Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished lady for her commitment and this very important resolution, and the opportunities to meet with her and advocate as she convenes the South Sudan and Sudan Caucus and works as the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa, with our chairman, Mr. Smith; and, of course, I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, leading the full committee; and those who came to the floor, Mr. Crowley, and certainly Mr. Payne, who has a legacy that he is holding in such high esteem by his own leadership.

I was in South Sudan with the late Congressman Donald Payne as the right to return was implemented, and the individuals who were fleeing Sudan came with joy and tears. As they exited the buses that were bringing them in, they clearly were joyful. This was a homecoming.

We look forward to a great recognition of the assets and minerals and various wealth that Sudan, South Sudan could have to help all of its people and even to try and help those still in Darfur even though in Sudan.

We met with the then-President and Vice President, who have now turned it into an enormous conflict and rising up against each other and killing and causing people to flee.

And so I want to congratulate Congresswoman Bass for this resolution, for us to be on record relating to efforts to respond to the famine in South Sudan. And I take this moment just to read this story about a woman who is an example of what the fear and fright is:

``By day, Mary Nyarac scours swamps for fish and edible water lilies. When darkness falls and South Sudan's militias retreat to their bases, she and hundreds of others fleeing a 3-year civil war slip onto dry land and tend crops to stave off famine.

``Prowling hyenas pose a threat during Nyarac's nighttime harvests, but they worry her less than the armed men who can appear in daytime, the 20-year-old said as she sat beneath neem trees in the northern county of Leer, one of two areas in South Sudan where the United Nations in February made the world's first declaration of famine since 2011. She and other residents are facing a catastrophe that's being echoed by looming mass food shortages in Somalia, Yemen, and northern Nigeria.''

This is devastating--an article in Bloomberg News--100,000 in those counties, 5 million all throughout Sudan and South Sudan, but it is in all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

So I believe that this resolution brings all of us together-- Republicans and Democrats--and makes the statement of the United States House of Representatives, then on to the Senate, and then for the President to make the statement, as Congresswoman Bass so aptly states in this resolution, to let humanitarian aid come in. Let there be food that will reach those starving, and particularly the children, that are apt to die in this region.

It is well-known, as well, that women are not treated in the way that they should be, and I look forward to working with Congresswoman Bass on H.R. 48 that deals specifically with the rights of women and providing them with human rights and women's participation in leadership. That is certainly missing.

But now people are starving, and so I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 187, relating to efforts to respond to the famine in South Sudan and be reminded of Mary, who scours swamps for fish and edible water lilies, if at all possible, and fears the onslaught of violence during the day. They cannot live this way. They can only die this way.

Mr. Speaker, support H. Res. 187 so that we can save lives.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the South Sudan Caucus, and the sponsor of H.R. 48, the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act,'' I rise in strong support of H. Res. 187, a resolution directing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to increase emergency assistance to respond to the famine in South Sudan.

On February 20, 2017 famine was declared formally in two counties of Unity State, which is located in the northern region of South Sudan.

The United Nations currently estimates that more than 100,000 people in two Unity State counties are directly affected by the famine.

In addition, food security experts are concerned that famine will spread.

According to expert analyses, in the absence of urgent humanitarian action, as many as 4.9 million South Sudanese, about 40 percent of the country's population, face the grim and certain prospect of starvation.

In 1998 the region suffered from a famine spurred by civil war and approximately 70,000 to several hundred thousand people died during that famine.

Although South Sudan has previously experienced wide-spread food insecurity, the present famine crisis is different because it is almost entirely man-made.

South Sudan is the world's newest nation, located in the center of Africa and bordered by six countries.

It is rich in oil, but following decades of civil war it is also one of the least developed regions on earth--only 15% of its citizens own a mobile phone and there are very few tarmac roads in an area larger in land mass than Spain and Portugal combined.

This makes the Nile River, which flows through regional centers, an important transport and trade route.

Since South Sudan overwhelmingly voted to break away from Sudan in 2011, the government's main concern has been to get oil flowing following disagreements with the regime in Khartoum.

There have been a few small armed rebellions, border clashes and deadly cattle feuds but these have all taken place far from the capital city of Juba.

Signs of friction within the governing party, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), came when President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, the country's largest group, fired his deputy Riek Machar, who is from the second largest tribe, the Nuer.

President Kiir believes Mr. Machar was behind a coup plot to oust him and seize power.

Mr. Machar denies the accusations, but has publicly criticized Mr. Kiir for failing to tackle corruption and vowed to challenge President Kiir for leadership of the SPLM.

It is not clear what led to the breach in their relationship but what started out as a political squabble has escalated into ethnic violence.

The loyalties of the South Sudan army are divided with each of the principals commanding significant military support and forces loyal to each man have clashed around the country.

And some of the most intense fighting has taken place in areas where famine is most severe.

Compounding matters, Mr. Speaker, South Sudan is awash with guns after decades of conflict and there is a history of ethnic tension for politicians to exploit if they believe that could help them gain, or remain in, power.

It is against this backdrop that USAID is coordinating proactively and closely with the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and others to address South Sudan's food insecurity.

Complicating this situation is the fact that while the Government of South Sudan has reportedly promised access to the most at-risk areas, humanitarian organizations remain unable to provide vital food, water and shelter in many locations.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of South Sudan Government in prohibiting humanitarian assistance from getting to starving communities has undermined the most proactive attempts by the United States and others to address what has now become a famine.

H. Res. 187 calls on South Sudan's leaders to put their petty disputes aside and to put the well-being of their people first.

The resolution condemns all threats and violence against civilian populations and aid workers, including the over 70 humanitarian aid workers killed since the conflict began and the brutal attack by the South Sudanese military on humanitarian aid workers, including Americans, at the Terrain Camp in July 2016.

In addition, H. Res. 187 expresses support for the efforts of the United States Government, working with partners in the international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, and the European Union, to facilitate humanitarian access to affected areas, and encourages greater diplomatic pressure on the parties to return to the negotiation table to stop the violence, and to allow full humanitarian access to displaced and starving populations, and to cease violations of humanitarian principles.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by observing that while bringing an end to the civil war and humanitarian relief the famine- stricken in South Sudan must be our first order of business, it is also very important to note that all of us who worked to secure its independence want the country to succeed and become a productive and constructive member of the community of nations.

That is why I have reintroduced the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' (H.R. 48), which promotes the human rights of women in South Sudan as the country transitions to a long-term government and to ensure women enjoy the right to participate fully in the political and economic life of the country.

Despite its newly won independence women in South Sudan continue to face brutal violations of their human rights.

A lack of infrastructure as well as gender inequality has the potential to regress much of the progress that has been made in South Sudan.

Such a lack of human development factors only furthers the marginalization of women in South Sudan:

1. Inadequate health care has resulted in high maternal and infant mortality rates in South Sudan; the maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in the world with 1,054 deaths per 100,000 live births.

2. Additionally, literacy rates for women are staggeringly low; over 80% of women and girls in South Sudan are illiterate.

3. The violence stemming from the conflict has led some traders to suspend their market presence resulting in food commodity price increases as much as 30 percent in high-conflict regions.

The ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' puts equal rights and access for the women of South Sudan at the forefront by:

1. Encouraging the appointment of women to high level positions within Republic of South Sudan Government;

2. Ensuring that a significant portion of United States development, humanitarian, and relief assistance is channeled to local and United States-based South Sudanese organizations, particularly South Sudanese women's organizations;

3. Providing long-term financial assistance for primary, secondary, higher, nontraditional, and vocational education for South Sudanese girls, women, boys, and men;

4. Providing financial assistance to build health infrastructure and deliver high-quality comprehensive health care programs, including primary, maternal, child, reproductive, and mental health care;

5. Requiring military training regarding the protection, rights, and particular needs of

women and emphasizing that violations of women's rights are intolerable and should be prosecuted; and

6. Taking all necessary steps to ensure that internally displaced South Sudanese women are directly receiving food aid, shelter, relief supplies, and other services from United States-sponsored programs.

Mr. Speaker, as a nation, we should support the Republic of South Sudan in its efforts to become a freer, more equitable society that respects, supports, and endorses the rights of women.

I look forward to working with Congresswoman Bass, the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, members of the South Sudan Caucus, and all Members of the House to pass the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' and send it to the President's desk for signature.

But before we can do that, we must end the man-made famine and alleviate the humanitarian suffering now ongoing in South Sudan.

That is why I strongly support H. Res. 187 and urge all Members to join me in voting for this important resolution.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, since 2001 when we passed the original Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida and against associated enemies, the nature of the war on terror in which we find ourselves has changed dramatically. We now find ourselves fighting enemies that simply did not exist at the time in areas that nobody in Congress anticipated we would be at war.

This has caused a number of us to have very serious concerns as to whether or not the original Authorization for Use of Military Force is still relevant, and frankly, many of us have concerns that the war- making power of Congress is slipping away from us. Indeed, we find ourselves engaged since that original AUMF in 14 different countries on more than almost 40 different occasions without Congress authorizing the use of force. In our view, a new AUMF is necessary.

However, I also recognize that needs to come through a process. My effort here is to try and set up a process where the administration can participate, we can have an orderly discussion, and the appropriate committees can mark up a new AUMF if Congress, indeed, thinks it does-- and again, I think many of us do.

A new AUMF would provide clear authority for ongoing operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it would fulfill the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force. My amendment directs the President to put forward a strategy, an analysis, and a framework that we can actually debate and take action on.

The underlying bill being considered today provides authorization for training and equipping our military. Just as important is the time to debate and deliberate how that military should be used to defeat our enemies.

Recently, in an appearance before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis made an appearance, and I actually asked him would it be helpful to have an AUMF. At that time, he said it absolutely would be helpful.

Our men and women who we have deployed in places, again, that nobody in 2001 thought they would be deployed to, need to know that the Congress of the United States is fully supportive of their deployment.

So this amendment would direct that the President, within 30 days after the passage of the legislation, present to Congress a report that, again, justifies the action, tells us the strategy, lays out the objectives. Within 30 days after that report was received, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense could be called before the relevant committees to actually explain and defend that.

Now, again, in my view, I still think we need a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, but I want to start a process whereby that would begin, and I think this would help us achieve that. If others have an opinion, that is fine too, but I think they would still find the report useful and the testimony invaluable.

Sooner or later, Congress needs to take responsibility. I think with the best will in the world, we have slipped into almost endless warfare in a lot of places that none of us anticipated we would be.

Again, these are not actions that I necessarily question, but I think they have not been authorized, not been debated, not been examined, and, frankly, the American people have been denied that debate. Also, frankly, they have been denied the opportunity to hold their Members responsible.

Remember, that original Authorization for Use of Military Force was 2001. Almost 80 percent of the Members of this body have been elected since that original authorization. I think they ought to listen to the debate, and, frankly, their constituents ought to be able to hold them accountable.

So I would urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for their approach to this problem. It is well known in this body that probably the House Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan committee that we have. The fact that you have tried in the past and the fact that you are willing to work with us here today is deeply appreciated.

I also thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I want to associate myself with his frustration. He has every right to be frustrated. My friend, the ranking member, is correct. This is a difficult job. It will require bipartisan cooperation and bicameral cooperation.

But isn't that what war is about, to achieve a national consensus?

I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis was asking for: We will go do any mission that you as the Congress and the administration ask us to do, but give us a clear mission and give us your absolute support in carrying that through.

If we have this debate, there will undoubtedly be dissenting views. That is what democracy is supposed to be about, too. So my friends that would oppose the use of force, for instance, in Afghanistan, that voice ought to be heard and that case ought to be made. Frankly, those of us who are supportive of what we are trying to accomplish against ISIS need to make our case and persuade the majority of this House and of the United States Senate to move forward.

So I take this as the first step on a road. Like my friend, it is a baby step. I would agree with his characterization, but at least it is a step. This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of our leadership in the House and certainly without the help of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. But, also, it couldn't have happened without the persistence of my friend from Massachusetts. We have worked together, and, believe me, that is unusual. We don't agree on a lot of issues, but we respect one another.

This is also a question of congressional authority. I think it is a profoundly important constitutional issue, and I do believe we have inadvertently--because of the difficulty of the task--allowed war- making power to slip away from us. That needs to stop. We are responsible to the American people. The Constitution is very clear about where war-making power lies.

Frankly, it ought to be difficult to go to war. It ought to demand a lot of cooperation. It ought to be something that we think is worth setting aside our differences, working together, because we are asking men and women to risk their lives. We are putting them in harm's way, and they deserve to know that we are 100 percent supporting them.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to advise my friend that I am prepared to close, although, believe me, I could talk about this a long time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by associating myself very much with the remarks of my good friend from Massachusetts.

Frankly, this is an area where we have found common ground because I think we both deeply revere this institution and, frankly, respect the Constitution of the United States.

When he says that we have shirked our duty, in my view, we have. I think it is absolutely a fair statement to make. I think the gentleman from Washington is also correct that it is hard. This is a very complex, difficult kind of war. It is a new kind of war, its enemies morphing into different forms and different places.

All that is true, but it doesn't excuse us from the obligation to do our job and give those men and women the assurance that they are acting at the direct request and order of the American people in fulfilling the responsibility we have asked them to take.

It doesn't directly relate to this issue, but I felt very much the same way as my friend did at the time about Libya. We stretched the NATO alliances so far to get involved in a country where, in my view, we should have never been involved. More importantly, Libya didn't attack NATO. It really didn't make a lot of sense to use that kind of instrument to justify a war.

I aim this at no particular President, either the last one or current one, but, frankly, Presidents don't like Congress very much to tell them what they have to do. They want to be able to do it. Well, I am sorry; the Constitution is very clear about that.

One of the reasons we have a Constitution is because we didn't want to live under a system where it is a monarchy as opposed to a Presidency. It is part of our duty to keep a check on the extraordinary power that we place in the hands of the Chief Executive of the United States, regardless of who that person is, regardless of what party they represent.

My friend makes a good point when he says sometimes we don't trust one another, or we don't want to give the President too much power. We also

don't want to take too much responsibility ourselves, sometimes. For that, we ought to look in the mirror. We ought to be willing to take that awesome responsibility that the Constitution entrusts us with and make the tough decisions that the American people send us here to make. I actually think going through this process will be very good for this institution.

My friend is correct, it is a baby step, and I share his frustration. But I think the current administration deserves a chance to be heard and to present a justification, not just inherit an ongoing conflict.

I think the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Affairs Committee, deserves the opportunity to hear this.

My friend expresses a concern which, quite frankly, I share, that we will have a hearing and not much more. That would not be where I would propose that we end. I would hope and would work with my friend to make sure that is not where we end.

I think at the end of the day, whatever the deliberation is, whatever the recommendation is for a new AUMF, it needs to come to this floor, and it needs to be open for full debate. If we can't muster a majority to approve that, then we shouldn't be fighting in the places we are fighting if we are not willing to actually vote and use that.

So I am going to pledge to continue to work with my friend and urge the administration, assuming this actually gets in the final bill, to take it as an opportunity to establish a very clear set of objectives, a very clear strategy, a very clear estimate of the budgetary cost, and a very clear analysis of the legal framework under which they are operating.

I think they, and we, owe that to the country. We certainly owe it to the men and women that we have asked to go and do difficult things and risk their lives on our behalf. They do it willingly. Again, the Secretary of Defense said this would be helpful. This kind of debate would make a difference.

I, again, thank my friends for their cooperation in this. I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking member for allowing us to use this particular vehicle to express it. I thank the leadership of the House for being willing to grapple with this issue. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his persistent efforts; and my friend from California, Ms. Lee, who has also worked on this. A lot of people on our side of the aisle feel exactly the same way.

This is a debate about the future of a conflict, but it is also a debate about the appropriate constitutional authority of the Congress of the United States and a willingness by the Members to embrace this.

So it is actually, I think, a good day, even though it is the first step in a long journey.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 187) relating to efforts to respond to the famine in South Sudan, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in July of 2011, all of us here celebrated the establishment of the world's newest nation. Finally, South Sudan had emerged after more than 20 years of brutal suppression by the government in Khartoum and a war that saw some of the worst human rights atrocities of our time. They emerged out of that.

Tragically, though, the celebration was short-lived. By December of 2013, a long-simmering rivalry between two leaders--South Sudan's ethnic Dinka President and ethnic Nuer Vice President--exploded in violence, and South Sudan became embroiled in yet another deadly civil conflict.

Today, over 100,000 people are starving to death; 5.5 million people--half of the population--are at risk of starving by July; and 3.6 million people have been displaced by conflict and famine with 7,000 newly displaced South Sudanese crossing the Ugandan border each and every week.

In February, famine was declared in two of the areas that have experienced the heaviest fighting.

Let's be clear: the famine unfolding across South Sudan is completely manmade. The leaders who have unleashed this horror upon the citizens that they are meant to represent--Salva Kiir and Riek Machar--have plundered billions of dollars in oil revenues and donor investment, manipulated ethnic tensions, and armed proxy militias. They have, as we can share with you, recruited child soldiers, killed U.N. peacekeeping forces, and forcibly displaced millions of their citizens--civilians who have been run from their homes.

Lifesaving humanitarian supplies have been looted by the government and by the opposition. The government has blocked humanitarian access through bureaucratic manipulation and through sheer brute force. Humanitarian workers have been deliberately targeted. They have been abused, raped, and murdered with impunity. Yes, humanitarian workers. South Sudan is now the most dangerous place in the world for humanitarians.

It is also the most dangerous place for their own citizens because they are treated the same way by these two so-called leaders. And those South Sudan leaders have, in effect, become exactly

like the government in Khartoum that their people fought against for decades.

This is appalling. This is unconscionable. It cannot stand. Congress, working with our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, and many other concerned countries, must make sure those who bear responsibility for this calamity are held to account through sanctions and other tools.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the ranking member of the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee, for introducing this timely and important resolution, which seeks to bring attention to the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in South Sudan, because in South Sudan it gets worse by the day. It has not mattered what arguments we have brought to bear against the President and the Vice President. Many world leaders and many of us have had these arguments face-to-face.

This resolution makes clear that the U.S. Agency for International Development should have the flexibility to tailor their response by using market-based food aid where appropriate, and U.S. commodities where needed. We need to ensure that food is not being used as a weapon in this civil war, and flexible food aid can help.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting this resolution and, more importantly, in continuing to demonstrate the compassion of the American people through lifesaving humanitarian assistance. Deep, arbitrary cuts to U.S. humanitarian assistance programs at a time when we are facing famine in four countries beset by violence--including countries where we are fighting designated terrorist groups--would be reckless and irresponsible. Millions of lives are hanging in the balance. It is in the U.S. interest to respond in South Sudan, just as it is in these other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, many of us knew President John Garang who tragically died after many years of trying to secure freedom for the people of South Sudan, tragically died in a helicopter crash.

He was the father of his country. He was also one who always championed peaceful coexistence among the tribes in South Sudan. He was very different than obviously the current competing warlords for that position.

I had worked with Don Payne's father. Don Payne, Jr., spoke of this issue of the genocide resolution. We passed that resolution through this House together. As a matter of fact, we brought it before the Human Rights Council. Don Payne and I traveled up to New York to raise this issue.

What is shocking to us about the current circumstances in South Sudan is the effort being undertaken by the world community in order to try to step in and provide some measure of peace. Of course, we have talked today about what has happened to the people of South Sudan, what has happened to our own aid workers there.

But if we reflect for a minute that Rwandans have lost their lives there, when we were dealing with this genocide issue in Sudan, we took Don Cheadle, the actor who portrayed Paul Rusesabagina, who was also with us on that trip.

We went into Sudan in order to document the genocide that was going on, to speak to some of the survivors. We brought in a Nightline camera crew.

Yes, we have, in this case, brought the world community along to a certain extent. But here is part of the tragedy: those Rwandan peacekeepers were slaughtered in South Sudan. So were Chinese peacekeepers. So were Indian and Kenyan and Fiji and Danish peacekeepers. So were Egyptian and Ethiopian and Bangladeshi peacekeepers. So were Benin and Burkina Faso, and Chad and Mongolia. So were peacekeepers from Nepal and Nigeria and Norway, and the Philippines and Pakistan.

And this is the kind of attitude that we see from these warlords against their own people and against others who try to come in to keep the peace.

And this is why, frankly, in addition to this resolution, it is time--and I know the support is there in the Security Council, I know now there is the support--to cut off the arms and the ammunition going in to South Sudan that helps fuel these warlords.

We have heard the passion and dedication of Congresswoman Bass of California. Of course, she has worked with Mr. Smith of New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, to shine a light on this crisis. As always, I appreciate the assistance of Mr. Engel, the ranking member.

I share the anguish of my colleagues in seeing the aspirations of South Sudan citizens dashed by kleptocrats and warlords, certainly not in the tradition of John Garang, warlords bent on maintaining power at any cost. The blood of countless civilians is on their hands, and the people of South Sudan deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to recognize the bravery and selflessness of the humanitarians who are working to save lives and bring an end to the suffering that has been imposed upon the people of South Sudan.

I have personally met with humanitarian workers who have been held at gunpoint, who have been threatened, who have been abused in the worst ways. I have met with people who have carried food and medicine on their backs through swamps because there were no roads.

Without their commitment, without their sacrifice, countless lives would have now been lost. And while they don't do this work for the accolades,

they deserve our recognition and thanks here tonight.

I urge Members to join me in honoring them today by supporting this timely resolution.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I really want to follow up on the committee chairman's remarks. He is absolutely right. In 2011 and 2012, I was actually very intimately involved in the process of trying to update the AUMF, and I have all the bruises and scars to show for it. It is a very difficult process.

The main thing I want to accomplish in my 2 minutes here is to explain to everybody why we haven't updated it, because there are actually very clear reasons. I am not sure they are good reasons, but they are very clear. Everyone sort of acts like: Well, we just haven't done it. Why are we twiddling our thumbs?

The reason is because, well, lawyers and how words are interpreted. As we went through and tried to word it exactly correctly, and as we negotiated with the Senate, we discovered that basically no matter how you word it, two groups are going to oppose it for diametrically opposite reasons. One side is going to say that it is too broad; it gives the President way too much power for too long a period of time and gives him too open a hand. Other groups will look at that exact same language and say that this unfairly restricts the President; it is going to make it more difficult.

You have these conversations those of us on the committee have with the Pentagon as they are trying to figure out--I haven't had as many conversations with the current administration as with the previous, but I talked at length with the Obama folks about deciding what could they do? Where could they commit a strike? Against which groups? It was a very lengthy process to go back through and try to figure out whether or not it was under the law allowed.

So if we change this, the lawyers on both sides are going to go bananas saying that this new language proves that you can't do that or it is too broad.

Now, all of that is not to say that we shouldn't do it. We should. But I just want people to understand the difficulty of it and for our House to actually be willing--and the Senate--to do the work we should do.

Don't kid yourself that this is something, well, gosh, we could just do it, it would be easy, and if everyone understands it, we are just ducking it for no good reason.

It is going to be really, really hard. It is going to take bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. But it is way past time for us to do it. Yeah, when we do it, lawyers will interpret it, and there will be some uncertainty. But there is uncertainty now as they try to, as the chairman described, bootstrap the 2001 AUMF on to a whole bunch of other things. We have an obligation to do this even if it is difficult.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically unnecessarily ties the hands of our administration in terms of choosing how best to spend Defense dollars.

Now, the gentlewoman mentions that this does not say anything about reducing our submarine force or reducing our bomber force. It does, however, lock in a certain amount of ICBMs that we have to have, and, in that sense, it does impact all other choices in terms of our Defense policy not just within the nuclear framework.

But within the nuclear framework, there is, as I keep emphasizing and people keep resisting, a finite amount of resources available to fund the Department of Defense. In fact, that is the central problem with this whole bill, as I have mentioned.

We don't have a budget resolution. This is $72 billion over-the- budget caps that the House has shown no willingness to vote to lift. So here we have $72 billion that we are just kind of hoping is going to be there. So at some point we are going to have to make some choices. I keep saying that. We keep delaying it--doing CRs. We even shut down the government once.

We continue to sort of stumble forward with no clear plan, but amendments like this are just another example of how we lock in a lack of flexibility in terms of how we spend our money.

What is the best approach to our national security?

Now, it has been mentioned and I keep harping on the fact that we don't have a national security plan yet. And it has been mentioned, well, Presidents usually take awhile to deliver them. And okay, fine, we will, you know, sometime in the next year hopefully get that plan. But amendments like this trap that plan, restrict the ability of the President to deal with a finite amount of resources to come with what is the best approach.

And there are a lot of arguments that ICBMs are not the best approach to nuclear deterrence. Do we need an absolute fixed amount? I don't think so. I think we need greater flexibility, particularly as we await the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review to figure out what our best strategy going forward is.

So we have all these little parochial pieces where we make sure that the piece that is closest to us, you can't touch that. We have to have exactly the same number. That is not in the best interests of a comprehensive National Security Strategy.

We need flexibility in this budget. We are not going to have as much money as everybody seems to think that we are going to have. That is just the fact. We are $20 trillion in debt, running up deficits of $700 billion a year. We have the budget caps. At some point, we are going to have to start making choices. This amendment does not help in that.

As I like to quote: ``Gentlemen, we are out of money; it is time to think.''

We are, in fact, running out of money--that is a Winston Churchill quote, by the way--but we appear to not be willing to do the thinking part about making choices on where we should not and should spend our money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman. I support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cole amendment. I am a great admirer of the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have worked together on several bipartisan letters to Speaker Ryan asking that the Speaker bring to the House floor an AUMF to address the fight against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. I value the gentleman's leadership and desire to find common ground with Members on both sides of the aisle.

But it is frustrating, Mr. Chairman, to know that this amendment was made in order while every other amendment to require the House to take concrete action on these wars were denied their right to debate.

Maybe my good friend from Oklahoma is right and Congress has to take baby steps. It needs yet another report on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Its Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services need to be ordered to hold hearings with the Secretaries of Defense and State to review these matters.

But what then?

According to this amendment, nothing.

Now, I have had my fill of Congress doing nothing. I admire the gentleman from Oklahoma. I support his amendment. But I am sick and tired of reports. After 16 years in Afghanistan, we need a debate on the future of U.S. military engagement there, and we need it now.

The gentleman said ``sooner or later.'' Well, after 16 years, we have already arrived at sooner and later. After

6 years of military operations in Iraq and Syria, we need to vote on an AUMF to address the fight against the Islamic State, and we need it now.

How much longer will Congress keep sending our brave servicemen and - women to war while it sits on its hands back here in Washington safe and sound?

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, but I demand that the House Republican leadership find the courage to act on these matters now. Our troops and their families deserve more than silence from a Congress that has no qualms about sending them to war but fails to have the political courage to take a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy hearing the gentleman talk about this. When we agree on things, it is always pleasant. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for this amendment because I think it is important that we move forward, even if it is a small step forward.

As I said initially, I am frustrated. I know Mr. Schiff is frustrated, and a lot of other people are frustrated who had amendments that were perfectly germane to this bill that I think should have been debated and that many of us think they are long overdue.

Mr. Chairman, 16 years in Afghanistan is an awful long time. Some of us fear that these wars are becoming endless. They are essentially on automatic pilot. We don't give the attention that I think is appropriate to what is happening, especially given the fact that so many brave men and women have their lives on the line on behalf of our country.

But beyond that, this AUMF in Afghanistan that has now been going on for 16 years has also been used to justify what we are doing in Syria, what we are doing in Iraq, in Somalia, and I could go on and on. This is ludicrous.

As the gentleman from Oklahoma knows, before we began to get sucked in militarily in Syria, some of us tried to have a debate on an AUMF in Syria, because we thought the time to debate an AUMF, the time to debate military action, actually should be before we get involved.

Once we are involved, it is a lot harder to have these debates and to raise the questions that are so important as to whether or not some of these interventions are actually the right thing to do. But we skirted that issue, and we continue to put this on the back burner.

As I said, I have no objection to this amendment. I support this amendment. I just think we are at a point where we should be doing much more. We are much further along than to just require a report or to mandate hearings. I am concerned that after these reports and these hearings are done, then what? The gentleman's amendment doesn't require that Congress take up an AUMF or that we actually have to have a vote in so many days or so many months.

So I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that not only are these reports and these hearings conducted as we all want them to be, but to continue to press this leadership to do the right thing: to not give away Congress' constitutional responsibilities and to do what is right by the men and women who sacrifice so much for our country.

There are only a small group of people who are directly impacted by these wars, and that is the men and women who are fighting and their families. The rest of us are asked to do basically nothing. I think that Congress has shirked its responsibility. We can't tolerate that.

I hope there is a big, strong bipartisan, if not unanimous vote, for the gentleman's amendment, but this is just the first teeny step in what we need to do. I promise him that he has my cooperation in any efforts to get it to the point where we actually debate these wars and develop AUMFs where people, as he said, can vote for them or against them.

My view of what we should be doing, I know, is very different from the gentleman from Oklahoma, and perhaps even different from the gentleman from California, but that is the kind of genius and the wonder of this place. We can all have different points of view, and we can even differ, but at the end of the day, the majority decides.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Cole amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.