO APPEAL -- INTO
A.
THE EFFECT OF THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REMOVE THE DEPARTMENT'S
ABILITY TO HAVE A P.L.A.
REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF HIRING,
IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS.
WHY THOSE MODELS
WORK RIGHT NOW AND HAVE WORKED
FOR DECADES IS IT GIVES THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SET CONDITIONS
REGARDING SECURITY SCREENING,
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS, VETERAN
HIRING PROGRAMS.
THE HARD HATS PROGRAM WHICH IS
ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
PROGRAMS OF INTEGRATING VETERANS
INTO THE BUILDING TRADES, IS
DONE UNDER A P.L.A. ARRANGEMENT.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS LOCAL JOB
MARKETS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
BUT AGAIN, THE DEPARTMENT NOW
PRESENTLY HAS THE OPTION NOT TO
USE P.L.A.'S.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD IN FACT ROB
THE DEPARTMENT OF THAT
OPPORTUNITY AND I WOULD RETAIN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD TWO MINUTES TO MY FRIEND
FROM ARIZONA, MR. FLAKE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ARIZONA IS RECOGNIZED.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR YIELDING.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BARTLETT-FLAKE AMENDMENT.
LET ME JUST CLEAR SOMETHING UP
IF I CAN.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED, THE PRESIDENT
ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WHERE
HE ENCOURAGED FEDERAL AGENCIES
TO WHERE THEY CAN, WHERE
APPROPRIATE, TO EMPLOY P.L.A.'S.
THAT MIGHT SEEM FUNDE FINE.
THE PROBLEM IS SOME OF THE
FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN THAT
TO MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD REQUIRE
P.L.A.'S AND SOME OF THEM HAVE
ISSUED GUIDANCE TO THAT EFFECT.
AND SO THEY HAVE TAKEN WHAT THE
PRESIDENT SAID AND TAKEN IT ONE
STEP FURTHER.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE
IS SIMPLY SAY THAT YOU CANNOT
FAVOR P.L.A.'S, NOR CAN YOU
PROHIBIT THEM.
THAT THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL
BE NEUTRAL IN THIS REGARD.
SO TO SAY THAT IT WOULD PROHIBIT
THE USE OF P.L.A.'S IS SIMPLY
NOT TRUE.
WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO GET --
KEEP THE PRESIDENT OR THE
FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM PUTTING
THEIR FINGER ON THE SCALE.
IN FAVOR OF P.L.A.'S OR AGAINST
THEM.
SO THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
DOES AND I'M PROUD TO SUPPORT IT
THIS AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED IN
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY, ON THE MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION BILL, AND WAS
PASSED BY VOICE VOTE.
THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT THE
UNWITTINGLY OR NOT
PUT HIS FINGER ON THE SCALE IN
FAVOR OF P.L.A.'S OR UNION SHOPS
AND THAT'S JUST NOT FAIR.
THE PRESIDENT AND THE AGENCIES
OUGHT TO BE NEUTRAL IN THIS
REGARD.
P.L.A.'S MIGHT MAKE SENSE, THEY
MIGHT NOT.
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO IS ENSURE
THAT THE TAXPAYER GETS THE
BIGGEST *** FOR THE BUCK.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS
IT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD ONE MINUTE TO THE
MR. LIMPLING.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
FOR YIELDING.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THE BARTLETT-FLAKE
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INDEED SEEK
TO PROHIBIT AGENCIES FROM USING
A P.L.A. AND IS NOT AS THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA HAS JUST
STATED, LET ME CLEAR SOMETHING
UP, LARGE-SCALE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS, LOOK, I WAS AN IRON
WORKER FOR 18 YEARS, I WAS AN
GENERAL FOREMAN,
P.L.A.'S ARE A GREAT ADVANTAGE
TO HAVE IN A COMPLEX
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THIS AMENDMENT AND THE P.L.A.
PROVISION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE
PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT ARE $25
MILLION AND OVER.
SO ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS BELOW
$25 MILLION DON'T GET AFFECTED
BY THE P.L.A. EXECUTIVE ORDER.
WHAT THE P.L.A. DOES REQUIRE AS
MR. COURTNEY HAS POINTED OUT, IT
DOES REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE WITH
WORKERS COMP LAW, STATUTORY
COMPLIANCE WITH ANTI
DISCRIMINATION LAW, WITH PROPER
CLASSIFICATION OF WORKERS, WITH
HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS ON SOME
VERY DANGEROUS JOB SITES.
THIS IS A GOOD IDEA TO REJECT
THE BARTLETT-FLAKE AMENDMENT.
ALLOW THE P.L.A.'S TO BE USED
WHEN APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MR. WALBERG
FROM MICHIGAN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MICHIGAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN.
MR. SPEAKER, I STAND IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT.
AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK SPEAKS
TO RATIONALITY OF OUR
CONTRACTING AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
WE THINK OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE IN OUR DEFENSE WORLD.
IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE P.L.A.'S
THAT VIRTUALLY MAKE UNFAIR
COMPETITION FOR 86% OF ALL OF
OUR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS
BECAUSE 86% NATIONWIDE DON'T
HAVE P.L.A. AGREEMENTS, ARE
NONUNION AND YET HAVE SKILLED
WORKERS DOING THE JOBS THAT ARE
EXPECTED.
FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTING TO HAVE
A MANDATE THAT THERE MUST BE A
P.L.A. AGREEMENT IN PLACE
OFTENTIMES WILL PUT OUR DEFENSE
INDUSTRY AT ACCEPTING A PRODUCT
THAT IS MORE EXPENSIVE AND
POTENTIALLY OF LESSER QUALITY IN
PROCESS.
THIS IS NOT A MANDATE.
IT SAYS CHOICE CAN BE MADE
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE MADE
VERY CLEAR.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, IT IS
IT IS NOT DESCRIBED AS OTHERS
THAT IT WOULD TAKE P.L.A.'S OUT
I STAND IN STRONG SUPPORT FOR
THIS AND ASK THIS AMENDMENT BE
APPLIED AND ULTIMATELY MAKE A
STRONGER DEFENSE CAPABILITY FOR
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT.
I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO THE
GENTLELADY FROM HAWAII, A
MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE, MS. HANABUSA.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BARTLETT
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
IS AND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT TARGETS THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13502 WHICH
ENCOURAGES THE USE OF P.L.A.'S
MILLION OR MORE.
THE REASON IT'S HISTORICALLY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE
SUPPORTED.
IRONICALLY IN 1992 THERE WAS A
SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT
DEFINES P.L.A.'S AND IT WAS THE
BOSTON HARBOR AGREEMENT.
IT WAS UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH WHO
HAD A SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER
THAT PROHIBITED THE USE OF
P.L.A.'S.
IT WAS BUSH'S GUY, KENNETH
STARR, WHO SAID THE REASON WHY
YOU WOULD USE THEM IS BECAUSE
OF TIMELY COMPLETION, LABOR,
PEACE AND STABILITY, LABOR
SUPPLY AND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE.
THIS IS THE REASON WHY YOU
WOULD USE P.L.A.'S.
WHAT THE BARTLETT AMENDMENT
DOES IT WILL TIE THE HANDS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHICH
WE KNOW IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS
TO DO THESE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND.
HOW MUCH TIME COWE
HAVE?
WE HAVE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND HAS 1 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT
HAS TWO MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD ONE
MINUTE TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA, MR. GINGREY.
RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD PREVENT THE D.O.D.
FROM CONTRACTORS SIGHING
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT AS A
CONDITION OF WINNING FEDERAL
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR
PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY THE
UNDER P.L.A., A CONSTRUCTION
FIRM MUST AGREE TO SIGN A UNION
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WHETHER IT'S UNIONIZED OR NOT
GOVERNMENT PROJECT.
P.L.A.'S CAN RESULT IN
INCREASED COST TO CONTRACTORS
AND TAXPAYERS BY AS MUCH AS
18%, UNNECESSARY PROCUREMENT
DELAYS AND POLITICAL FAVORITISM
IN THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
PROCESS.
AT A TIME WHEN THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE IS FACING
DEVASTATING, ACROSS-THE-BOARD
CUTS, IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MAKE
SENSE TO ENCOURAGE P.L.A.'S,
AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MR.
LATOURETTE FROM OHIO.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OHIO IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
LATOURETTE: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN VERY MUCH FOR
YIELDING, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS
AMENDMENT A NUMBER OF TIMES IN
THE 112TH CONGRESS, AND SAD
DOUGH IT DOESN'T GET ANY
BETTER.
IT'S BASED ON THE MISCONCEPTION
THAT P.L.A.'S WILL SAVE
TAXPAYERS MONEY.
THE STUDY WAS DONE AND IT
DEPENDS ON WHAT PART OF THE
COUNTRY YOU ARE IN AND IF YOU
HAVE A HEAVY WORK FORCE OR NOT.
P.L.A.'S COME ON TIME,
UNDERBUDGET IN AREAS WHERE YOU
HAVE A HEAVY UNIONIZED WORK
FORCE AND NOT SO MUCH IN AREAS
WHERE YOU DON'T.
THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE YOU
PUT PEOPLE IN TO DO THE WORK.
THE AMENDMENT, I THINK, YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEING BILLED AS WE
JUST WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE A
CHOICE.
COME ON.
THE PEOPLE ADVOCATING THIS HATE
THEY WANT TO KILL PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS SO THIS WAS
CRAFTEDLY DRAFTED BY THE
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND
CONTRACTORS TO SAY THEY WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE A CHOICE WHEN
THEY DON'T WANT THIS.
PLEASE REJECT THIS.
THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
ALL IT SAYS IS YOU HAVE TO
CONSIDER P.L.A.'S IN THE MIX,
AND I URGE US TO REJECT THE
AMENDMENT.
MARYLAND.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
HAVE A LONG LIST OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SUBMIT FOR
THE RECORD.
THE GENTLEMAN'S
REQUEST WILL BE COVERED UNDER
GENERAL LEAVE.
THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE IT'S
BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST BUT I
AM HAVING SOME TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING HOW AN AMENDMENT
THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IT
IS NONDISCRIMINATORY THAT IS
GOING TO BE TOTALLYING A NOSTIC
TO WHETHER AN -- TOTALLY
AGNOSTIC SOMEHOW EXCLUDES
P.L.A.'S FROM CONTENTION.
THAT IS CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT
WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES.
IT'S A COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT.
FEW AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO
EXCLUDE NEARLY 90% OF AMERICAN
WORKERS FROM CONTENTION FOR
FEDERAL CONTRACTS, I DON'T
THIS IS A FAIR, COMMONSENSE
AMENDMENT, AND I URGE ITS
ACCEPTANCE BY BOTH SIDES.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT.
TO CONCLUDE,
THERE IS SOMEHOW A SMITH THAT
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE
ORDER HAS SWEPT THROUGH ALL
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND P.L.A.'S
ARE NOW A MANDATED REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER READS.
THEY HAVE GRANTED ONE P.L.A.
SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN
JANUARY OF 2009.
EXECUTIVE ORDER EXEMPTS
PROJECTS $25 MILLION OR LESS.
I'D BE HAPPY TO INVITE MEMBERS
FROM MY DISTRICT TO A MILITARY
BASE WHERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN
ONE P.L.A. CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PROJECTS
ON OUR NAVY BASE.
SO THE FACT IS THAT THE OPTION
EXISTS TODAY.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE
THAT OPTION TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE WHICH, AGAIN, HAS
OBVIOUSLY EXERCISED IT VERY
JUDICIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE
OF 2009.
AGAIN, I WOULD URGE MEMBERS TO
REJECT THIS AMENDMENT WHICH
HANDCUFFS THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE TO SET A PREHIRING
AGREEMENT TO HELP VETERANS,
LOCAL WORK FORCE IN
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS FOR
YOUNG AMERICANS THAT WANT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN A BUILDING
TRADE.
TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
POSTPONED.
IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 PRINTED IN
HOUSE REPORT 112-485.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD MYSELF ONE MINUTE.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK?
YES, I ASK THAT
THE AMENDMENT BE REPORTED.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9
PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-485
OFFERED BY MR. CONYERS OF
MICHIGAN.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE
RESOLUTION 485, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN, MR. CONYERS, AND
OPPOSE,ED WILL EACH
CONTROL FIVE MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
I AM PLEASED TO
OFFER THIS AMENDMENT WITH MR.
KEITH ELLISON.
THIS AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE IN
THAT IT MERELY TERMINATES THE
MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEM
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN
ITS HISTORY.
THAT IS TERMINATING THE F-35-B
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER.
WELL, WHY?
WELL, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY
OTHER PLANES THAT HAVE
CAPABILITIES THAT RIVAL THE
F-35-B AND THEIR COSTS ARE FAR
LESS TO OPERATE.
OUR AMENDMENT WOULD SAVE $50
BILLION OVER THE LIFE OF THIS
PROGRAM, AND SO THE TERMINATION
OF THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN
RECOMMENDED BY SO MANY GROUPS,
BUT I JUST MENTION A FEW, THE
OF GOVERNMENT
OVERSIGHT, TAXPAYERS
RECONNAISSANCE, THE CATO
INSTITUTE, THE CENTERS FOR
AMERICAN PROGRESS, THE RESEARCH
GROUP, THE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS
UNION, OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE, COBURN AND THE BOWLES
HMP SIMPSON -- BOWLES-SIMPSON
COMMISSION.
PLEASE JOIN US IN A VERY SIMPLE
OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I RISE, MR.
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS