tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 1, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. 416 members have recorded their presence. a quorum is present. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5609 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. thclerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5609, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit any region strerd lobbyist whose employer includes foreign governments which are found to be sponsors of terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states hou of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] . host: on your screen is congressman john tierney of massachusetts. a report on contract thing in afghanistan. the famous phrase that an army moves on its stomach. we have a $2.1 billion contract there. what are we getting from it?
guest: yes, $2.16 billion for contacting that goes through everything from food to supplies. they are getting the goods delivered. there is no argument on that. but there is a failure on the side of authorities to know who they are paying in these contracts, wh impact that might have in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse, and in terms the counterinsurgency mission in afghanistan. host: that last part is what you seem to emphasize in your report. guest: we are not really traina lot of these companies.
and they go and hire trucks and drivers and security companies, which in manyinstances, turned out to be warlords. they do whateverhey need to to get the goods to where they need to be, but they are all set extorting -- also extorting to get the goods to where they need to go. there is also rumors that there are bribes being paid so that these things can get through local authority. host: so in that case, dollars wh they go into a taliban or their supporters, simply supporting the people that we are fighting against. guest: we ha only had reports of that so far. defense personnel believes that it could be happening. certainly, local militias do not have the same interests as the
karzai government. those things are working contrary to our interests. host: your report has gotten lots of coverage. i even watched a piece on russian news on this. t it is not the first time we have heard about it. the secretary of state has talked about . it seems we know the problem but the country, the defense department is not doing anything about it. why is that? guest: that is a good question. we have reports coming e-mails, messages to various officials over there, but nothing happens. they do not said anything over the water because of security problems, -- wire because of
security problems, and we do not have an explanation monday are not following their own rules and regulations. host: we want to continue this discussion on how your tax dollars e being spent by the defense department in the pursuit of this war, and for many of you, questioned about the war itself. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205 . some video from youtube from a convoy. this is one of the most complex supply operations that our military has faced. why is that? guest: some of the roughest terrain that you will come across in terms of the road. it looks like a moonscape for parts of it. in the most dangerous areas, there are the taliban, warlords
that control aspects of that road. it is difficult. it is, in large part, what brought down the russian army. the supply chain was a real problem for them. st: we found a report of an oil tanker that was hit on its way to deliver oil. the oil used in afghanistan is impressive. the need to get oil long distances. guest: that is apparently part of another investigation that we are doing. it is everything from oil to mraps, to water, to food. it is allssential. host: you have some qualms about the war in afanistan, it is fair to say? guest: i am not sure that we are embarking under the most efficient and cost-effective
mission. there are a limited number of al qaeda in afghanistan. another limited amount in the border area of the pakistan. al qaeda leaders in yemen, somalia, sudan. everywhere except afghanistan we do not send in 100,000 troops on the ground. we work with indigenous government and other operations cooperative lead to objection, amended. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to h.con.res 290, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 290, concurrent solution expressing support f designation of june 30 as national esign day. the speaker pro tempore: the queson is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] that, we need to have a system to idtify the problem, anyone
associated with what they are doing, and go after them similarly. i do not think it requires 100,000 troops on the ground. the counterinsurgency mission has some serious issues, and i hope the president uses this opportunity to revisit it. you do need a government that is not corrupt, which had been a problem in afghanistan, but some of this money going in could be fueling those operations. we need to see what is a more efficient way to fight terrorism. as i say in the report, there is a lot of use for that money in this country. host: the senate confirmed general petraeus as the afghanistan commander. what does that suggest to you as far as the debate in washington? guest: they believe he is the man to get this job done.
he wrote a book on counterinsurgency. i might have some questions on its effectiveness here, when you combine what we hve already done in afghanistan, but certainly, he is one of the most knowledgeable people in this area. host: the report about the strength of al qaeda it is in the "new york times" this morning. one of the country's top terrorism officials said --
let's get to your telephone calls. indianapolis. tracy, republican line. caller: good morning. and i am calling on on the subject of unemployment extensions. i have be unemployed for one year. i had been working for 25 years. i was fired for the wrong reasons. i go to rk on a biweekly basis. there are a lot of people here in indianapolis that are unemployed and cannot get jobs. for instance, one month ago, and the indianapolis motor speedway had a job fair.
i went there hoping that we would be able to fill out an application, be interviewed, and maybe have a job. we arrived in the pouring rain and they are not taking applications. all it was was local businesses passing help fliers about their pompany and asking us to go on line. i can do that. i have been doing it for one year. host: if you could, bring us to your bottom line. then we are going to move back to the subject of us can stand. caller: i am very disappointed, as a republican, that my own senator richard lugar has voted against this bill. host: could you send your thoughts to the unemployment extensions? guest: i empathize completely with what she said.
my mother lost his job when he was 58. -- father lost his jobhen he was 58. i wish people would lookbeyond the partisanship that seems to be happening here, just say no to everything, and understand that people are hurting. host: "usa today" has two stories on afghanistan -- on their forum page -- your answer to that would be wh? guest: it is not a question of winning or losing. the issue is what are we
concerned about? we are concerned about terrorists that are going to attack u.s. interests. we have to look at how we e going to approach this problem globally. this is a political fight between a number of different factions over there. the question is how we protect our interests. host: hollywood, florida. richard on the democrat's li. caller: i want to take your argument on afghanistan one step further. since the 1980's, it has been nothing more than about hard cash. we created the mujahideen. i have seen video tape of the cia driving by and dropping double bags of hundreds of thsands of dollars which were pickedp by the warlords.
this goes on today. we are sending hard cash, printed money, and they are distributing it among their own and taking the money on of the country, which was reported today, and are vacationing, buying million-dollar homes in other counies in the gulf. this is our money, taxpayer money, hard earned money that is going to a totally wasted effort in afghanistan. guest: that is the concern we had. this is a $2.16 billion contract with respect to trucking. but this is not the only internional money inserted into afghanistan, by any means. as disturbing as this report was, as the money was going to come of the country -- out of
the country, there are alsoll sorts of other problems that are happening and we do not have a good grip on it. i do not mean to be repetitive, but it is counter t the mission and goals that we have set their. host: east orange, new jersey. you are next. caller: good to talk to you this morning. what i wanted to say was, we talk about the money to the warlords -- ok. t the money is coming from the streak began -- main street. we need a better policy of getting the money. i want you to explain to me -- i am asking you to explain to me
-- how is that money from main street going to afghanistan and iraq, how is it going to impact main street? this is our problem. why isn't the president going after afgnistan like they are bp? we have to go after the afghanistan government. some of that money needs to come back to main street. guest: i think that is the point of some of these remarks in the report. we have security interests and the way we have to look aheait is, if the surity concern is terrorism, or we prosecuting that the best we can? and i do not think so. i think there is a more cost- effective way to do it. wee table.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will come to order. members in conversation, if they'll take their conversations to the cloakroom. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1500, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendments to the bill h.r. 4899, making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up the 40us resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1500, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 4899, making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the senate amendments thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21, a
motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment to the text with each of the five house amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour and 30 minutes as follows. 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. then 30 minutes equally divide and controlled by representative lee of california or her designee and an opponent, and then 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by representative mcgovern of massachusetts or his designee and an opponent. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except that the question of adoption of the motion shall be divided among the five house amendments.
the first portion of the divided question shall be considered as adopted. if the remaining portions of the divided question fail of adoption, then the house shall be considered to have rejected the motion and to have made no disposition of the senate amendment to the text. section 2, upon adoption of the motion specified in the first section of this resolution, a, she court shall engross the action of the house under that section as a single amendment and b, a motion that the house concur in the senate amendment to the title shall be considered as adopted. section 3, the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record not later than july 3, 2010, such material as he may deem explanatory of the senate amendments and the motion specified in the first section of this resolution. section 4, house resolution 1493 is hereby adopted. section 5.
clause 10-a of rule 21 is amended to read as follows, a-1, acceptance provided in paragraphs b and c. it shall now be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution or amendment or conference report of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the on budget deficit or reducing the on budget surplus for the period comprising either, a, the current year, the budget year, and the four years following that budget year, or b, the current year, the budget year, and the nine years following that budget year. two, the effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the committee on the budget relative to baseline estimates supplied by the congressional budget office consistent with section 257 of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control act of 1985 and consistent with
sections 3-4, 3-8, and 3-10 of the statutory budget clause. the clauses have the meaning specified in the emergency deficit control act of 1985, except that the term direct spending shall also include provisions and appropriation acts that make out year modifications to substantive law as described in section 3-4-c of the statutory pay as you go act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, my very good friend, mr. dreier. all time yielded during consideration is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the
record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman will suspend for a moment so we can get order in the house. the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mcgovern: the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 4899 and to concur in the senate amendments printed in the rules committee report. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise in strong support of this rule. this is a difficult rule. it's difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important subject. it deals with the lives and -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the majority leader deserves to
be heard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is correct. the house is not in order. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend from california, mr. dreier. this is an important rule. it's important to every member of this house, on either side of this house whatever ideology they bring to this house. it's extremely important to the american people. it deals, as i said, with the lives and welfare of our young people. it deals with the security of this nation. it deals with the safety of our people. it deals with the objective of not only teaching our children but in eliminating terrorists who would put them at risk. i rise in support of this rule because i think that the very difficult line of trying to give every member the opportunity to reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people is very difficult. but i think this rule attempts to do that. we know that the fiscal course that we are on will ultimately
lead to bankruptcy unless we act to change it. that is why this rule also projects fiscal discipline and the budget enforcement resolution that's included within this rule. whenever you hear someone blame our debt on this congress' so-called out-of-control spending, you can be sure they're more interested in pointing fingers and scoring political points than solving problems. that's especially true when you hear those complaints from those who presided over a lot of debt. some of us voted for a lot of debt. along with them, some of us did not. in the long term, our structural deficit stands from the retirement of the baby boomers and spiraling entitlement costs. it is, therefore, in the budget enforcement resolution that we tip our hat in a favorable way
to the commission that has been established by the president. and said that we are hopeful that they will come up with substantive recommendations that will get us from where we are to where we need to be, return to fiscal balance. it also says that our committees ought to look carefully at ways and means that we can save dollars, eliminate waste, make more effective use of the tax dollars. indeed, save tax dollars. the american people wants us to do that. this budget enforcement resolution included in this rule will also say that we will honor statutory pay-go, that we will pay for what we buy so that this generation, if it deems there is an important priority for us to purchase, that we will pay for it so that our children and our grandchildren will have the option of making their priorities and not have them made for them by us.
in addition to this bill, it provides for the consideration of domestic spending priorities. largely to save jobs. particularly, we have teachers in this country who are subject to layoffs because of the severe recession that we have been involved in and the precipitous falling of revenues to states and, therefore, putting the education of our children at risk. the administration asks for far more money than mr. obey has been able to include. they also asked that it be unpaid for, but if we're going to be honest about pay-go, we need to pay for things. this bill will pay for the increase in teacher assistance. mr. obey scrubbed all the appropriation accounts and has come up with sufficient dollars to do that. i think that's what the american public wants us to do
and that's what the obey has done and i congratulate him for that. in addition, this bill will provide for additional border security on other southern border. we understand there is a crisis on the southern border. this president has responded to it. this bill responds to it. in addition, we provide obviously for fema money. fema is running out of money. we've had a number of natural disasters around this country, and fema has responded. this bill provides for the dollars necessary for fema to have the resources to respond to those emergencies. in addition, this rule provides for an amendment which will provide money for haiti. it provides for other priorities of our country. some will perhaps disagree with those priorities and others will agree with them, but we will consider them on this
floor. this rule provides for three options, as mr. mcgovern, i think, will explain further so i will not go deeply in it. but three options. there are some that will say we ought not to fund the effort in afghanistan at all. they will have that option. there will then be an option that says, no, we need to extraindicating ourself with drawning down our forces from afghanistan. and mr. mcgovern and mr. obey have another alternative which will provide for the administration providing us with information, both in a national intelligence estimate and a plan for withdrawal. that gives almost everyone in this house the opportunity to express their view as to what ought to be done. i urge my colleagues at this hour on this perhaps, perhaps
last day of our session before the july 4 break to approve this rule which i believe gives to members the options they can be comfortable with in voting yes or no. i will urge a yes vote on the rule and certainly a yes vote on a number of pieces of this legislation. and i will not vote for every one of these amendments. but they ought to be made in order. and i appreciate the work that mr. mcgovern has done. i appreciate the work that mr. dreier has done. i want to thank them both, and they have different views, but my understanding is this was brought to the floor in a reasonable and considered way. and i want to in closing thank david obey. no one in this house works harder, no one, frankly, is under more pressure than mr. obey. everybody, every state, every locality, every city, every
person that wants a road, a bridge or public facility talks to mr. obey on a regular basis. i know that mr. boehner and i as the leaders, we have a lot of people talk to us when we come on this floor. but nobody talks to anybody more than they talk to mr. obey. mr. obey has focused on this, has worked on this and brought to the floor, i think, a bill that we can be proud of, that we think will move america forward, that will help staunch the loss of jobs, particularly in our educational community. so i thank mr. obey for the leadership that he has shown and the commitment he has made. now, i want to tell my friends on our side of the aisle that the administration is not happy with some of the pay-fors, which we're committed to. the administration and our side of the aisle overwhelmingly was for statutory pay-go, saying that we would pay for what we bought. the administration,
understandably, has some reservations about some of the offsets. however, nobody is ever happy with all of the tough decisions that have to be made, and i would urge my colleagues to pass this bill, to pass the amendment that mr. obey will offer on domestic discretionary spending. i would ask us to send this bill to the senate. i regret that the senate has gone home. i'm sorry that the senate's gone home. i'm sorry the senate is not available tonight to consider this legislation or tomorrow. i understand that we have lost a great and dear friend, a great senator and a dear friend in robert c. byrd. i will be going tomorrow to the memorial service for senator byrd. and then i will return here. i would have returned ready for business, and i think that we should complete this piece of legislation, and i would hope that that might be the case. but i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding.
i urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this important piece of legislation, not only for the safety and security of our troops, not only for the effort to ensure that terrorists are hunted down and defeated, but also to ensure that here at home that we take care of the people here at home , that we're paying for those at home, and we are not going to pay for the emergency that exists overseas. but this is a good rule. the options are clear for all, and the effort that we make here is important for our country and our people. i urge adoption of the rule, i urge adoption of the obey amendment, and i urge careful consideration of the other three amendments that will be offered as well, and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, for what purpose do you rise? mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: and i want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from worcester, my rules committee colleague, mr. mcgovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and i want to begin by saying that i very much appreciate my friend, the gentleman from maryland's, outline of this rule. but this is one of the most convoluted rules that we have seen in a long, long period of time. and mr. speaker, i say that because while my friend tried to make it sound as if this rule was fashioned to ensure that every single member of this institution would have the opportunity to have a say and play a role and it would ensure that the house is working its will, the fact of the matter is it is a rule which is designed,
i believe in many ways, to deny what a majority of this house would like to do. we all decry the fact that we still have men and women in afghanistan and iraq. we wish very much that the wars had come to an end and that we could bring our troops home and we all enthusiastically look forward to doing that just as expeditiously as possible. but we know that a request was made for $33.5 billion, this is a request that the president has made to ensure that our men and women in uniform have exactly what they need. the secretary of defense and other leaders in our military have indicated that it is essential that they have this before the fourth of july. when is the fourth of july? this coming sunday. now, last may 27, more than a month ago, the senate took its option and by a vote of 67-28
they voted in favor of this $33.5 billion to ensure that our men and women in uniform have exactly what they need. now, mr. speaker, i am not in any way an advocate of our being a rubber stamp and doing exactly what our friends in the other body propose, and that's why i wish very much that last month -- or excuse me, month before last since today is july 1, that in late may we would have begun the process so we would not be here on the eve of the date at which time the secretary of defense has indicated we must have this money. now, with the action that this institution might consider taking, we are jeopardizing the ability for our men and women in uniform to have exactly what they need now.
there is nothing that any of us does in our jobs that is more painful than talking with the family members of those who have lost their lives in iraq, afghanistan or anyplace in the world. my friend from worcester talked about two of his constituents who died in afghanistan recently, and we can on a regular basis, mr. speaker, talk about these challenges. we want to ensure that we never again have to call and talk to those family members. that's why, as mr. hoyer said very eloquently in his opening remarks, we want to ensure that we diminish the kind of threat that exists for the united states of america and for our interests around the world. that's the reason that we are there. now, the dwir distinguished chair of the committee on rules just a little while ago upstairs talked about the fact or implied in some way that we were
imposing democracy on the people of afghanistan and it's something that they are not really interested in. well, the fact of the matter is, our colleague, mr. price, and i, along with 18 other members, have a commission which has expended time, energy, resources and effort in 15 new and re-emerging democracies around the world, working to build their parliaments. now, mr. speaker, one of our partner nations for the house democracy partnership happens to be afghanistan. and while there have been real difficulties with the democracy there, there have been difficulties and a real struggle as they begin to plant the seeds of democracy. we've been working closely with their parliament and they're enthusiastic about the processive moving ahead and interestingly enough modeling themselves after much of what we have here in the house of representatives. and so as we look at where it is
that we are headed, we have to ensure that those resources are there. we don't like the fact that we have to do this, but it is essential. and, mr. speaker, as we look at this rule, the rule is one which is, as i said, very convoluted. now, we've dealt with worse supplementals in the past. my colleague, ms. foxx, up in the rules committee talked about the fact that consistently president obama, when he was a candidate, indicated that he would not be asking for any war supplementals. but i will say that when we have considered war supplementals in the past under the chairmanship of jerry lewis and in the work that we had in the rules committee, every single war supplemental that we brought forward came under an open amendment process. that's the way to allow the house to work its will.
now, we are who we are. we are what we are on the eve of independence day and the time when the secretary of defense, other military leaders, have said is essential for us to have the resources that are necessary and so what is it that we should be doing? we should defeat this rule. we should defeat this rule, go right back upstairs to the rules committee and come down here with a rule that will allow us to let the house work its will and have an up or down vote. an up or down vote on whether or not we accept this $33.5 billion request, along with a few other items that are included in this measure, including funding for the federal emergency management agency, which is, as mr. hoyer said, is desperately needed -- which as mr. hoyer said is
desperatelyly needed, that's included. we should have an up or down vote and see what this house will do. mr. speaker, as i said at the outset, i believe fully that if we were to have that up or down vote that a bipartisan majority, a bipartisan majority in this house would in fact vote to complete the work, ensure that our men and women in uniform have all the resources that they need to procede and then we will have done our job. and so, mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule for numerous reasons, the most important of which at this moment is to ensure that our men and women in uniform get what they need as soon as possible. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman from maine is recognized for three minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much. thank you to my colleague on the rules committee, thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the $37 billions in this war bill, for the wars in afghanistan and iraq. i oppose this war funding and i believe that our presence in afghanistan is not strengthening our national security. instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't make us any safer, i believe we should be reducing the deficit and investing here at home. after the events of 9/11 the united states went to afghanistan to capture or kill osama bin laden and dismantle al qaeda. not to occupy the country or to build the afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world. june was the deadliest month for our u.s. military personnel since the war began in 2002. and while the loss of one american service member is tragic, the loss of over 1,000 brave americans for a cause that doesn't make america any safer is something we cannot tolerate.
military and intelligence officials have said there are now only 50 to 100 al qaeda operatives in afghanistan which begs the question, why do we need over 100,000 troops over there? does the united states really need 1,000 troops and $1 billion a year to fight each single member of al qaeda? we are pursuing a failed strategy in that country and have somehow confused nation building with fighting the war on terror. we have watched too many times as our colleagues here on the other side of the aisle and in the senate vote not to extend unemployment benefits or pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job because they said we can't afford it. isn't it time to start asking whether we can really afford a war that costs $7 billion a month? it's we really need to support our troops and deploy them from afghanistan. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to strip out the wasteful and unnecessary funding in this bill. the american people and our brave service members deserve to
know our intentions in afghanistan. that's why we needed administration to develop a timetable for withdrawal immediately. the american people want us to end this war and it is time for us to bring our men and women in uniform safely home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. who seeks recognition at this time? the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield four minutes to my friend from wisconsin, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, what we have here is a rule, not a budget, really not a budget enforcement system, we have a rule that will deem to the appropriations committee $1.1 trillion to spend on discretionary spending. this really is an unprecedented occurrence here on the house floor, because what's happening is we're marking a moment for the first time since the budget system was created in 1974 that dictated how congress does budgets, the first time since
the 1974 budget act, the modern budgeting system in congress, the house isn't going to do a budget. the house is not going to do a budget. they'll call this rule budget enforcement but all it really is is giving $1 trillion to the appropriations committee to spend. no budget, no priorities, no restraints, just turn the spending system on. now, the majority talks about pay-go as their budget enforcement. with all due respect, i think pay-go's a sham and whenever it's not circumvented, whenever it's actually applied it's usually used to raise taxes on the american people. another problem, mr. speaker, is what they're talking about in this rule is that the president's fiscal commission will assemble and bring a recommendation in december and that will serve as our budget this year or something to that effect. i'm a member of the fiscal commission, i hope that we actually do come up with some concrete answers and some fiscal
steps in the wrong direction. but what is the fiscal commission? it's a commission appointed by executive order by the president of the united states. so in effect are we saying that we're going to delegate the legislative branch's authority and responsibility to budget, the power of the purse, to an executive branch commission? are we now simply saying that the president will appoint people and they will write the budget? i mean, whatever happened to protecting the separation of powers? whatever happened to congress actually doing its job? whatever happened to actually passing a budget? so, what we have here is we have a very tough election year, i suppose. and speech don't want to do a budget -- and people don't want to do a budget but they want to spend. and so for the first time, for the first time since the 1974 budget act was in place the
house isn't even doing a budget. we're going to spend the money, but we're not going to account for it. we're not going to prioritize. and so when you take a look at the budget we are living under, the one that passed last year, the first obama budget, that's the budget that is the incumbent budget. what does that budget do? it doubles our debt in five years and triples our debt in 10 years. our debt just hit the $13 trillion mark. we're watching europe in the throes of a debt crisis because they borrowed too much money, they taxed too much, they slowed down their economies and now they're in crisis mode. well, that's exactly what's going to happen here if we don't get our fiscal house in order. that's exactly what the credit markets are going to do to us if we don't show that we're serious about our fiscal responsibilities. so what is the primary responsibility of the legislative branch of government? budgeting. and what is this majority doing?
they're not budgeting. we're deeming. we're deeming $1.1 trillion so we can start spending. not budgeting, spending, no restraints, no priorities, spending. mr. speaker, i really worry about this. i worry a lot about this. because i worry we're sending all the signals the -- signals, the wrong signals, the wrong signals to the economy, to businesses, to the credit markets, to entrepreneurs, that the americans don't have their fiscal house in order, that our government isn't functioning because it's not budgeting. that's a shame. we should reject this and get on to the business of actually budgeting. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: when the democrats were in the minority we as a party submitted a budget every single year. the republicans had, to my knowledge, not done that.
there is mr. ryan, my colleague, did submit a budget under his name and perhaps if he wants to make that budget in order, i'm sure our leadership would love to have a debate on the budget that turns medicare and social securities into a voucher system. but the budget that the democrats have put forward would cap discretionary spending at $1.2 billion, which is $7 billion less than what president obama proposed. at this point i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: i rise today in support of the rule and in support of the lee amendment to responsibly end the war in afghanistan. there is a real terrorist threat to our country. but that threat does not emanate from afghanistan, it emanates from al qaeda, a stateless menace, a menace that will organize and set up wherever we
are not. the ongoing and indefinite occupation in afghanistan is not a constructive step toward the battle against the terrorist threat to this country. in fact, through the civilian casualties we only increase the pool of potential terrorists every day that we continue this occupation. i strongly support this concept of allowing our funds only to be used for the orderly withdrawal of american troops from the country of afghanistan. the mission, the challenge we have put before our men and women, is nearly a difficult and impossible challenge. to try to build a cohesive nation state out of a tribal nation, out of dealing with people in our own employ who are of dubious moral character, and continue to engage in the opium and drug trade to finance their related activities. there is a difference between the ongoing battles and
insurgency in afghanistan and the terrorist threats to this nation. we should spare no expense in going after terrorists wherever they are and engaging in intensive intelligence gathering information. but the occupation of afghanistan is not a constructive step to that end. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: may i ask for an additional minute and a half? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 1 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: i rise today in support of the rule and in opposition to the obey amendment. funding for teachers and for education is my top priority here as a member of congress. i'm a co-sponsor of a bill to provide $23 billion in funding for teachers. it breaks my heart that we're only talking about $10 billion today. but what is critical to achieve success, to find $10 billion, to find $23 billion, is keeping those who advocate resources on the same page as those who
advocate reform. resources and reform. that is the promise of the obama administration, that is the platform think a ran on, that is what will transform millions of american lives to help break the vicious cycle of poverty that holds too many families as slaves and replace it with the virtual use cycle of opportunity and hope. programs like race to the top, programs like funding innovative new charter schools, programs like innovative ways to fund teacher salaries. these are the programs that are being cut by this proposed amendment. i hope the secretary continues to work with us here in congress to find ways to pay for teacher salaries. but we need to do so in a way that doesn't have the threat of a presidential veto and can garner strong support in this body. funding teacher salaries is my top priority and i would vote for anything to do that. i don't feel that going after the reform aspects of the president's education budget is a constructive way to build a
majority, to be able to fund teacher salaries. so i hope we will continue that important work and i personally will be voting against the obey amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield to my good friend from california, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on armed services, mr. mckeon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i thank the rules committee ranking member, mr. dreier, for yielding the time. . all of us are going to have a chance to express our views. some different views have been expressed here this morning, but the way our system works, after all of our views are expressed, we have a commander in chief. the commander in chief took 90 days to thoroughly study the
effort in afghanistan. he made a decision. the decision was that we carry a counterinsurgency war to make our security safe so we cannot have the al qaeda and taliban have a safe haven from which they can continue to launch attacks on us. in carrying out that strategy, he placed general mcchrystal in charge of the troops and he approved 30,000 additional troops for the area. he also requested that we send an additional $33 billion to support those troops. we know about the tragedy with general mcchrystal. we know his resignation was accepted. we know the president nominated general petraeus to take his place. general petraeus appeared before the senate last week and reiterated the need for this money as secretary gates did the week before and said if we
didn't get the money, we would start doing stupid things. general petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the senate. he is on his way to kabul to take over the command and we are debating a rule that will delay further the money that those troops need over there. sunday is the 4th of july. george washington on the 9 of july in 1776 was so impressed by that declaration ofndependence that he had all of the continental army come to ranks and have that document read to them. we're going to be reminded again of that sunday. and how important it is for us to follow our commander in chief to give our troops the things they need. the -- mr. dreier: i would like to yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i wish we could have him here now and see the letter he would probably send to us
accusing us of digittering while the troops are putting their lives on the line. we could defeat this rule. this afternoon, turn it right around, pass the bill that the senate already passed and have the money on the way to the troops next week. i ask my colleagues to please join me in deeting this rule and moving forward on that and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and pursuant to it will vote in strong support of the domestic funding portion of the supplemental appropriation, but in reluctant acceptance of the war funding which properties $37 billion to our efforts in afghanistan, most of it going to the troop surge that president obama announced in december of last year.
concern about the well-being of our troops makes it difficult to vote against supplemental war funding once the troops that funding is meant to support have already been deployed. while a no vote on the supplemental has a way of forcing re-evaluation of our strategy, denying those funds could jeopardize the safety of our troops. that leaves me little choice in the matter. however, that does not mean that i'm ready to give in to a policy that is open-ended while cost in lives and resources continues to mount. i'm highly skeptical that an extra year and 30,000 additional troops will bring stability and effective governance in a country that for 30 years has seen nothing but conflict and for centuries has been known as the grave yard of empires. it is hard to imagine that the
karzai government will become a reliable partner or that the afghan forces will require a sustainable level of competency any time soon. the turning point of our policy that our policy seeks to achieve seems farther away. through it all, wear and tear on our troops is unrelenting. more than 1,000 americans have lost their lives in afghanistan and 6,500 have been wounded in action. the toll of multiple tours and unconventional combat has placed stress on our soldiers resulting in a near epidemic of suicides among returning veterans. when the burden is this heavy, our policy makers must bear a burden of proof to show that the sacrifice is in our national interest and that the mission is meeting with success. in my view this burden of proof is not being met. for that reason, i believe we should stick to the plan of bringing our troops home and
withdrawal no later than 2011 element. i will support the govern-obey amendment. it requires the president to submit a detailed plan for the redeployment of troops from afghanistan including a time line for the completion of that redeployment. i'm demmed to fight terrorism. i wish i were confident that our current strategy in afghanistan was having the net effect of advancing that goal, but i am not. i worry as this nine-year war drags on and on, it is bogging us down, zapping us our strength. for combating the terrorist threat in that region and elsewhere in the world. mr. speaker, i will support our troops in this supplemental, but i will also continue to press for their withdrawal from afghanistan and for a meaningful discussion of exactly how that
can be accomplished in accordance with the time line originally set by the president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the republican leader is recognized. mr. boehner: i thank my colleague for yielding. consider, my colleagues, that the president, on february 1 sent up a supplemental spending request to fund our activities for our troops and the state department in afghanistan. for five months, this chamber has wallowed around trying to find a way to bring this bill to the floor. and look at how we've done it. we have a rule that provides for the consideration of this supplemental that self-executes a lot of wasteful spending here in washington right into the rule itself. but if that isn't bad enough,
there are four amendments made in order and if any of those or if all four of those amendments were to fail, it's if as if the house hadn't even considered the bill. it's as if this debate we are having right now has never happened. how could such a rule providing for the consideration of an important supplemental spending bill have in there this escape clause that if we don't get our way on at least one of these amendments, then this really didn't happen? this is supposed to be the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. and we are treating it, we are treating it like a bunch of kids in a sandbox. i frankly think it's disgraceful. beyond what the rule does in terms of the consideration of the bill, it also deems the appropriation process to begin and outlines a number. we have tried for several months
to pass a budget here in the house, but the budget resolution never reached the floor. there was never a debate and never an effort to actually come to grips with the fiscal crisis that is facing our country. and yet, what are we going to do? we are going to authorize over $1 trillion in spending. no debate how to save money or the crisis we are facing, just going to keep the spending spree alive. this scheme and deem process that's included in this rule should be another reason that members ought to think twice before they vote for this budget and vote for this rule. but i got to tell you what, the worst thing that's going on here is that the secretary of defense has asked for this money prior to july 4 because our troops in afghanistan need the resources in order to succeed in their
mission. not only are we trying to pile this new spending on the back of our troops, the fact is that if this rule were to pass, it guarantees that this bill will not get to the president before july 4. if this rule passes with -- what self-executes all of this spending into it, it will automatically have to go to the united states senate with how long it will be there, who knows. but all i can say is that the troops who are out there fighting for the defense of our country, trying to preserve the security for our country today and tomorrow, are going to be left wanting because of the political games that are going on here in this house. i think this is disgraceful. i really do. i promised the president two months ago that if there was a clean supplemental spending bill to the floor of the house i and my republican colleagues would be there to help the president
pass it. he heard me loud and clear and looked at the republican senate leader and he said i'm with boehner. we promised the president we would help pass this bill. but, no, there was never any reaching out. never any working together to try to make sure that our troops had what they needed in a timely fashion. no, the only way we could bring this bill up was to load it up with tens of billions of dollars of new spending, just more stimulus spending that hasn't worked in the last year and a half and this additional spending is going to be thrown on the backs of our kids and grandkids. mr. speaker, i think our colleagues tonight should do the right thing. i think they should stand up and say no to this rule and say yes to a fairer process, a process that will get the troops the funds they need in a timely fashion, which is now. if we defeat this rule, you can
bet that the supplemental spending bill without all these other add-ons will be on the floor of this house and i can tell you that i and my republican colleagues will vote for a clean supplemental to support our troops and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since the distinguished minority leader raised our commitment to our troops, i should point out for the record when we debated and voted on the defense authorization bill a few weeks ago, only nine republicans, only nine republicans voted for that bill because they thought the issue of gays in the military was more important than supporting our troops and their families. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: the base text for funding the war originated in the senate and the constitution says all bills for raising
revenue should originate in the house of representatives. one of general mcchrystal's op aides was quoted, if america pays attention, this war will become less popular. when will congress begin finally paying attention to this war that is being waged with our consent? when will congress realize that we have lost more than 1,200 troops too many, that we spent $300 billion too much, that the deaths of our brave soldiers cannot be sacrificed, the death of an afghan citizen is a blot, when will congress cut off funding when will the requirements of unemployment, factory, business closings, bankruptcy, failing infrastructure and failing energy policy cause us to look homeward or should we cut social and economic programs to balance
the budget to pay for the war? we went to war in iraq based on lies. more than one million innocent iraqis have died. more than 4,000 of our troops. the costs will be close to $3 trillion. our presence in afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. the war is a cease pool of corruption. billions of taxpayer dollars are being stuffed into suitcases and flown out of kabul. the counterinsurgency strategy is a failure. u.s. tax dollars are going to support war lords who shoot at our troops, security contractors bribe insurgents to shoot at our troops to demonstrate that u.s. needs more security services, professional killers from black water are contracted to guard our embassy in afghanistan, drug production has skyrocketed during the u.s. occupation, u.s. tax dollars are going to buildville ast in dubai and our country is falling apart with a failing economy.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 15 minutes left and the gentleman from massachusetts has 17 minutes left. mr. dreier: with that, i'm happy to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my friend from illinois, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. . mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker, and members of the house. i stand in opposition to this rule and in sincere but deep opposition to this $63 billion massive spending bill and particularly the war spending component of the bill. i speak, i believe, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who serve america in the middle east with neither a defined objective or the ability to success victory or defeat. on behalf of the families of our military personnel around the world who have lost their
fathers or their mothers or their sons or their daughters in a valiant but short-sighted effort, a battle that can never be won, and on behalf of the american taxpayers who have seen more than $1 trillion poured into an attempt to fight terror where there is not the remotest relationship to the welfare of the american people. and really also on behalf of the innocent children who have had the misfortune to be in the ever-changing line of fire in the vicinity of terrorists who move effortlessly from iraq to somalia to yemen to paraguay to afghanistan in the form of unconventional and ill--defined tribal warfare that 2,000 years have have of war have fought us -- 2,000 years have taught us we cannot fight. i think i was young when a comic strip came out with the annual saga where every year charlie brown comes up with the football and lucy tells him year after year, tells charlie brown, that just one more time we'll let you
kick the ball and each year she pulls the football out only to find charlie brown on his rear end. i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, and members of the house, in this somewhat stressed analogy, that a series of commanders in chief are lucy and we're charlie brown. and the football is the illusive promise of a goal that we cannot reach. we cannot force a culture to accept our values and we cannot accept -- we cannot impose western democracy on a people who don't understand or accept it and whose leadership is corrupt and antidemocratic beyond repair. and we cannot continue to spend the billions and arguably trillions of dollars of hard working men and women in this country in a venture that has no objective, no end game and no connection to the well-being of our nation. in conclusion, mr. speaker, and members of the house, we cannot afford economically, we cannot afford militarily and we cannot afford as a people to pass this
bill. this president who frankly won elections based on his strong antiwar message like many of his predecessors asked us one more time to spend a few more billion dollars in this case, $38 billion, a few more thousand -- a few thousand more men and women to kick the football one more time. it isn't doable. i suggest to you, mooeck, and members of the house, that this -- mr. speaker, and members of the house, that this rule underlies a bill that the vast majority of the american people don't want. i represent a district in illinois and i think i speak in many ways for middle america. i voted for the authorization of force in iraq and frankly afghanistan and i believe like many of us i may have questioned my vote, but i believe we're the greatest nation on earth, thanks in large part to the generations of fighting men and women who have given their lives for this great cause. and as we prepare to celebrate our independence in a few days, i think i speak on behalf of the
average american, the average american citizen who says, for what? what is this money being expended for, why are we doing it and what's the end game? i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, and members of the house, that there is no end game and would respectfully ask that this rule and the underlying bill be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker very much and i hope that we will have an opportunity to do something we have not been able to do and that is to debate the afghan war and the direction that this war is taking and the impact on our men and women on the front lines. i particularly want to say to the families how much we
appreciate the sacrifice that you've made as these men and women stand on the front lines of afghanistan. but i think we're long overdue for a major debate that has to do with that direction. i support this underlying rule for the purpose of allowing us to have this debate, but also that it provides on the domestic spending crucial issues, pell grants will be provided for, border security that impacts the northern and southern border so that we can stand as we do comprehensive immigration reform and ensure the american people that we will secure our borders. in the most catastrophic oil spill from a region think a come from, the tsunami of oil spills, we are taking care of the people by providing $304 million for the gulf coast oil spill, including moneys for unemployment assistance. and then coming from the region i belong to as well, we had a tragedy at fort hood and we are now rebuilding the fort hood processing center that saw a terrible loss of life because of
terrorism. fema disaster, this is the most vigorous season that you could have ever imagined that is to be expected in hurricanes and we know among other disasters we'll have the money here. but we're also going to say to the youth of america, when we vote on this we're providing money for summer youth jobs, $1 billion youth jobs that we in the congressional black caucus and many members joined us in fighting for. this is a crucial step forward. we're providing for black farmers who have been discriminated against over the years. and then as i indicated, we will have an opportunity to question not the men and women in afghanistan or iraq but to question whether or not it is wise to focus on insurgents versus terrorists. so that we send men and women into harm -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. i thank -- ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and i thank the speaker. so we send men and women into harm's way without a discerning goal. and i tell you, ladies and gentlemen, when you begin to
fight those who are classified as your neighbors, and i don't use that term loosely, taliban live in afghanistan and whenever you determine to fight those individuals it makes it very difficult to win this war. i want -- the gentleman has his own time. i appreciate it. i'm concluding. and finally letmy say that i offered an amendment to maintain nasa human space exploration and the funding as it was. i look forward to working with this congress and the democrats to make sure that happens. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: my friend from high houston wouldn't yield so i'll yield to my other friend from houston who is seeking an opportunity to yield. 30 seconds. culcul i would like 30 seconds and -- colorado colorado i would like 0 second disease --
we're in over 130 countries, 900 bases. it's unsustainable. it was brought to our attention this past week we were having problems. if we were doing well in afghanistan we wouldn't be firing our generals. we want to put the blame on our generals. but our generals are trained to fight wars and not trained to be nation builders and social workers and policemen. so this is a war that i see is going to be very difficult, if not impossible to win until we change our policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. dreier: does the gentleman have any further speakers? mr. mcgovern: are you the last speaker? mr. dreier: not quite. mr. mcgovern: there are a few others. mr. dreier: i yield two minutes to my friend from houston, hard
working member, mr. culberson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: one of the bedrock principles was to provide for the common defense yet this democrat majority was asked five months ago by the president to provide funding for the war. it's been 35 days since the united states senate passed a straightforward simple funding bill for the war which all of us on the republican side would have voted for without objection to support our men and women in the field. yet today we only have 90 minutes of debate for it. the american people have only seen this bill since 11:00 this morning. i serve on the appropriations committee. none of the republican members of this committee, republican staff members were included in the drafting of this bill. the united states of america, particularly our troops in the field deserve far better than this. any wonder that the public does not trust the government.
is it any wonder a tsunami is building that will sweep out this majority in november and elect a constitutional conservative majority committed to fiscal responsibility, committed to the preservation of our constitution, committed to the preservation of the states' rights to control something. something as fundamental as education spending. on page 14 of this bill, which no one saw until 11:00 tonight, the state of texas is stripped of its sovereign authority to control education spending. it's given for the first time in this nation's history, control over education spending in a sovereign state of the union is given to the federal government by an amendment no one saw until 11:00 today that the liberal majority is prepared to vote for which will result in the destruction of the 10th amendment sovereign power of the people of texas and big tax increases and spending increases because this language says we
can't spend any less than was spent in 20 1, a high number that will include spend delnch ulous leading to statewide tax increases in texas. why aren't we funding our troops in the field? this is why you will lose the majority in november. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: my friends on the republican side of the aisle, with the exception of only nine, voted against the defense authorization bill just a few weeks ago. a bill that provided a great deal of support for our troops and their families. why did they vote against it? they voted against it because they were preoccupied with the social issue of gay marriage. where were they then when it came to supporting our troops and families. my friend talks about all of the great crises we are facing, and
that is as a result of the actions that my friends on the other side of the aisle took, two wars on borrowed money, tax cuts for the rich on borrowed money and we have an economy that the president inherited and we are going to dig out of. i resevere the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i have several requests for time, but we don't have anyone who is here and i ask my friend if he is prepared to close the debate. if that's the case, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we hate the fact that we have to deal with this war on terror. september 11, 2001 changed the lives of every single one of us and it is painful and as i said earlier, the most difficult part of our job is to call the families of loved ones who paid
the price in afghanistan, iraq or any other spot in the world, and we all hope and pray that we never ever have to do it again. we also recognize that we have to come together and ensure that our men and women in uniform who are on the front line in this battle against radical extremism have what they need. now the american people are sick and tired of wasteful federal spending. but the american people also understand, mr. speaker, that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the united states constitutionr in fact, provide for the common defense. virtually everything else that we do other than our nation's security can be handled by individuals, by families, by churches and synagogues and
mosques, by counties, by cities, by states. but our national security can only be handled by the federal government. now, the president of the united states has just issued what we refer to by the acronym a sap around here, a statement of administration policy and while we sit here having a debate, which is important for us to have, the president has said that if we don't provide him a clean bill that is independent of all these other extraneous matters, and by the way, if they don't pass, this bill dies and we have to start over again, he will veto it. and so it is fascinating. we, as republicans, and many thoughtful democrats, have stepped up to the plate and said we will join with the president to ensure that that $33.5 billion that is needed is there
for our men and women in uniform. we have heard from the distinguished ranking member of the committee on armed services, who talked about the fact that just this week, general david petraeus and secretary gates and others have said, we must have have this funding by july 4. this is thursday evening, july 1. the request was made in february. the senate passed by a 67 to 28 vote on may 27, this bill. and here we are three days before this time by which the secretary has said they need these resources. and what is it we're doing? we're adding spending. we are shifting some 10-mile stretch in pennsylvania from one district to another. what does that have to do with an emergency supplemental? and we are increasing spending when the american people have said we need to bring about
responsible spending cuts. we can do better, mr. speaker. we can do better. we can immediately, after defeating this rule, go upstairs and bring down a rule that will allow us to let members of congress who were opposed to providing that $33.5 billion, the opportunity to vote no. and those of us who want to provide those resources for the troops to vote yes. so, mr. speaker, let's vote no on this rule. let's move ahead right now. let's do what we can to bring this war to an end so our men and women can come home just as quickly as possible. and the best way to do that is to ensure they have what it takes so they can be successful. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. . mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i
rise in very, very strong support of this rule. and urge all my colleagues on both sides of the of the aisle to support this rule -- of the aisle to support this rule. i'm pleased this makes in order an amendment offered by myself and mr. obey and mr. jones of north carolina to require a meaningful exit strategy from afghanistan. as we are being asked to consider tens of billions of dollars in supplemental funding for the war, i believe that now is the time for us to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. of all the problems that president obama inherited from the bush administration, afghanistan is the one that keeps getting more and more complicated. in just the past few weeks, two brave young soldiers from fall river, massachusetts, in my district, lost their lives in afghanistan. so this is a big deal. and we need to get it right. last december president obama told the american people that we would begin to withdraw our forces next july. the american people deserve to
know if that plan is still in place and how we're going to get there. much has been made about general stanley mcchrystal's comments about the nation's civilian leadership. but there are other parts that have article that i find to be much more disturbing. general mcchrystal's chief of operations said that afghanistan, and i quote, is not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. this is going to end in an argument, end quote. a senior advisor to general mcchrystal said, and i quote again, if americans pull back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular, end quote. and a senior military official said this, and i quote again, there's a possibility we could ask for another surge of u.s. forces in the next sum father we see success here, end quote. mr. speaker, i voted in 2001 to go to war in afghanistan, to hunt down al qaeda and to eliminate their threat and i would cast that same vote today in a heartbeat. but what we are doing in afghanistan today is far beyond
that original authorization. we are engaged in extensive, expensive nation building in afghanistan and frankly given the level of unemployment and the severe economic situation we face in the united states i'd rather do a little bit more nation building here at home. some in this body have reuse ited to support extending unemployment -- refused to support you extending unemployment benefits for americans because they say we can't afford it. you can't help states avoid laying off teachers, we can't afford to improve our roads and bridges or help more families afford a college education. we're told we can't afford to prevent foreclosures or provide childhood -- prevent childhood -- provide childhood nutrition. we don't have the money to help american working families, but when it comes to supporting a corrupt and incompetent karzai government, we're supposed to be a bottomless pit. you know, we talk a lot about the deficit around here. we have borrowed $350 billion added to the debt, not paid for, for the war in afghanistan.
how are we supposed to address the deficit if we don't know how many more billions of dollars we're going to be spending in afghanistan? my colleagues, we all have a responsibility here. it's not just the president's war, it's our war, too. like it or not. we voted to send our sons and daughters to war, we voted repeatedly to send money to support this war, we have a responsibility to ask the tough questions and to do the right thing. and so i urge all my colleagues to think long and hard today about this critical issue. it is time for congress to step up to the plate and do its duty. i hope my colleagues will support the lee amendment and i hope they'll support the mcgovern-obey-jones amendment and i hope they will support this rule. mr. speaker, i would like to urge a yes vote of the previous question on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: i move a call of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair confirms recognition for that purpose. without objection, a call of the house is ordered. members will record their presence by electronic device. this shall be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on