Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this resolution, which I join as an original cosponsor with my good friends and colleagues, Congressman Chris Smith (NJ) and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA). I cannot express strongly enough my admiration and respect for their leadership on protecting and promoting human rights in China, and their commitment to remembering, commemorating and educating others on the events that took place in Tiananmen Square twenty-five years ago. Mr. Speaker, thousands of citizens brutally murdered. Students shot down by their own government. Tanks rolling into Tiananmen Square to ruthlessly repress the spark of hope ignited in the hearts of thousands of people. On June 4th, a massacre ended the weeks of student protest and civil society actions that sparked hope for change and good governance, hope for greater inclusion and democracy. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 years since Tiananmen Square--and China hopes that we've forgotten. But we have not forgotten. We have not forgotten Tiananmen Square, nor have we forgotten all the brave Chinese citizens who every day attempt to exercise the basic rights promised to them under the Chinese Constitution. The right to speak out and to bring grave matters to the attention of their government. Chinese citizens and their legal advocates who have tried to bring issues like government corruption, corporate exploitation of workers, unsafe working conditions, inadequate housing, agricultural mismanagement--so many find themselves the targets of government repression, legal reprisal, harassment, house arrest and even long and brutal imprisonment. They deserve the right to speak out and engage in intellectual and public debate about what constitutes fundamental human rights and respect, what constitutes the freedom to think and worship as one chooses, what constitutes respect for the ostensible cultural diversity of China when faced with the reality of brutal cultural repression in Tibet and Xinjiang. There are so many past and current heroes and heroines in China who have dared to think, write, speak and act freely in defiance of government control, censorship and mythology. We remember all of them today, past and present, as we debate this resolution and recall the events of 25 years ago. We stand with you, today and always. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 599.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I do not doubt the good intentions of its sponsors and supporters, but I firmly believe this bill, if enacted into law at this time, would have serious and negative consequences. As the International Crisis Group described in its May 21st report, Venezuela has reached a tipping point in civil, military and governmental relations. The violence that began in February has cost at least 42 lives--mostly protestors, but also some security forces-- injured hundreds, and produced scores of human rights violations and hundreds of arbitrary detentions. Finding a solution to this crisis is both urgent and complex. The question facing this Congress is what should the United States do to support the negotiations currently underway, difficult as that process might be; ensure that those responsible for violence and the excessive use of force are held to account and brought to justice; help open up political space and dialogue among various civil society actors; and lower or diminish the levels of violence and confrontation? The South American Union, UNASUR, with the support of the Vatican, is engaged in a dialogue process between the political opposition and the democratically-elected Maduro government. A clear agenda still needs to be set for this dialogue, which began with a couple of promising meetings, but now appears frozen. What is not needed is for the U.S. to appear to be interfering in the process and allowing the Maduro government to portray the political crisis of the past few months as a conflict between Venezuela and the United States, rather than a crisis between the Maduro government, political opponents and certain sectors of civil society. The State Department has suggested that some members of the opposition have asked them not to pursue sanctions which might put them on the defensive. Just the talk of U.S. sanctions has allowed President Maduro and his ministers to deflect attention from their lack of concessions and their failure to ease the economic crisis and deal effectively with safeguarding the security of ordinary citizens from criminal violence and attacks. Not only do I believe these sanctions would be counter-productive inside Venezuela, but I also believe they will further damage U.S. relations in the hemisphere. U.S. allies in the region such as Colombia and Brazil are leading a serious diplomatic effort to resolve this crisis. They have publicly criticized U.S. efforts to impose sanctions. Sanctions legislation at this time would, once again, represent to the rest of Latin America the return of the U.S. taking unilateral actions opposed by the rest of the region. They would be considered not just unhelpful, but an insult. I am no stranger to taking action and imposing sanctions on government officials and individuals engaged in gross violations of human rights. But I also believe there is a right time and a right way to do so. This legislation is premature. I urge my colleagues to give diplomacy a chance to work, to give our Latin American neighbors time to promote dialogue, one that de-escalates tensions, identifies and holds to account those responsible for killings and human rights violations, and helps Venezuela not only to resolve this crisis but to advance a more pluralistic society. Don't throw gasoline on the fire. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and oppose H.R. 4587.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kathleen J. McDermott, the Executive Director of the Montachusett Opportunity Council, Inc. (MOC) a $17 million antipoverty community action agency serving North Central Massachusetts. After many many years of dedicated service, Kathy will be enjoying a well-earned retirement. MOC does incredible work. Their mission is to alleviate poverty and create healthy communities by providing services, coordinating community resources that promote self-sufficiency and advocating for social change. Last year, MOC provided services in 30 communities and served over 20,000 individuals Prior to becoming Executive Director, Kathy was the agency's Director of Administration and Finance. During her tenure the agency has developed many new initiatives. MOC is known for addressing the changing needs of the community by planning strategically, using new approaches and collaborating with community partners to build a more vibrant community. Programs the agency administers include Asset Development, ChildCare and Head Start, Youth Services, Education, Training and Employment, Wellness and Nutrition Services, Energy Conservation, Housing, Elder Services, Homelessness Services and Neighborhood Development. Kathy was instrumental in the establishment of the Community Health Connections Family Health Center, a federally funded health center with sites in Fitchburg, Leominster and Gardner and served as its first President of the Board of Directors. When Kathy officially retires on August 1st, MOC will have big shoes to fill. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kathy on her retirement and wishing her the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I found interesting about the exchange that we have just had is that nobody can explain to me why we cannot have a vote on the bipartisan amendment that Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Lee and myself have brought before the House. Nobody can give us a reason why, other than it is not in order because they have the power to not make it in order. I want my colleagues to understand a few facts. 2,320 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. 19,718 U.S. troops have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2001. 127 soldiers were killed in 2013. 1,687 have been killed since the surge of 2009. An estimated 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. The VA estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day. At least 30 percent of veterans have contemplated suicide. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a say in the future of America's longest war. We all know that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. The American public is sick and tired of war. American interests are not advanced by another decade of war. And yet, what does this House of Representatives do when we consider the Department of Defense authorization bill? We do nothing. We do nothing. The only thing that happens is we bring germane amendments to the Rules Committee to be able to debate this issue so the Members will have a say when the President outlines his policy for Afghanistan beyond 2014. But it seems that the leadership of this House is perfectly satisfied just sitting back and just being okay with whatever happens. All we are asking for is that if we are going to stay beyond 2014, the President has to tell us what his plan is. That is not radical. That is not out there. He needs to tell us what his plan is, and we need to vote on it. That is our job. And if you don't want to take responsibility for issues like this, maybe you ought to think about retiring because it is an insult to the men and women who are serving our country for us to be silent and indifferent, to not do the proper oversight, to not debate these issues. It is an insult to the American taxpayer that we are letting the most corrupt government in the world--that is how the Karzai government has been rated, the most corrupt government in the world--continue to steal our money. We cut food stamps for poor people. We don't have enough money to take care of our veterans in the VA facilities. We are cutting back on moneys for roads and bridges. We can't extend Unemployment Compensation for people who have lost their jobs, and yet we just hand over millions and millions and millions of dollars. Let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we authorized in FY13 spending $87.2 billion for Afghanistan. We authorized in FY14 spending $85.2 billion. Proposed FY15 spending, $79.4 billion. Total since 2001, $778 billion. And when you add in the cost of the veterans care that will be needed and all the other associated costs, the total cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are about $4- to $6 trillion. And we are not even paying for most of it. We are borrowing it. It is going on our credit card. My friends wail about the deficit and the debt, but when it comes to just dumping money into this money pit called Afghanistan, they say nothing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590. Clause 9(c) of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the earmark disclosure rule prescribed by paragraphs (a) or (b) of clause 9 of rule XXI. House Resolution 590 waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 3361. Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to clause 9(c) of rule XXI that this rule may not be considered.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want my colleagues to understand one thing. The amendment that we are talking about is germane. I spent a great deal of time working with the Parliamentarian to make sure that the concerns that the Republican majority had about the germaneness of this amendment were addressed. It is a germane amendment. There is absolutely no reason at all for this not to be on the floor. Let me just say that it doesn't take any courage to praise the troops and then hide from the vote. It is an act of cowardice, quite frankly. The fact that we are debating a Defense Department authorization bill, we are at war, and we are not allowed to be able to consider an amendment about what our policy should be in Afghanistan, well, what do you tell the troops? What do you tell their families? This war is on auto-pilot and we will just let it go? I mean, we have a responsibility. This Chamber voted to send young men and women into harm's way. We have a responsibility and we are not living up to it. There is no reason in the world why this amendment should not be made in order. It is germane. It complies with all the rules. The only reason why it isn't made in order is because someone in the Republican leadership said, no, we are not going to have a debate; we are not going to have a vote. Maybe they are afraid they are going to lose. I heard last night that they don't want to embarrass the President. Really? I mean, select committees on Benghazi, 53 votes to overturn the Affordable Care Act. They don't want to embarrass the President? Well, with friends like you, the President doesn't need any enemies. The bottom line is this an important issue, and how dare we come to the floor on the defense bill and be silent and indifferent when it comes to Afghanistan. I am ashamed of this process. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't be debating this issue. We owe it to those young men and women who are over there, those who have sacrificed their lives, those who are at Walter Reed Hospital. How dare we bring a bill like this to the floor without addressing this most important issue. We are at war, and no one in this place seems to want to talk about it. Well, it is our responsibility just as much as it is the President's responsibility. To do nothing means we are complicit in continuing this war. I have had enough, and I think Members of this Chamber who agree with us ought to stand with us and vote against this rule. This process stinks. We played by the rules, we did everything right, and we got nothing--nothing on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, a bipartisan group, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina; Congressman Adam Smith, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee from Washington State; Congressman Garamendi; and Congresswoman Lee from California; and I, offered an amendment to be able to have a debate on a vote on our policy in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history. It seemed odd to me that a bill like the Department of Defense authorization bill would come to the floor without the ability for Members to have a vote on Afghanistan. We are at war, and you would never know it by the actions of this House. I am ashamed of this House that a bill like this would come to the floor and the leadership would block any attempt to be able to have a debate and a vote on what our policy should be in Afghanistan. The rule that we are going to debate later today makes in order 162 amendments. There are amendments on everything from deferred retirement for military chaplains to charging admission to air shows to public access to Rattlesnake Mountain. I am sure public access to Rattlesnake Mountain is a big deal, but it is not as big a deal as the war in Afghanistan, where we have brave men and women in harm's way because we put them there. The question is whether or not our policies should remain the same or whether it should change. The President of the United States has said that he wants to draw down American forces in 2014. I hope he does. But there are also reports that we may be there for a considerably longer period of time. I don't know what the policy is going to be, but let me read to you what this amendment that the Republican leadership blocked says. This is basically what we are asking here. It says: In the event that the United States Armed Forces remained deployed in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014, then no later than March 31, 2015, the President shall send to Congress a determination describing the purpose and expected duration of such deployment and the projected number of troops to be deployed. Who could possibly object to that? Basically, it is having the White House inform us of what the policy is. Where is the problem? The second part of it goes as follows: No later than 30 days following the receipt of the President's determination, Congress shall enact a joint resolution to improve the content of the President's determination. Should Congress vote against the President's determination, the President is directed to remove all troops not required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel in a safe, orderly, expeditious redeployment from Afghanistan. Does anybody really object to that? Does anybody object to doing what we are supposed to do--to have a say on issues like war? It astounds me that Members of Congress would want to hide behind the Rules Committee blocking bringing this to the floor as though it is a way to avoid a serious debate and a vote on this policy. By the way, the sponsors of this amendment have different opinions on Afghanistan. Some of us believe we should get out of there right now. That is where I am. Some of those who cosponsored this amendment believe that we should be there and have at least a small force in Afghanistan beyond 2014. So this is not about right now saying we want to get out of Afghanistan. What this is saying is that if the President decides to change his promise of keeping us there no later than December 2014, then we ought to have a vote. We ought to be informed of what is going on and we ought to have a vote. Who could object to that? Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of the House, he made a pledge that he would allow the House to work its will on major issues. This is a major issue. This is a major issue. If my friends want to know why the majority of the American people think that this place is dysfunctional, this is the reason: we can't get a vote on an issue as important as the war in Afghanistan. Now, there is really no excuse. It is germane. We spent a lot of time working with the Parliamentarian to make sure it is germane to satisfy the concerns of the majority. We did that. It is bipartisan. It is bipartisan. And of people who are cosponsors of the amendment, some want to end the war now and some believe that we need to keep troops there for a period beyond 2014. I mean, we have jumped through every hoop. What else can we possibly do? And for some reason, somebody in the leadership here said, no, the House of Representatives will not be able to work its will when it comes to Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article entitled ``CNN Poll: Afghanistan war arguably most unpopular in U.S. history.'' [From CNN Political Ticker] CNN Poll: Afghanistan War Arguably Most Unpopular in U.S. History (Posted by CNN Political Unit) Washington (CNN).--Support for the war in Afghanistan has dipped below 20%, according to a new national poll, making the country's longest military conflict arguably its most unpopular one as well. The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday also indicates that a majority of Americans would like to see U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan before the December 2014 deadline. Just 17% of those questioned say they support the 12-year- long war, down from 52% in December 2008. Opposition to the conflict now stands at 82%, up from 46% five years ago. ``Those numbers show the war in Afghanistan with far less support than other conflicts,'' CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. ``Opposition to the Iraq war never got higher than 69% in CNN polling while U.S. troops were in that country, and while the Vietnam War was in progress, no more than six in 10 ever told Gallup's interviewers that war was a mistake.'' The U.S. timetable for Afghanistan calls for the removal of nearly all troops by roughly this time next year, and that can't come fast enough for the vast majority of Americans. Just over half would rather see U.S. troops withdrawn earlier than December 2014. Only a quarter say that America should still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan after that deadline. Fifty-seven percent say the conflict is going badly for the U.S. and only a third say America is winning the war in Afghanistan. ``Independents have a much gloomier view of the war in Afghanistan than Republicans or Democrats,'' Holland said. ``That may be because a Republican president started the war and a Democratic president has continued it, so there may be some residual support among people who identify with either party.'' Some 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since the war began in the autumn of 2001. The U.S. is quickly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. If a bilateral security agreement that would keep up to 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014 isn't signed in the near future, the U.S. could withdrawal all forces from Afghanistan at the end of next year. The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International between December 16 and 19, with 1,035 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points. The discontent evident in the CNN poll is also seen in two other national surveys conducted earlier this month. Two-thirds of those questioned in an ABC News/Washington Post poll said the war has not been worth fighting, and an Associated Press/GfK. survey showed 57% saying the U.S. did the wrong thing in going to war in Afghanistan.

Mr. McGOVERN. The American people deserve better than what is on display here. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal not just to Democrats but to Republicans. I want to appeal to the fairness of Members in this Chamber. I want to appeal to their sense of making sure that what we do here is right. On this issue, we ought to have a vote, and the only way to get a vote is if you vote down the rule so we can go back to the Rules Committee and insert this amendment, that is totally germane, into the Department of Defense authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I am going to close by simply saying, it is moments like this where I feel a great sadness for this institution. Again, there are a lot of things in this Defense Department bill that we are going to debate that really, I think, one would fairly characterize as somewhat trivial, and I mentioned some of them earlier. The fact that we are at war and we can't vote on this war--we are being told that we can't have a say on what the future of our policy is--that is shameful. I am ashamed of this place for running such a closed system on the war. This is the defense bill. We are not talking about the education bill. We are not talking about the small business bill. This is the Department of Defense authorization bill. This is where we should have the debate. It is germane, and it should be made in order. I will just finish, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we are approaching Memorial Day. We are all going to go home and give great speeches. When people ask, What are you doing for our troops in Afghanistan, what are you doing to try to get them home, you will be able to say, nothing, because that is exactly what we are going to do if we can't consider this amendment. Nothing. What a shame. What a tragedy. What an insult to those men and women who are serving. What an insult to their families. What an insult to the American people. When you are in charge, you can do whatever you want, but I would urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to reject this rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, rise in strong opposition to this rule, which fails to make in order the bipartisan McGovern- Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee amendment on Afghanistan, and I will include the text of my amendment following my remarks. Mr. Speaker, ours is a very straightforward amendment. We worked very hard to make it thoughtful, bipartisan, and germane. It reiterates the President's commitment to complete the transition of U.S. combat, military, and security operations to Afghan authorities by the end of this year. It requires the President to send to Congress by the end of March next year a determination that describes the mission, duration, and level of troops of any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the Congress then has 30 days to enact a joint resolution to approve the President's determination. In the event that Congress votes against the President's determination, then the remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be withdrawn in a safe, orderly, and expeditious manner, taking into consideration the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment calling for just such a vote, but under this rule, those same Members will be denied the opportunity to make sure that the President presents clearly to Congress what he intends our troops to do in Afghanistan after the end of this year and for how long. Under this rule, Congress is denied the opportunity to vote on whether they approve the President's plan or not. I don't know how a vote on our amendment would turn out, and I certainly have no idea how a vote next year on keeping our troops in Afghanistan would turn out, but here is what I do know: I know that the men and women who will be asked to serve and perhaps to die in Afghanistan deserve a debate and a vote. I know their families deserve a debate and a vote. I know that the American people, who have spent billions and billions and billions of dollars on this war, deserve a debate and a vote; and I know that this Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to make our views known on this important issue. We are at war, Mr. Speaker. I know that some of my colleagues would rather not think about that. They would rather the issue of Afghanistan just go away, but wishing and hoping doesn't make it so. This is already the longest war in American history. The American people are tired of it. Our troops and their families have been stretched to their very limits. We have lost over 2,000 servicemembers and spent over $700 billion. What in the world is the Republican leadership afraid of, Mr. Speaker? Last night, some of my Republican colleagues told me that they were refusing to make this amendment in order because they didn't want to upset the President. Are you kidding me? Since when does this leadership care one iota about upsetting the President? We can vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times. We can have investigation after investigation after investigation about Benghazi, but we can't take 10 minutes to debate the war in Afghanistan? Give me a break. Besides, this amendment doesn't upset any plans or negotiations the President is currently carrying out on Afghanistan--not a one. It doesn't interfere with funding for the war, and it doesn't interrupt the deployment of our troops. I know, in their hearts, that many of my Republican colleagues agree with me, so I am going to give them one more chance to do the right thing. I urge you to support the McGovern-Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee amendment on Afghanistan. Strike section 1217 and insert the following:

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to include my amendment calling for a vote on keeping troops in Afghanistan after 2014, and that this amendment receive 10 minutes total debate like every other germane amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act. House Resolution 590 waives all points of order against further amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules. Therefore, I make a point of order, pursuant to section 426, that this rule may not be considered.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, we witnessed the very definition of political cowardice. For the second time in 3 years, the Republican leadership of this House refused to make a thoughtful, germane, and bipartisan amendment on Afghanistan in order to the defense authorization bill. The rule we will debate later today makes in order 162 amendments-- 162. There were amendments on everything from deferred retirement for military chaplains to charging admission to air shows and to ensuring public access to Rattlesnake Mountain. But we can't have a debate and a vote on holding the administration accountable for ending the war in Afghanistan? Because we are at war, Mr. Speaker. I know that we don't like to talk about it around here, and I know that some of my colleagues would rather bury their heads in the sand and hope it goes away, but our troops and their families deserve a debate, and Congress has the responsibility to give it to them. But no. But no. I don't know what the Republican leadership is afraid of, but this is outrageous, and I am not going to stand for it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this is not a normal rule, but it is a fair one. It is unusual because it combines two bills into one rule and makes in order several amendments for one of the bills. What might be unusual for my Republican friends is that I will support it. The rule makes in order the fiscal year 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill under an open rule. And although I wish the funding levels were higher, I believe it is a good thing to bring this bill to the floor under an open rule. This rule also makes in order general debate on the annual defense authorization bill along with seven amendments. That is a little unusual. Normally, the Rules Committee reports two rules: one for general debate and one for consideration of amendments. Now, I don't have any problem with these amendments being made in order, but I will voice my strong concerns tomorrow if the Rules Committee fails to make in order many of the amendments submitted for consideration. I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the chairman, Mr. McKeon, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, of the Armed Services Committee for their leadership and their hard work in crafting this bill each year and for coming to a bipartisan agreement on so many of the serious matters contained in this bill. This is a massive undertaking that touches on so many aspects of our defense and national security priorities and the health and the well- being of our military personnel and their families. But there are serious and substantive matters in this bill that we must debate over the next few days because they merit the attention of every single Member of this House. First and foremost, H.R. 4435 fails to make many of the difficult choices required by our current budgetary constraints and fiscal reality. This is a half-trillion-dollar bill. That is trillion, with a t, Madam Speaker. It provides $513.4 billion in discretionary budget authority. $495.8 billion of that is for the Department of Defense base budget; another $17.6 billion for defense-related activities, mainly nuclear, within the Department of Energy; and another whopping $79.4 billion for the so-called overseas contingency operations, or OCO. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4435 decreases direct spending by just $1 million in FY 2015. In a $500 billion bill, we can only find savings of $1 million? There is probably $1 million in the couch cushions at the Pentagon. Madam Speaker, this Congress just cut $8 billion in the farm bill for the SNAP program. That is an $8 billion cut to help hungry families put food on their table. But we couldn't find more than $1 million next year from the Pentagon budget? Give me a break. And if sequestration remains the law of the land, these funding levels simply will not stand, and another round of arbitrary reductions will harm our troops, our military civilian workforce, their families, and our military readiness. That is also unacceptable. So I oppose, and I have always opposed, sequestration for both defense and nondefense programs. But putting forward a bill that fails to make any hard decisions on reducing spending authority is not a solution. In fact, it compounds the problem. This brings me to Afghanistan, Madam Speaker, where we continue to squander lives and waste money. Since 2001, over 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan. Nearly 20,000 have been wounded. We lost 127 brave soldiers just last year alone. Estimates are that around 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. And the VA estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day. Since 2001, we have spent over $700 billion on this war. In this current year, fiscal year 2014, we are spending $7.1 billion every month in Afghanistan. The President is committed to bringing most of our troops home by the end of the year, and I trust him to keep his word to America's families. But he has also said that he wants to keep some level of forces remaining there, 5,000, maybe 10,000. And he wants to keep them in Afghanistan for an extended period of time. Whether you support keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 or whether you oppose it, as I do, I would hope that we can all agree that Congress should have a say in whether or not the longest war in American history continues. At a minimum, we owe the thousands of U.S. servicemen and -women who will be called upon to serve for years to come in Afghanistan a vote, and we owe it to their families, and we owe it to the American people. Now, Congressmen Walter Jones and Adam Smith and I have an amendment pending before the Rules Committee that would call for such a vote, and I hope the Rules Committee makes it in order so that one of the most important matters facing the American people can be debated and voted on. Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment that we three offered, calling for just such a vote on any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If that vote is to have any meaning whatsoever, then those same Members and this House must support the McGovern-Jones-Smith amendment once again this year. And this brings me to the overseas contingency operations, the OCO account. Madam Speaker, this bill authorized $79.4 billion for the OCO account for fiscal year 2015. Now, the last time I looked, the war in Iraq was over; the war in Afghanistan is winding down, with nearly all our troops heading home by the end of the year; and only a much smaller residual force for training operations and some special operations might remain deployed in Afghanistan, depending on what the President asks for. But the OCO funds don't ever seem to go down. The OCO is just $5 billion less than the current fiscal year. It certainly doesn't reflect the changing circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan. Where is all the money going? A February 28th Pentagon report concludes that the United States Government and its money ``created an environment that fostered corruption'' in Afghanistan. Maybe there are some lessons we need to learn here. Many assert that the OCO account is nothing more than a slush fund for the Pentagon. If we want to save some money, one of the first places we should look is getting rid of the OCO, putting everything back into the Pentagon base budget, and then taking a long and clear- eyed look at where spending needs to be reduced. Madam Speaker, there are many other problems with H.R. 4435: it continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates in Guantanamo; it undermines our nuclear security cooperation with Russia; it attempts to derail the multiparty negotiations with Iran; and it coddles the nuclear weapons budget. Foolish choices, wasteful spending, and wars without end. I urge my colleagues to vote to change course, to end the war in Afghanistan, to cut the nuclear arsenal, face reality, and make the tough choices in overall defense spending. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Madam Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of this debate, we have no objection to this rule. We are glad that the 2015 Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill is coming to the floor under an open rule. We have no problem with moving ahead on general debate or the amendments made in order on the Department of Defense authorization bill, and so we support this rule. It is my hope, as I said earlier, that when the next rule in the defense bill comes to the floor that it will allow for there to be debate on a number of the important issues that Members of this House feel deserve that debate. I have nothing but the highest regard for all those who serve on the House Armed Services Committee, but I have to say that this bill is too big. It is too big. We have not done a very good job, I don't believe, in this Congress of getting rid of the bloat, the waste, and the duplication within the Pentagon budget. For some reason, we have Members who think that the way you show you are tough in terms of the defense of our country is by supporting bills that add more and more and more money to the Pentagon's budget. The bottom line is that strong defense doesn't mean wasteful defense. It doesn't mean weapons systems that are obsolete or that are not practical or that are not needed anymore. It doesn't mean a bloated bureaucracy. Again, as I said earlier, this bill fails to make any of the tough choices. I want to make sure our troops get all the equipment and all the support that they need. I want to make sure that we are prepared for anything that might come at us in the future. But wasteful defense spending doesn't help us at all. And so there are some significant problems with the underlying bill. In addition to being too big, this bill also fails to cut our nuclear arsenal. We are spending billions and billions and billions of dollars maintaining an arsenal way bigger than anybody believes that we need to, but we don't deal with that issue. This bill continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates from Guantanamo, which is problematic. Again, this bill fails to face reality and make any of the tough choices in terms of overall defense spending. Again, I will appeal to my colleagues on the Rules Committee to please make sure that we have the opportunity to debate the issue of Afghanistan on this floor. We are at war, and we very rarely discuss it in this Chamber. To those who say, well, it is up to the President to decide whether we stay or go, I will remind my colleagues that we have a role in that, too. Our indifference and our silence over the last several years means we are complicit in this war's continuing, the longest war in the history of our country. As I said, I will offer an amendment, along with Mr. Jones of North Carolina and Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to make it clear that if the President wants to continue the deployment of U.S. forces beyond 2014, which was his stated policy last year, then we ought to vote on it. We ought to vote on it. And if you believe we should stay longer, you can vote ``yes.'' If you believe that enough is enough, then you can vote ``no.'' But after that time, after all this time, we have an obligation in this Congress to speak up and speak out and make sure that our constituents know what we are doing. We cannot allow this war to go on forever on autopilot. We have a responsibility here. I have heard the arguments of my friends who want to stay. They are compelling arguments. Make them on the House floor, and have the next Congress decide whether or not we should continue the war there. I will just close with this. When people say to me that there is no place to cut in the Pentagon's budget, I would urge them to talk to some of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces or some of the men and women who serve in the Pentagon who, over the years, I have met with who talk freely of places where we could cut without sacrificing any of our national security, places we could cut, quite frankly, that will enhance our security, because they believe that wasteful defense spending has no place in our budget, especially during these tough fiscal times. But I also believe when we talk about national defense it also means the quality of life in our country and whether or not people have a job, whether or not people have adequate health care, whether or not people have access to good education, and whether or not we end hunger and poverty in our country. All those things matter, as well. So, again, I urge my colleagues to support the rule because, quite frankly, there is no reason to oppose it. And I would urge my friends on the Rules Committee to please be generous in offering and allowing Members to offer many amendments on this bill. This is an important bill not just for people on the Armed Services Committee but for all Members. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.