H.R. 1979

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security regardless of party, region or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual Defense authorization bill.

I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality.

Given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies: from warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called ``updated'' authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America but, instead, gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere and for any length of time.

Such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.

Yesterday, I expressed my hope that the Rules Committee would make in order amendments so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body. Over 200 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and 152 amendments were made in order; but each amendment only receives 10 minutes of debate time, evenly divided between supporters and opponents.

When the House is debating whether to significantly change and expand the authority under which the President--any President--may send our servicemen and -women into harm's way without consulting Congress and under the vague terminology of fighting global terrorism, is 10 minutes really enough time to give this grave matter the attention it deserves?

When military operations are underway in Libya, is 10 minutes really enough time to debate whether ground troops should not be deployed under any circumstances?

A number of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee focused on the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan. As most of my colleagues know, I believe we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It has demanded the lives of 1,573 of our servicemen and -women, and has gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. Suicide rates among our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq have soared; and right now, there is no genuine path aimed at ending our military footprint in Afghanistan--no exit strategy.

The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and to ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and to their communities.

This is a moment to bring fresh eyes to the question of what kind of defense priorities and budget best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times. This is a matter that touches every single American and especially our uniformed men and women, their families and their communities.

How can we make any decision on budget priorities unless we know how much longer this war is going to last?

Already, it is the longest war in our Nation's history. It is bankrupting our Nation. Every day, every week, every month, we see billions and billions of

dollars charged to the national credit card, increasing the deficit, increasing the debt--with no end in sight.

We see corruption everywhere within the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and we see the basic needs of our own communities--roads, bridges, clean water systems, education, health care, and hunger programs--cut or eliminated for lack of funds.

Where does it all end? When does it all end? On a matter this important, shouldn't we be engaged in debate for more than 10 minutes?

I am pleased that the amendment I submitted with cosponsors Walter Jones, Loretta Sanchez, Justin Amash, John Lewis, Ron Paul, David Cicilline, and Peter Welch was made in order. We have 5 minutes to describe why the President needs to clearly lay out to Congress, to the American people, to our military men and women, and to our military families exactly how and when we will complete the accelerated transition of our military operations to the Afghan authorities--5 minutes, Mr. Speaker--not to mention why the President needs to accelerate talks to achieve a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan and why we need to have a new National Intelligence Estimate, not just a report from the National Counterterrorism Center on the leadership, locations and capacity of al Qaeda.

Five minutes.

This Defense bill would give the executive branch carte blanche to fight global terrorism anywhere and by any means, but we don't even have an up-to-date NIE on al Qaeda.

That's not debate, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, it's an insult, not to mention that, if we add up the time of all the amendments, at best, the debate on the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan might begin as early as 10 or 11 o'clock tonight--but, most likely, even later. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to rush this bill through just because Members were told they could fly out of town at 3 o'clock tomorrow. We could stay on Friday or we could continue the debate on the amendments next week.

War. The very lives of our uniformed men and women. Libya. Unchecked power granted to the executive versus the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war or to authorize the specific use of our military might around the world. These are matters that deserve much greater attention than what is granted under this rule.

I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Jones-Sanchez-Amash- Lewis-Paul-Cicilline-Welch amendment on Afghanistan when it comes up for debate late this evening; and I ask my colleagues to reject this rule, which denies this House the ability to debate these grave matters in the manner they deserve and require.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, although I do continue to believe that on these great issues that we need more than 5 minutes to be able to present our case. Our entire policy in Afghanistan, we are given 5 minutes to debate the issue. I don't think that that's right.

I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me again express my disappointment with the lack of time that we are being allowed to debate some very, very important issues that impact everybody, every single person in our country: issues of war; issues of granting the executive branch this new broad authority to be able to go to war any time they want without even consulting the United States Congress, giving them these unilateral powers which I believe

is not what our Founding Fathers ever anticipated; issues involving Libya; and I could go on and on and on, not to mention some of the issues that were not allowed to be brought up at all, and Ms. Bordallo just mentioned one of them. I don't understand why that was not made in order.

But in this House of Representatives, since the new majority took over, we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. You know, we spent hours debating whether we should defund National Public Radio. But on the issue of Afghanistan, what our policy should be in Afghanistan, we have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, we are borrowing over $8.2 billion a month--a month, a month--to pay for Afghanistan, that is all going on our credit card. That is going, adding to our deficit, to our debt. Our kids and grandkids are going to pay for the fact that we are not paying for it now. Those issues deserve more than a few minutes of debate.

Again, I have an amendment on Afghanistan to encourage the President to rethink our policy and to develop an exit strategy, and I and all the other Members who are cosponsoring my bill, my amendment, are given 5 minutes--5 minutes--to talk about this issue. Surely we could spend at least another 5 minutes on top of that--I mean, hopefully even longer--being able to discuss this important issue.

I regret that, because I think we need to be debating and discussing what we are doing in Afghanistan. I think it is important. I think the American people want us to figure a way out, and yet we give them 5 minutes to be able to debate this issue. I think that is regrettable.

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

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

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

This week we joined with over a dozen of our colleagues--

Republican and Democrat--to introduce new legislation to

require the Obama Administration to present an exit strategy

for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Specifically, our bill (the ``Afghanistan Exit and

Accountability Act'') would: require the President to

transmit to Congress a plan with timeframe and completion

date on the transition of U.S. military and security

operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan;

require the President to report quarterly (i.e. every 90

days) on the status of that transition, and the human and

financial costs of remaining in Afghanistan, including

increased deficit and public debt; and; included in those

quarterly reports, the President must disclose to Congress

the savings in 5-year, 10-year and 20-year time periods were

the U.S. to accelerate redeployment and conclude the

transition of all U.S. military and security operations to

Afghanistan within 180 days (i.e. 6 months).

The operation that resulted in the killing of Obama bin

Laden demonstrated that the men and women of our armed forces

and intelligence community are incredible people. The world

is now a better, safer place.

The question then becomes: now what? Now that bin Laden is

dead and Al Qaeda is scattered around the globe, does it

really make sense to keep using over 100,000 U.S. troops to

occupy Afghanistan and prop up a corrupt government? We don't

think so.

Remember--we didn't find bin Laden on the front lines of

Afghanistan. He was comfortably holed up in a mansion in

Pakistan. We must continue to target Al Qaeda wherever in the

world they are. But continuing to be bogged down in

Afghanistan makes that mission harder, not easier.

In December, Afghan President Hamid Kharzai made it clear

that he would rather align himself with the Taliban than with

the United States. So why on earth are we sacrificing so much

in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and billions of dollars

to support him?

We believe that bin Laden's death creates an opportunity to

re-examine our policy and to require the Administration to

tell us exactly how and when we will end our massive troop

presence in Afghanistan.

Our bill requires the President to give Congress a concrete

strategy and timeframe for bringing our servicemen and women

home to their families and communities, and it requires

quarterly reports on the human and financial costs of

continuing the war--and how much we would save if we withdrew

our forces within a reasonable time frame.

That's not too much to ask.

To make it worse, we're not even paying for the war. It's

on the national credit card. The war in Afghanistan adds $100

billion a year--$2 billion each week, $8 billion each month--

to our debt.

We're told that we can't afford vital domestic funding, but

we should continue to borrow billions and billions of dollars

for nation-building in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be

doing some more nation-building right here at home. Why don't

we take some of those billions to build roads and bridges and

schools right here in the United States?

In the end, of course, only President Obama can bring an

end to the war. But Congress must play a role, as well. For

too long, Congress has ducked its proper oversight

responsibilities when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.

We've avoided meaningful debate and discussion and have

chosen to simply ``go along to get along.''

The President told us that we will see a substantial

drawdown of troops in July. He needs to keep that promise.

And he needs to tell us when all of our troops will be coming

home, and how much staying in Afghanistan will continue to

cost the American people--in sacrificed lives, wounded bodies

and minds, and U.S. tax dollars--until this war is finally

over.

That's what our bill would require. We are hopeful that

with enough public pressure, we can provide some wind at the

back of the President to help him do the right thing.

This war is the longest in our history. There's no end in

sight. It's time to stop digging.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would again remind my colleagues that on the issue of what our future should be in Afghanistan, those of us who want us to rethink our policy and develop an exit strategy are given 5 minutes--5 minutes. We could debate whether we should fund National Public Radio or not for hours, and all the other items on the Republican social agenda for hours and hours and hours, but when it comes to the issue of war, we are told you get 5 minutes. I don't think that's adequate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by making a couple of points here. First, I would urge everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to support the McGovern-Jones amendment on Afghanistan. I think there is bipartisan concern and bipartisan anxiety about our policy. I think there are Republicans, as well as Democrats, who believe that it's time to rethink this strategy and to come up with an exit strategy to bring our troops home, to bring them back to their families and to bring them back to their communities.

We need to make our voices heard. The President has said in July he is going to make an announcement about the drawdown of American troops. We're hearing from some sources that it may be only a token drawdown. We need a real drawdown, a significant drawdown, because if not, we are going to be engaged in a war that has no end.

We are borrowing money like there's no tomorrow to pay for this war; $8.2 billion a month we're borrowing. We're not even paying for it. For those who support this war, I would say that if you support it, then pay for it. And I will tell you that most of the people across this country believe it's time to leave. We're supporting a corrupt government. The Karzai government is corrupt. There's no question about it. By every measure, they are wasting our money. And this is not a man, quite frankly, who our American servicemen and -women should have to die for.

We are nation-building in Afghanistan when we should be doing nation- building here in the United States. My district is not unique in its need for more investments in roads and bridges. We need more investments in job creation to put people back to work. People want to invest here in the United States because national security also means whether or not people have a job, whether or not people can earn a living.

I would urge, again, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help me and help Mr. Jones and the others who cosponsored this amendment, put a little wind behind the President's back in July so that he makes a meaningful announcement so that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel so that there is an exit strategy.

Mr. Speaker, let me also urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order H.R. 1979 by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, to expand eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation to include chapter 61 disability retirees, to increase the monthly amount of special survivor indemnity allowance for widows and widowers of deceased members of the Armed Forces and to enhance the ability of members of the Reserve components who serve on active duty or perform active service in support of a contingency operation or in other emergency situations to receive credit for such service in determining eligibility for early receipt of nonregular service retired pay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order.

The following discussion we have just had on the floor is certainly enlightening and interesting. There is much that I think is significant to what has been said by the gentleman from California.

However, Mr. Speaker, if you would forgive me, I need to talk directly to the point of order itself.

The question before the House is, should the House now consider House Resolution 276. While this resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee is not aware of any point of order. The waiver is prophylactic in its nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget Office identified any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of 152 individual amendments to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

I would like my colleagues to realize that the Rules Committee received 220 amendments for consideration of this bill; and of the 220 filed, 75 percent of them, or a total of 152, are made in order.

Even more remarkable, the vast majority of those that were not made in order were either withdrawn by the sponsor, were duplicative of other amendments filed, were redundant restatements of provisions already included in the base bill, or violated House rules. So this is an overwhelmingly fair and generous rule, and it continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making multiple amendments in order as long as they conform to the rules of the House.

One must commend Chairman Dreier for continuing this record of openness. Likewise, I wish to commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for bringing a bill to the floor under a continuing tradition of bipartisanship and mutual cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Congress has a reputation of being contentious and partisan, and that reputation is, unfortunately, occasionally deserved. However, as one who has been a member of the Armed Services Committee and is currently on leave from that committee, I have been pleased to note that, when it comes to providing for the common defense of our country--a core constitutional responsibility-- partisanship has usually been checked at the door with regard to the conduct and the product of the Armed Services Committee in their annual Defense authorization bill, as was this bill, having passed by a vote of 60-1 from committee. This rule builds on that bipartisan tradition when it comes to the Defense bill, and it makes more Democrat amendments in order than Republican amendments.

Yes, you're welcome.

Our Nation faces some daunting challenges: to provide adequate resources for our national defense going forward, to pay personnel and to provide promised benefits for our all-volunteer force. The modernization of our aircraft fleet is slipping further and further behind, and the average age of our fighter jets is 150 percent of their designed capacity. The age of our bombers is at a record high even as demands for their utilization is great in Afghanistan, in Iraq and increasingly in other places in the world. The infrastructure needs of our military continue to slip further and further behind--the cliche is that they're moved to the right--and a backlog of needed improvements to fill vital military missions grows even greater.

A strong national defense is directly related to a strong national economy and to a strong jobs outlook. National defense makes everything else that we enjoy in this country--our cherished way of life, our freedoms--possible.

The underlying legislation, H.R. 1540, does a remarkable job, given all of the fiscal restraints that have been involved, in continuing to provide for our common defense. For that purpose, I wish to inform my colleagues that this is a good bill, and we are adding to that a good and fair rule for the amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentlelady from Guam, and on the Resources Committee where that bill still is, I will work with you on that, but I do object to unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just one moment to clarify the record with respect to amendment No. 61 by Mr. Conyers in the Rules Committee report. Printed in report 112-88, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina was inadvertently added as a cosponsor to the Conyers amendment No. 61. I want to clarify for the record that Mr. Duncan of South Carolina is not a cosponsor of that particular amendment.

I appreciate the discussion we have had so far. I would like to remind my colleagues here that if every amendment made in order in this rule were to have its maximum amount of time, we would have already approved a maximum of over--well, we have a minimum of 26 hours of debate on this particular issue.

I am appreciative of the concerns of Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts. I also want him to realize there are multiple amendments that were made in order dealing with this and similar subjects. And I am very appreciative that Mr. McGovern, as a veteran of the House, understanding the rules of the House, has been wise enough to use this debate time also for speaking about that particular amendment, which will vastly extend the amount of time he has to cover that issue. That is wise of him; that is good of him.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 276 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. This resolution contains a waiver of all points of order, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unfunded and unmet mandates, although there are many in this bill. I raise this point of order because we have one of the very few opportunities to actually talk about one of the provisions in the underlying bill. Thus far, this House has been denied the opportunity to properly debate this provision, and I believe we must illuminate what it actually does.

Section 1034 of this bill provides an unlimited opportunity for the administrative branch of government, the President, and the Secretary of Defense, to engage in war virtually anywhere, any place, anytime on this planet. That is an unbelievably broad opportunity that this House should never give to any President at any time.

There are three very specific problems that the authorization for the use of military force has, and I want to make sure that we understand what those problems are.

This provision is particularly dangerous because it does undermine the Constitution. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet this authorization to use military force passes to the President the opportunity to engage in war anywhere anytime, really, without any particular reservations.

This thing was snuck into the Defense Authorization Act. No debate in committee. And had I not somehow been going through the bill and thumbing through and finding page 133 of the legislation, it would never have been discussed in committee. But some time near 12 o'clock, or actually after 12 o'clock, I was able to present an amendment in the committee to strike this section of the bill. That amendment did not pass the committee, and hopefully it will be before the floor as we discuss the entire legislation.

So let me begin the discussion now.

We ought not expand the executive authority to go to war. First of all, this particular section, 1034, is harmful because of three reasons: one, it's unlimited--anywhere, any place, anytime; second, it is very unclear as to who we're going to go to war against; and, third, it's not necessary.

First, section 1034 is unlimited. There's no geographic limitation in section 1034. All that needs to be found by the President or the Secretary of Defense is there is a terrorist out there somehow associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda. And we know that al Qaeda is spread throughout the world, including the United States. So the entire globe is the subject of this authorization to use military force. And it's not just force against an individual terrorist or an individual terrorist organization. It's force against any nation that harbors, supports, or provides some sort of aid to a terrorist organization.

What kind of a nation would that be? Well, certainly we would consider Yemen, Somalia, maybe even Pakistan. And we did successfully go after Pakistan--not Pakistan, but after bin Laden who happened to be hiding in Pakistan. But the point here is unlimited authorization to go anywhere in the globe to go after terrorists of any color, any stripe, anywhere. I don't suppose we intend to declare war against ourselves, so maybe America is not included in this.

Secondly, there's no temporal limit to this, meaning this authorization goes on forever. It's not limited in time. It can go for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, one century or a millennium. We must never allow any President to have that unlimited opportunity to wage war on behalf of this Nation.

Third, this resolution and this section is unclear. It's unclear in several ways. What is an ``associated force''? What's the ``Taliban''? What is ``al Qaeda''? We know al Qaeda as it existed in Afghanistan. We have a sense of what al Qaeda is in Pakistan. But now we have al Qaeda in the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, we probably have al Qaeda in Somalia and, certainly, according to the FBI, we have al Qaeda in the United States.

So this particular clause, associated forces, is one that we should never allow to go into law and allow any President over any time in the future to use it to undertake a war somewhere.

Finally, the provision is unnecessary. The administration is not asking for additional power. We have a case in point. The administration didn't need additional power to go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. The administration doesn't need additional power to go to Yemen to deal with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, nor did the administration need power way back in the 1990s when President Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan at that time.

The President, the administration, is not asking for this authority. They claim and the courts have provided them with sufficient authority to carry out the mission against terrorism as we know it today.

So in conclusion, I want to raise this issue to this House, to the Senate, and to the American public that in the Defense authorization there is an unlimited opportunity for any President now and in the future to wage war anywhere in the world against any nation that has a terrorist in that nation. That we should never do. We should aggressively maintain our authority under the Constitution to declare war and to authorize the use of military force.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the majority and the minority for working together for a robust process that we had, but I am concerned about two deficiencies in the process, one the gentlelady from Guam will speak to momentarily. I think it's really a travesty that she is not able to present an idea this House has considered many times as part of this bill. And I hope that would be reconsidered.

Secondly, we have all said forever that we agree that there is a problem that has to be fixed for people who served our country in uniform. And here is what happens. You have a person who is very seriously injured in the line of duty in the military, and they retire and they would get disability pay for their injury. Let's say they have been deafened by a bomb going off near them, and they are very, very ill or disabled, and they qualify for disability pay. They also qualify for a regular military pension.

I think most of us on this floor would say, most people in the country would say they should get both. If you are injured in the line of duty and you are severely disabled as a result, you should get both your disability pay and your regular pension. And for years people on both sides have said they want to do this. The problem has been it does in fact cost money. And there are a couple of other variations here. The widows and widowers of these servicemembers have the same problem with respect to their benefits. And then there is another problem where people who serve in the Reserve get credit toward earlier retirement, but they have to make it fit around the Federal fiscal year or they don't get it.

So we have people over in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been deprived of earlier retirement. They have been shot at the same as everybody else, but because they got shot at after October 1, it doesn't count. It's just a bizarre rule that ought to be fixed.

Now, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee that fixed, to a great extent, these three problems. And it had a way to pay for it which is controversial. It would take some of the Internet gaming that's going on and say, A, it's legal, and B, that the money from it should go to help these service personnel who were injured in the line of duty. Some people like this idea, some people don't. But I think it should have been brought to this floor so we could have a debate about it.

If you talk to any one of our Members, Mr. Speaker, I think he or she would tell you they are all for fixing this problem, but it has to be paid for. So we had a solution that fixed a large part of the problem and was paid for, would not result in an increase in the deficit, but it didn't find its way to the floor. I know the technicalities of it. But I really think the House should be given a chance to work its will on this question.

It's as simple as this: The guy who lost his hearing because a mortar shell went off next to him, should he have to choose between his disability pay and his regular retirement instead of getting both? I think he should get both. And I think the House should be able to work its will on that question. I would urge us to consider during this debate process making that possible.

First let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I would just say to the gentleman, you are absolutely correct, and I oppose this rule because this is such an important issue that affects our national security, but also the economic security of this country.

This is an issue that warrants much more deliberation and debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the authorization to use force to go to war in Afghanistan came before us on that terrible day of 9/14, there may have been 1 hour of debate, if that long. And so I think at this moment, as we are turning the corner, hopefully, we should have a full debate on the direction, the timeframe which Mr. McGovern has in his resolution, and also a plan to begin to end the war in Afghanistan.

We must have a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan because most military experts have told us there's no military solution in Afghanistan. We know and we hear that if it's going well, we need more money and more troops; and if it's going poorly, we need more money and more troops. So we need here in the House to have this debate. What should we do and how should we do it?

So this amendment, this proposal by Mr. McGovern, warrants much more than a 5-minute debate because it's such an important issue to the country. Over 70-some percent now of the

American people believe it's time to wind down. Many of us believe that beginning in July we should put forth a proposal for a significant and sizeable reduction as the President indicated he would do in the past. Many believe that we should not fund any more combat operations in Afghanistan and that, in fact, we should only use our funding for force protection and to bring our young men and women home.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.

What the McGovern-Jones amendment seeks to do is begin that debate, to get us on course and to allow this House of Representatives to discuss what in the world should come next.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank you for your hard work, and just say that I think that it's about time now that we have a rule on such an important issue that allows for this body to engage in debate. Our troops deserve that, the American people deserve that, and certainly we need to begin to reflect public opinion on this because the public gets it. They know that $100 billion a year is no drop in the bucket in terms of our resources. We have a deficit, we have an economic crisis throughout the country, and we certainly need to find some balance between our national security interests and our economic security interest. Beginning to develop a plan to get out of Afghanistan warrants a full-fledged discussion.