BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, we debate the rule to consider two measures: H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill; and the motion to go to conference on legislation addressing the problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I regret that this is not an open rule. Strict time limits have been placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss important issues. On issues regarding our national security, we should have ample time for discussion. This is hardly a festival of democracy, as my friend from Florida described this process--this is muzzling democracy. But less debate in a more closed process has become the signature of the Republican majority, I am sad to say.
I am pleased that legislation addressing the problems at the VA is moving forward in a timely way. However, I want to echo the statement of my friend from Maine, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Michaud. The distinguished ranking member correctly pointed out in testimony presented to the Rules Committee that while this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Like Mr. Michaud, I would prefer that this process be more open, and it is just another example of how this closed process denies many good bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted.
Although I have serious concerns with the final Defense Appropriations product, I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time. Every day we turn on our TVs and see conflict, war, and turmoil around the world. It is often hard to remember that most of the world is not at war.
I am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war in United States history: the war in Afghanistan. Even though the President has announced that he will draw down most of our combat forces by the end of this year, he has also said that he will keep 10,000 of our servicemen and -women in Afghanistan through 2016.
I believe strongly that Congress should debate and vote on approving the President's proposal to keep our uniformed men and women in harm's way for another 2 years. What are these 10,000 troops supposed to accomplish that 100,000 troops have not yet done? Our own generals were quoted in Monday's Washington Post saying that security is not the problem in Afghanistan, corruption is the problem. Ten thousand U.S. troops are now going to magically eliminate corruption in Afghanistan.
Just last month, at the end of May, during consideration of the NDAA, Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and I attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the House to vote early next year on whether to maintain U.S. military forces in Afghanistan as the President has proposed.
Outrageously, the Republican leadership of this House refused to let us offer that amendment. We were denied the chance to debate one of the most important questions facing this Congress, the American people, our troops, and their families. So, as we get ready to deliver in this Defense Appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the President to continue the war in Afghanistan, I call upon the Speaker and the leadership of this House to promise--to promise--that before the 113th Congress adjourns they will bring before this House a joint resolution whether to approve the President's proposal to maintain U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan through 2016.
Let the House debate it, and let the House vote on it, up or down. Let's do our jobs. I have no idea what the result of such a vote might be, but I do know that we owe that vote to our troops, their families, and to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired of endless wars. I am increasingly anxious as I listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in Iraq, and many other places around the world.
It is especially galling to listen to the people who got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place. In The Wall Street Journal today, Dick Cheney actually had the audacity to write:
Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.
Are you kidding me? How pathetic. If it is possible to have less than zero credibility, then Dick Cheney has it on Iraq.
I believe in our military, Mr. Speaker. I believe in our men and women in uniform. I believe we should have a military second to none. I believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our Nation is directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the sacrifice of American lives.
But there are many problems--indeed most problems--in the world where sending the U.S. military is not the solution. The crisis facing Iraq has been years in the making. It is not happening because Iraq does not have a well-trained and well-equipped military. The United States took great pains to make sure that it is.
No, Mr. Speaker, Iraq is facing this current crisis because a corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and religious minorities and other factions of Iraqi society from government decisionmaking. Indeed, the Maliki government often went out of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and extend the power of the Shiite majority. Now it is reaping the whirlwind that it created, but in ways it likely never imagined.
If Iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then Iraqi leaders need to learn real fast how to lead--not just their own faction, but how to lead a Nation, to stand up for all their people, and to order their troops and their militias to protect all the Iraqi people: Sunni, Christian, Jewish, Bahai, north, south, and center. They know how to do it. They just have to choose to do it and pray it is not too late. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the governments and powers in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their neighbors. They are the ones who need to lead the way to a political solution to the challenges facing the entire region, or watch it go up in flames around them.
Several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news articles that it is difficult for the U.S. to respond with air power or drones or special operations because the Iraqis rebelling against the central government are not just made up of extremist ISIS members, but they include local Sunnis and other disenfranchised Iraqis. So who do you target? How do you target them? Should you target groups at all?
If one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in Iraq will depend on Iraqis, not on American bombs or firepower, let alone manpower.
Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Defense Appropriations bill, these matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this House. While we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that, unfortunately, our military simply cannot fix.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT