J. Forbes

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the gentleman from New York says that we are simply declaring how good we are, that we are wasting our time, that we have other things that are important. I realize that there are some who don't see the difference between what we're doing in reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as our national motto from naming a post office or commending some athletic team that's won the last sports contest. But I happen to believe that when Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that our rights came from God, he didn't think that was irrelevant or not important. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will support this resolution.

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

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of faith in our Nation's history. In his first inaugural address in 1789, George Washington said in part: ``It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.''

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer and faith in our Nation's history. In October of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln discussed his deep reliance on God during his Presidency. In addressing the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod, Lincoln said, in part, ``I saw, upon taking my position here, that I was going to have an administration, if an administration at all, of extraordinary difficulty. It was, without exception, a time of the greatest difficulty that this country ever saw. I was early brought to a living reflection that nothing in my power whatever, in others to rely upon, would succeed without direct assistance of the Almighty, but all must fail. I have often wished that I was a more devout man than I am. Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance in God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.''

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer in our Nation's history. On October 12, 1844, 167 years ago today, John Chambers, the Governor of Iowa Territory, issued a proclamation declaring a day of Thanksgiving to God. Chambers said, in part, ``I have deemed it proper to recommend a day of general Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the many and great blessings we enjoy as a people and individually, and of prayer and supplications for the continuance of His mercy and goodness towards us; and for the prosperity, happiness, and ultimate salvation of the American people. ``We are told that `righteousness exalteth a nation' and are taught by divine authority that the voice of thanksgiving and prayer is acceptable to our Father in Heaven. Let us then unite our voices in the humble hope that they will reach the Throne of Grace and obtain for us a continuation and increase of blessings.''

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer in the founding of our country. This week in 1791, John Hancock, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Governor of Massachusetts, issued a proclamation declaring a day of public Thanksgiving. John Hancock said in part, ``I have thought fit to appoint a day of public Thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God for all his goodness towards us, above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liberties, but the great and most important blessing, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do earnestly recommend that we may join the penitent confession of our sins and implore the further continuance of the Divine Protection and blessings of Heaven upon this people, especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct and prosper the administration of the Federal Government and the other States in the Union, to bless the allies of the United States, and to afford His almighty aid to all people, who are virtuously struggling for the rights of men, so that universal happiness may be established in the world, that all may bow to the scepter of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole Earth be filled with His glory.''

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, our country truly is facing a financial crisis. I guess the good news is that even Congress is beginning to ask a question that is part of that financial crisis, which is simply this: How long can we continue to spend almost twice as much money as we bring in? The unfortunate part is that we've waited so long to ask that question. I wish we'd asked it before we embarked upon the series of bailouts and stimulus bills that we have embarked upon over the last several years. I am happy that I'm one of only 17 Members of Congress who voted against each and every one of those, but I'm unhappy where it has brought us, which is the fear that we had: that this runaway spending would bring us to a point where we had to begin cutting the national defense capabilities of our country. Today, we will vote on the Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2219, which will reduce the President's budget for national defense by $8.9 billion. That's only a downpayment of the cuts that are going to come. The next cuts, we are told, could be $400 billion to $700 billion from our national defense. Before we do that, there are two crucial questions we need to ask. The first one is: What is the risk assessment that the United States faces today? Now, that should be answered by our Quadrennial Defense Review, but if you look at a bipartisan independent assessment of that Quadrennial Defense Review, you'll find out that we are a train wreck that is on its way to happening because that defense assessment has truly become no more than a reaffirmation of what we are already doing. The second thing that we should be asking before we decide what we can cut is how much we are currently spending and what the risk will be if we make those cuts. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense hasn't provided us with the audited financial statements the law requires so that we know where we're spending those dollars and so that we know the true risk of making those cuts. Yet, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you that there is a way you can find out. Our commanders in the field provide us with the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress, which is a classified document. Now, I know as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for the Armed Services Committee that I'm in the minority, and am probably going to vote against this bill today. But, Mr. Speaker, I am also in the minority of the individuals who have read this classified report. And the one thing that I would encourage our Members to do before they cast their vote today to begin down that series of cuts to our national defense is at least go in to our staff today and read the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress that is a classified document. Our staff is ready to show you the document, to let you review that document. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you will just do that, it will be very difficult to then come on this floor and begin to start voting to cut and make the cuts we're going to make to national defense. Mr. Speaker, that's why today I can't support that bill and will be voting against it.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boehner resolution, but not because I feel that the President has stated a correct policy for us being in Libya. I think he hasn't. All that you'll hear on the floor today would lead to a policy that, if we adopt it, would put us in war with five or six other countries tomorrow. But, secondly, I don't support the fact of how we got in there because I think clearly he didn't go through the proper procedures that we need and didn't comply with the War Powers Act. But, Madam Speaker, I also realize that regardless of that disagreement he is the President of the United States; and as such he has information about our national defense that many Members of Congress don't have that we need to have shared with us. And, second, Madam Speaker, as the President of the United States, when it comes to foreign policy issues of this magnitude, we need to give him some latitude to present that case and make it to this Congress. Madam Speaker, the Boehner resolution does that in a reasonable way by giving him 14 days to present that information. But I believe, as many people do, at the end of that 14 days, if he hasn't done so, if he hasn't made that case, if he hasn't given us that information, we need to be prepared to launch the subpoenas to get the information, or we need to be back on this floor taking action to cut off the funding of what's taking place there. Madam Speaker, I hope we will support the Boehner resolution. I think it's a reasonable approach and the correct approach.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We all know this: Every great champion knows that he hears from the sideline those voices who are constantly screaming for him to quit, those voices who tell him the race is just too tough, the finish line just too far away, just quit. Mr. Chairman, when I listen to what I'm hearing today and I realize that both sides now in Afghanistan are working for a 2014 timetable, they're both serious about it, they're both pursuing it, I think, who would love this amendment? Well, I've heard a lot about our troops, but I just got back last week and I talked to a lot of troops across Afghanistan, and I will tell you, I don't think there was a one of them that I talked to that would have supported this amendment. The second thing is, I talked to young individuals who were elected to the Parliament in Afghanistan who were talking about concepts of freedom for the first time and transparency and who were working to change that government in Afghanistan. Not one of those individuals that I spoke to would have supported this amendment. I saw young children for the first time in Afghanistan beginning to flood into school every day. Not one of them would have looked and supported this amendment. I talked to Afghan soldiers who were being trained and who realize the importance they have of reaching that 2014 time period and taking over the reins, and not one of them would have supported this amendment. But I tell you who would have. The Taliban and al Qaeda would love any glimpse of hope that we're going to get out of there before we get the job done. Mr. Chairman, I want to finish with this. I heard my friend from North Carolina talk about the price tag we pay. Let there be no question that we know the price tag we pay, that our men and women fighting over there know the price tag they are paying, but they also know that our failure to win in Afghanistan and meet the goals we have is a far greater price tag for us to pay. That is why we should defeat this amendment.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, he is right. That's why we have the inventory included in here. That's why we require the policy. All of that is included in here, it's just that the approach that the Armed Services Committee has done is a much more balanced approach. It's one that gives the Department of Defense the tools they need. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and hope we will defeat this amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, most of all, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for doing what many people often think is impossible in this House, and that is bringing forth a bipartisan bill, 60-1. 60-1, in the committee, this bill passed with this provision in it. One of the keys with bipartisanship is that the American people realize it's important when we come to national defense that we have both Republicans and Democrats supporting in the same direction. And the key to that oftentimes is the word ``balance,'' which is not always a sexy issue, but it is so important. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, when it comes to the workforce, there are some people who don't like the word ``balance.'' They either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government--some on this side, some on this side--but then, Mr. Chairman, there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector. I think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance. And it said what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testified: We can no longer do it with just all government employees; we can't do it with all military employees; we can't do it with all contract employees; but every single one of them will tell you we need that mix. The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to workforce management and a total force management, which is what we need to do, the most important thing this legislation does, which is to defend and protect the people of the United States of America. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment, that we will keep the bipartisan approach that came out of this committee's work, that we will keep the balance, we will not remove this tool from the arsenal that the Department of Defense needs, and we will reject the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't think the gentleman is on the Armed Services Committee so oftentimes might not have heard so many times the people who meet with us and tell us the importance they need for this overall comprehensive approach. And I'll just point out to the gentleman, as he mentioned the need for an inventory, it's in the bill. The second thing I would tell you is the inventory alone doesn't do anything unless we go the next step, which is in this bill, which is to say that we're going to develop a policy from the inventory. We can have all the inventory, all the statistics in the world, but what's wonderful about this bill and what this bill does is it takes all of that information and it creates a total force management approach, which is exactly what we need for the national defense of this country. Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I don't know why we would want to try to skew that one way or the other and take away opportunities for the Department of Defense to get the right balance between military, civilian, and contractor personnel. The bill that came out of the committee--again, 60-1, overwhelmingly supported by the people who have been at all the hearings, heard all the testimony--is a bipartisan approach, strikes the right balance. This amendment would skew that balance. I hope we will reject the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. I know he is sincere in talking about deficit reduction, and I certainly appreciate that. All of us on this side are equally sincere. In fact, I'm one of only 17 Members of this body who voted against every single one of the bailouts and stimulus bills because we realized what it was doing to the deficit in this country. Secondly, I share the gentleman's concern when he talks about some of DOD's decisions to change from private contractors to civilians because some of those decisions haven't been based on business models. But just because they have not all been correct doesn't mean they have all been wrong. And the problem with this approach is that it's exactly the wrong approach because it will be a disincentive to the Department of Defense to try to reach these efficiencies. The reason that DOD has an incentive to try to make these efficiencies is so that they can reprioritize and use these dollars for programs that are absolutely vital and important for the national defense of the country. To say that every time they make those savings we are going to take off of the top line of the Department of Defense will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to make those savings. And here are the effects that we have. If we don't have civilians doing these jobs, we have had testimony coming before our committee from our generals and our admirals that basically what that means is they have to take military personnel to do that work, which means they don't have the time to do the training that they need to do to be prepared to fight and defend this country. The other concern we have with some of the reductions that we would be taking out of DOD, in the budget submitted to us this year, they were actually pushing back on facility maintenance that we needed to keep our facilities updated to only 80 percent of the maintenance that was required. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's vitally important that we do a lot for deficit reduction. I think it's vitally important that we look at the fact, for example, that on some of our stimulus bills we're talking about $800 billion. In this, we're talking about several million dollars. But I think the most important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we make sure we are giving DOD the incentives they need to make sure they are prioritizing correctly the dollars that they have and that we not take money off of the top line of the defense budget, which I think would be detrimental to us at this time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer my good friend's question by saying I absolutely believe what Admiral Mullen said. When you look at the efficiencies that the Department of Defense has been talking about, we're talking about roughly $179 million. But I would suggest my friend look at comparing that to the $800 billion that we spent on a stimulus package which I voted against because I realized what it was doing to the deficit in this country, exactly what the admiral mentioned. The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would suggest to the gentleman is, quite honestly, I will tell him I do not know if the Constitution mandates or gives us the authority to bail out the auto industry or the insurance industry or the banking industry or the mortgage industry or whatever else we've been bailing out, but one thing I do know is this. When some of the smartest people this Nation has ever birthed came together and agreed on one thing in our Constitution, the thing they mandated that this Congress do is to maintain strong armies and navies and to defend this country. And one of the things I unabashedly will say is that we need to stand firm and make sure the Department of Defense has the dollars that they need to defend and protect freedom and to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. And I believe this amendment goes a step towards taking that ability away from them. With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and I appreciate his work on the Armed Services Committee. He's always very thoughtful and always committed to the national defense of our country. As I listened to him over and over again, I was agreeing with many of the things that he said. I think oftentimes the decisions that the Department of Defense has made under the guise of efficiencies have not been efficiencies at all. They could have actually cost us more. I think, secondly, they have been made without being well thought out. I think sometimes they have backfilled their analyses after they made those decisions. But as I read the gentleman's amendment, basically it would suspend all the sourcing and workforce management policies based on all of DOD's efficiency initiatives, which is a wide gamut. Mr. Chairman, I think that, even though, as I mentioned before, I think oftentimes the Department of Defense has been wrong in some of its efficiencies, that doesn't mean they've been wrong in every situation. And one of the things that I think is a vital flaw in the gentleman's amendment is that there's no offset for the amendment to cover the reverse on the planned savings. In fact, according to the information I have been given, the cost of not implementing these efficiencies could be as much as $3 billion. That is off of the top line of the Defense budget. And I know the gentleman would agree with me that, at this particular point in time, such a huge hit to the Department of Defense would not be in the best interest of the national defense of the country. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment. I hope that I can work with the gentleman and other members of the committee so we can make sure DOD gets this right as they move down the road. But certainly we don't want to put this kind of impact on our men and women in uniform at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to applaud the gentleladies for the amendment they have brought forward because they have hit a true problem with the Department of Defense. There is a statute requiring that the Department of Defense audit their financial records, and they have failed do that. They didn't do it in 2007, didn't do it in 2008, didn't do it in 2009, didn't do it in 2010. They are not going to do it this year. But this is part of a bigger problem. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have got to do for the national defense of this country, first of all, is determine what the true threat assessment is without having budgetary influences. The independent panel that reviewed our QDR has said that they are very, very concerned that our QDR, our defense strategies, are dictated more by the budget than they are by risk assessments. And I am proud of the fact that the chairman and the ranking member have fought very hard to make sure in this bill they have moved us in that direction. Secondly, we've got to determine the true cost of defending the country based on those risk assessments. And thirdly, we've got to determine what the risks are if we don't do it. And the fourth thing, as the gentlelady mentioned, we've got to know where our money is going, and right now we do not know that. But the unfortunate thing is this bill is just a bridge too far. It is a risky situation to begin cutting all of the funding from many of these operations and we are not cutting the missions. While I agree with the gentlelady's concern and think we need to work towards it, I am proud of the work that we have done in this committee this year to move that forward. I can assure the gentlelady we are going to continue to work to hold DOD's feet to the fire and to make sure they're accountable for the dollars they spend. The American taxpayers deserve that. But I hope we will reject this amendment because our men and women in uniform and the people of the United States also deserve to make sure we're doing everything possible to defend and protect this country, and I'm afraid this amendment would put that defense in jeopardy. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?