J. Forbes

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady makes a good point, it is past time this happened, but this is a very risky thing to do. One of the things, these waivers are limited. The second thing is, it's very difficult for the President to come in and make sure he is making all the appropriate waivers. This could jeopardize monies that we are spending for training, money that we are spending for modeling and simulation to forecast risk assessments that may hit the United States and where they hit the United States. I think we need to be very, very careful before we come in with a sledge hammer and begin hitting all of this funding across the board, that we make sure that we recognize we have a problem. But the key for us, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure we are very, very deliberate and very careful about how we address that problem. I think we have done it in this bill. I think we have done it in a bipartisan manner. It was 60-1 in the bill, and I think, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this avenue because I don't think we can afford to just go in and carte blanche cut off all the funding, as much as I may wish we could do that. I think it's dangerous for the American people and for the defense of the country. I hope, once again, we will defeat the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, we stood on this floor about a year ago when the minority was the majority, and the language they want to change now is the language they approved. In fact, the then-chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, said this: `` . . . we are in a position to accept this motion. I just wish to point out that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. I agree with the motion.'' But, Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes because there is not just some difference; there is a huge gap now between the Democrats and the Republicans on fighting terrorism. And I have never heard so many red herrings, the red herrings of all of these people who have been tried here. Very few of them were detained under the authorization to use military force. Most of them were arrested and detained based on law enforcement, a huge difference. They raised the questions: Can we hold them here? Sure. They asked: Can we get a conviction? Possibly. But the real question is why would we want to bring them here to trial. There is no prosecutor who knows what he is talking about, no investigator who is going to walk in here today and tell you that it is easier to convict one of these detainees by bringing them to the United States and trying them in an Article III court than it is to do it in a military tribunal. And the reason is, they ask: Who wants it? I tell you who really wants it, the ACLU. Why do they want it? Because they don't want convictions. They have already said they want all of the detainees released. And they know the moment they hit U.S. soil, they will pick up a host of constitutional rights they don't now have. They know it will be harder to get conviction, and they also know this: that one of the trials that took place in AMF, the defendant was acquitted of over 200 different counts. When, Mr. Chairman, is someone going to stand up for the rights of the victims of terror here who asked this question: When are we going to start getting prosecutions? My good friend from New Jersey talked about the fact oh, we want to let our prosecutors make these decisions. We want to let them go forward unfettered. What he didn't point out to you was that was happening. The prosecutors, a special prosecutor working under the current law at that time had worked for over 18 months, over 56 motions. That prosecutor would have told you he would have had guilty pleas in 6 months, and this administration not only stopped him, not only took away his rights, but did away with the entire investigation and started from zero; and they have been 2\1/2\ years and haven't prosecuted. Mr. Chairman, the question for us today is very, very simple. We have got military tribunals. Nobody is truly questioning the constitutionality of those military tribunals. The question for us is when are we going to prosecute them. The other question is let's keep the terrorists out of the United States and let's vote against this amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Once again the gentlelady raises a couple of very good points. We are all concerned about transparency. And as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I can tell you that I live every day examining and being concerned that we have our fleet in a ready state to defend this country. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm also concerned about this: We fight oftentimes to keep our adversaries from gaining all the information that they try to gain about our military. We fight to protect our computers, and sometimes we don't succeed. But also at times we just have to step back and say we just give away way too much information. And the gentlelady is right, there is a possibility--however remote it might be--that we could find something in this data that may save a life. That is a possibility, but the far more likely scenario is that we will give away crucial information that could jeopardize our pilots, jeopardize our fleet, and also jeopardize the men and women that they fly to protect. We could jeopardize disclosed fleet readiness rates, critical parts failure rates, and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data that we just shouldn't be giving out. So, Mr. Chairman, while I wholeheartedly agree with the gentlelady's concern about transparency and readiness, I also realize that to run the greatest military in the world there are some pieces of information, some data points, that we don't want to make available to those who may use them against us. I think this is one of those, and I hope that we will defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FORBES. Once again, I appreciate the gentlelady. And she is absolutely right, I represent a lot of military families. I just got back last week from talking to a lot of men and women in Afghanistan who are serving there; and I can tell you overwhelmingly, when you talk to those families, one of the things that came out just recently as we had the whole situation with the operation that killed bin Laden, over and over and over again those families were telling me the same thing-- too many people are giving too much information and saying too much, and they're not protecting the people in our family who are fighting to defend this country. And I would agree with the gentlelady that we need to be on top of this readiness issue, but it's not just our aircraft. It's our ships and the vessels that we have there. And I can assure her that our subcommittees on the Armed Services Committee, both the chairmen and the ranking members, are doing just that to make sure those vessels are safe, to make sure that information is available when it's needed, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that we're not giving out fleet readiness rates to people who could use them against us, critical parts failures to people who could use them against us, and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data which her amendment does not protect. Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope we will defeat this amendment and protect this sensitive information. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I just renew my opposition to the amendment and I hope we will defeat it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have just five questions. I understand we've got people on both sides of this issue, and I respect them; but if we ask the five questions, I think we'd vote against this amendment. The first one is this: Do we need to use military force against al Qaeda, the Taliban and the people who are supporting them, or don't we? There are some in here, as they just talked about, who didn't support using military force at the beginning, and they don't support it now. I respect them. I just think we're not going to defeat these forces through our words or by ignoring them. I think the answer is clear. We need to use all the force that is necessary and appropriate to defeat them. This legislation does that. Second: Should Congress write the language to authorize that or leave it solely to the executive and judicial branches? I think we ought to do it. Third: Is this the right language? It is the exact same language that the executive has put forward and that the judiciary has put forward. We are marrying them. Four: Does it go too far? It doesn't go too far. With all the red herrings that are there, if you go back and read the language, it clearly says it does not supersede or change the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was violated then, and it is violated now with this language. The final question, Mr. Chairman, is simple: Should we adopt this amendment? The answer is just as simple: not if we want to do everything necessary to defend and protect the United States of America against terrorist attacks.

Mr. FORBES. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a rare opportunity that you get to stand up and agree with two friends that you have on the floor, and the only thing we disagree with is the approach. I would say to the gentleman from California that he is absolutely right. We do need to start this. We need to set those targets. But the great news is that the chairman and the ranking member have done just that in this bill, because of all of the agencies, of all of the departments that we look at across the government, the one that we absolutely cannot be arbitrary on, the one that we cannot guess about, the target we cannot be off on is the Department of Defense. We have to be right there. And what we realize is that you cannot do this by setting an arbitrary target and working backwards. That gets you huge problems, exposes us to huge risks. We have to do it the opposite way. The first thing we have to do is we have to ascertain what the true risk assessment is, the threat assessment we have to this country, which we have not done because, quite honestly, it has been more budget driven than it has been threat assessment driven. But this bill moves us closer to doing that and finding out what that risk assessment is. The second thing after we do that is we have to determine what does it take to meet that risk, and what do we risk exposing the country to if we don't do it. The third thing is we have to find out where we are spending our money now and where that money is going, which we don't know. The gentleman is correct. We need to audit the DOD. That is where we are moving in this bill to do. After we have done those three steps, then we can come back, and the Congress ought to be a part of this, of saying here is the target and the number of employees we think that you need to get that job done. But, Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with my good friend from New Jersey. This is not the right approach. It is a dangerous approach to arbitrarily look and say we are going to begin cutting these employees. We don't know what that will end up doing to the Department of Defense and to the defense of this country. So I hope we will reject this amendment, but continue along the line of what the gentleman has talked about, and make sure that we are moving toward defending this country in the most efficient way possible. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FORBES. I thank my friend from New Jersey. A week ago today I was in Afghanistan, and Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that if you listen to our troops there, if you talk to our general, they don't want us to pull the rug out from under them. Years ago, there were a group of planes that were lost off the coast of Florida and they were heading back toward the coastline and they lost their communications. Everything within them kept telling them turn around, turn around, you're heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, right before they reached the shoreline they did turn around and they ended up going back out to sea and getting lost. We have a timetable of 2014 that both our troops and the Afghans are working together to make that 2014 deadline. The last thing we want to do is pull that rug out from them now. And I know the temptation to say let's quit, we've put a lot of investment in there, it's too hard, let's turn around, but we need to be cautious that we don't do it too quickly because Afghanistan is different than the rest of the world, because the two greatest dangers we face in the world today are Iran getting nuclear weapons and extremists taking over nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Afghanistan is the bridge that could connect both of those. It's important, Mr. Chairman, that we not quit. Ask our troops. We have invested too much in lives, time, and money. Let's not turn back now. Let's get the job done--2014 is going to be here soon enough.

Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I am always reluctant to oppose my good friend from Arizona, even when he is wrong, and he is dead wrong tonight. As you heard him mention, there was a billion dollar savings. If that billion dollars hadn't been there, he would have been telling us all, can't you find $100 million, can't you find $200 million? But they find $1 billion, and no good deed goes unpunished. And, basically, Madam Chairman, the purpose of this fund is to make sure we are doing the tough choices. And he is right; these Members look every day at the priorities we need for the Department of Defense. Let me just tell you one of those, shipbuilding. You and I today are living in a world for the first time where the Chinese have more ships in their Navy than we have in our Navy. The independent panel says we need 346 ships in our fleet, the Navy says 313, but their plan doesn't even get us there. And so I am proud of the fact that we come together and say let's find savings in one area so we can put them in priorities such as shipbuilding. We ought not to cut these funds. It will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to find those savings in the future.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. I would like to first thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this very bipartisan bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, over the last several months, the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee has attempted to answer one question: Are we ready? I believe this bill makes several significant improvements to the readiness posture of our Armed Forces and remedies many of the shortfalls that we found. The bill takes several steps to ensure that U.S. troops are properly trained and their equipment is properly maintained so they can succeed in their missions and have the facilities and services they deserve when they return home. It also makes needed adjustments to civilian personnel policies and service contracting, and promotes energy security, and ensures that projects offer the best return on investment to the taxpayer. The bill fully supports the President's request for expanded training as dwell times increase, the continued reset of combat-damaged Army and Marine Corps equipment, and military construction and family housing. The legislation also makes notable investments in Navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance, facility sustainment and modernization, Army base operations, Guard and Reserve flight training, and Air Force weapon systems sustainment. To increase the readiness of our depots, the bill includes several of the recommendations included in the study on the future capability of the Department of Defense maintenance depots, directed by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Mr. Chairman, we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped and ready for the challenges they face every day. I believe this bill fulfills that commitment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, if I had been present on February 28, 2011, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 394, H.R. 347, and H.R. 368.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that this is an amendment that the Congressional Budget Office has said is cost neutral, so we are not talking about revenue coming in or going out. The second thing about this amendment is that it is not dispositive--it doesn't ultimately make a decision. The third thing is that this is an amendment that is supported, not only by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, but by every single subcommittee chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So what does it do? It simply states that, before we turn out the lights on the men and women who, without question, have the most expertise and experience and who have had the legal authority to assemble the teams to fight our wars and to respond to our national emergencies, we are going to know who will replace them. Any time this Nation faces a crisis, there are two observations that always emerge. First, we realize how ineffective our government agencies are in assembling cross-agency teams to respond to that crisis. Second, we realize how good our military is at putting those teams together. One of the reasons for our military's success is that, for over a decade, whether we go to war or defend our homeland, the military does it as a team. They can bring together a Coast Guard cutter, Army Special Ops units, a marine expeditionary unit, an Air Force squadron, a Navy carrier group, Reserve units, and when needed, even allied partners in a combined response that we call ``jointness.'' It is a competitive advantage for which no nation in the world can rival us; yet, as hard as it is to believe, it is an advantage we did not have just 20 years ago. One of the reasons we have that advantage is that, for over a decade, a single group has had the legal authority to bring those teams together, and that was the Joint Forces Command. They have assembled the majority of our forces in Iraq, a majority in Afghanistan; they've had control of over 80 percent of our continental U.S.-based combat- ready conventional forces; and they've assembled our military teams for our national disasters. On August 9, 2010, the Secretary of Defense announced he was closing that command allegedly to save money; but the next day, when the Pentagon briefers came, they were asked by the House Armed Services staff one question: How much money will you save? Their answer was, ``Not a clue.'' We don't have a clue. For days, weeks, months, Members have been asking how much this is going to save and who is going to be able to put teams together when this command is gone. The Pentagon's response has been deafeningly silent. It is not because they are bad people; it's just because they don't know the answer. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says the answers to those questions are too important for us not to wait until September 30, which is all this amendment does, to give our committees and this body the chance to get the answers and to make sure we do not go back 20 years. If there is any Member in this room who can answer even the most basic core question presented by this closure, which is who will ultimately have the legal authority and expertise to put together the teams we need to fight our wars and respond to our crises, then you can vote with good conscience against this amendment; but you cannot, because nobody at the Pentagon can answer that question either. Mr. Chairman, this Nation deserves a better answer than ``we don't have a clue,'' and this amendment gives them a chance to find that answer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FORBES. I would ask the gentleman if all this amendment does is give us until September 30 to answer those questions. All the leases are in effect. They can't be changed until that period of time, so we are not talking about cost. But this is the question I would ask the gentleman: You mentioned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had the authority to be that joint provider and to allocate those troops. But I would ask the gentlemen if, in fact, they do have that authority, because Goldwater- Nichols and the reauthorization act expressly prohibited them from being able to do that. And so I would ask the gentleman if it doesn't make sense, at least before we cut out the lights, regardless of the ultimate decision you make, to make absolutely sure we know who is going to be able to have that authority before we make that final decision.

Mr. FORBES. May I inquire how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FORBES. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the Congressman from the Second District of Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, since 2006 the taxpayers have entrusted the Department of Defense with over $2.5 trillion, and the law has required that the Department of Defense make sure that they allow the taxpayers to know where that money is being spent by providing audited financial statements. Yet in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, it was established recently that no such audited financial statements were filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010, and that none would be filed this year. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Defense testified that compliance with the law was, in fact, a priority and that they had had a plan at the Department of Defense. But when you put up the Web site just 2 days ago from the Department of Defense, it showed very clearly that the plan that they had 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 said that they would have completely filed clean audited statements by 2010. They were only 100 percent off, because according to the testimony right now, the records at the Department of Defense are so bad that less than 5 percent of all of the monies given to the Department of Defense are in an audit-ready position. So, Mr. Chairman, we have heard some draconian efforts to try to get them into compliance. This is no such effort. What this simply does is to recognize that we give $2 million in the funds set forth in this amendment that are basically party funds. They are funds for dinners. They are funds for entertainment. They are funds that have no impact directly on our warfighter. And what this amendment simply does is to take away those funds, Mr. Chairman. And our thought is that if we take away those funds until we have compliance with those audited financial statements that the taxpayers deserve, we will give a strong incentive to make sure that we get that compliance and we are not 100 percent off. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.