Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the long delayed troop funding supplemental. The failure to pass this supplemental before the August work period would result in severe consequences to our military departments. Last Thursday, Undersecretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force testified at our committee that, without this supplemental, their services will be dangerously close to the point of having to furlough Department of Defense employees. According to Robert Work, Undersecretary of the Navy, the failure to pass the supplemental before the recess would ``hamstring the department's operations for the remainder of the year and significantly disrupt operations within the department.'' Madam Speaker, these are departments at war. The President sent us his troop funding request in February. Our former commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, urged its passage by Memorial Day. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said if the supplemental were not passed by the Fourth of July recess, the department would have to resort to doing stupid things. Now we are 60 days past Memorial Day. Those of us here in Congress cannot lose sight of the broader perspective. Our brave military men and women and their civilian counterparts are in the midst of a tough fight that is critical to U.S. national security. Cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment. I have confidence that General Petraeus and our troops will succeed in Afghanistan if given the time, space, and resources they need to complete their mission. In December and again when we tapped General Petraeus, the President reminded us of why we are in Afghanistan. It was the epicenter of where al Qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent Americans. The timeline for success in Afghanistan can not be dictated by arbitrary political clocks here in Washington. It must be driven by the operational clock in Kabul, Kandahar, and the Afghan countryside. We all hope and pray that this goal can be accomplished by July 2011, but conditions on the ground must dictate the pace of any withdrawal. The Democratic leadership in the House has tried to advance their domestic political agenda on the backs of our forces while at the same time permitting one antiwar measure after another to be debated on the House floor. This is cynical and wrong. A vote on a clean troop funding bill is long overdue. We should have accomplished this work months ago, not in the last minutes before we adjourn for the August work period. We must send this troop funding to the President without further delay. I encourage all Members to send a clear message to our military men and women by supporting this critical troop funding bill. This Congress believes in you. We support you and we honor your dedication.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution and I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs and the Armed Services Committees who are opposed to this ill-timed and ill-conceived measure. I am disappointed that the House Democratic leadership would allow this resolution to come to the floor for a vote at this time. In April 2009, the President released his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and began to make the case to the American people that security and stability in the region are vital to the U.S. national security interests. I support this strategy. In Pakistan, instability and violence have reached new highs with the insurgency moving eastward toward the capital of Islamabad and bombings and suicide attacks on the rise. This fight not only affects the people of Pakistan but our security, too. Moreover, Pakistan is an essential partner to the United States, both in the near and the long term, and we must remain committed to building trust between our two nations. It remains in our national interest to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and to ensure they will have no safe havens from which to attack the American people. In Pakistan, the government and people are increasingly seeing the insurgency operating from the tribal border areas as the most existential threat to their country. Despite Pakistan's increased military operations, the scale, nature, and frequency of violence in Pakistan makes it a nation more appropriately comparable to a combat zone, such as that found in Afghanistan, and it should be treated as such rather than as a central European country seeking foreign military financing. That is why our military partnership with Pakistan is essential. There are approximately 230 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan--all assigned to the Office of the Defense Representative to Pakistan. This small contingent is in Pakistan at the invitation of the Government of Pakistan to support security assistance programs and training to deepen our cooperative relationship with Pakistan. Let me be clear. This is not a combat mission but a train and equip role for the U.S. trainers in Pakistan. These trainers were selected based on the requirements established by the Government of Pakistan. These programs are key to Pakistan's counterinsurgency operations-- training which Pakistan needs to defeat al Qaeda and Taliban forces operating within their borders. Representative Kucinich's resolution, if enacted into law, would mandate the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Pakistan by the end of 2010. Why consider this resolution now? Why second-guess the Commander in Chief and his commanders without giving the military a chance to implement the strategy? Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to send a clear message to our military men and women: This Congress believes in you. We support you, and we honor your dedication. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today, Madam Speaker, in strong support of House Resolution 1516 that recognizes the 65th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and that honors our veterans' tradition of service and sacrifice that continues to this day. I want to thank the chairman for making this opportunity possible, for his love of history, and his understanding of the sacrifices that our men and women have made since the founding of this great country. I particularly remember, as a young boy, World War II, my dad served in the Philippines. And I remember the excitement of when he returned home after the war. There was a chain link fence that separated us from the plane. And as my dad got off the plane, he was carrying a little baby of a lady that was getting off the plane at the same time. And my mom, a very enthusiastic young lady, started to climb that chain link fence. She wanted to see her ``Cookie'' as she referred to my dad. You know, that same scene was happening all across America, and it's happened many times since, as young men and young women have returned home. They have shouldered a burden that subsequent generations have not been forced to share. Our entire Nation mobilized to fight a war of national survival. Men and women of all races and creeds put aside their differences and rallied around our national colors, turning our Depression woes into industrial and military might. These were Americans of incredible courage and dedication. Even with the millions of stories about the heroes of the Second World War, you don't have to look past our own back yard to find Americans who did incredible things in the service of our country. In California's 25th District, men like retired Air Force General Chuck Yeager, who, as an enlisted airman, was stationed at George Air Force base in Victorville. After General Yeager earned his commission and pilot's wings, he deployed to fight the Nazi war machine in Europe, where he was shot down, evaded capture, returned to friendly lines and returned to fight, earning the coveted title of ``Ace'' for shooting down Luftwaffe fighters. After the war he returned to California and Palmdale, where he became the first man to break the sound barrier on October 14, 1947. Today, the rolling desert wind that Chuck Yeager soared over inspires the next generation of Air Force test pilots at Edwards Air Force Base. Central California is home to an incredibly diverse environment, from soaring mountains to barren desert to dense urban sprawl. It was the open desert that in 1942 became the home of Marine Corps Logistic Base Barstow. Vital equipment and vehicles for the Marine Corps island hopping campaign was shipped to Barstow in preparation for deployment to the Pacific theater. Barstow later became the home to many of these veterans who made their homes and developed the economy of San Bernardino County. Central California is also home to one of the more difficult passages of the Second World War, the Manzanar Internment Camp, where Japanese Americans were relocated and held captive. Many of these young Americans jumped at the chance to prove their devotion to America, and enlisted from Manzanar, deployed to the European theater, and distinguished themselves in combat service to their true native country, the United States of America. In 1940, an aerial gunnery range was established in the Mojave Desert, which grew into what is now the National Warfare Training Center at Fort Irwin. Fort Irwin is the premiere military training facility in the Western Hemisphere, where servicemen and women from all our Armed Forces receive the finest training available to prepare them to face our enemies in combat and build damaged peoples into civil societies. Then, as now, what has set our Armed Forces apart is their commitment to a moral war, a just war, an American way of war. Today the legacy of these men and women lives on in our servicemembers who serve around the country, around the world in defense of freedom, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. The soldiers who liberated Dachau are no different from those soldiers who today ensure that young Afghan girls can go to school without being murdered by Taliban thugs. The Marines who held the line on Wake Island today ensure that a shaky government in Marjah will be given a legitimate chance to succeed. Our Air Corps that decisively proved itself over the skies of Europe and the Pacific is now a unique branch of service and a force with truly global reach. The sacrifices our Navy made in the Second World War leave behind a tradition of absolute dedication to duty, and a role of unquestioned dominance on the high seas. I urge the House to join me and pass this resolution to commemorate the end of the Second World War, and honor the servicemembers who are currently serving in combat operations abroad. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. In closing, I would like to just again thank the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor. Again, we have personal remembrances of people that fought in that great war and those of their families that have continued on and those who continue to serve in the armed services today. We just had a memorial service a couple of months ago in my community where I live, and we had a couple of men there that were still able to wear their World War II uniforms. It was and continues to be an honor to see them each Memorial Day. I don't know how many more years we will have them with us. But they are a great reminder of the wonderful things that they stood for and continue to stand for, as they have been called the Greatest Generation. I encourage all of our Members to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee ranking member, Mr. Dreier, for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader pointed out that all of us are going to have a chance to express our views. Some different views have been expressed here this morning. But the way our system works after all of our views are expressed, we have a Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief last year took 90 days to thoroughly study the effort in Afghanistan. He made a decision. The decision was that we carry a counterinsurgency war to make our security safe so that al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot have a safe haven from which they could continue to launch attacks on us. In carrying out that strategy, he placed General McChrystal in charge of the troops and he approved 30,000 additional troops for the area. He also requested that we send an additional $33 billion to support those troops. Now we know about the tragedy with General McChrystal. We know that his resignation was accepted. We know that the President nominated General Petraeus to take his place. General Petraeus appeared before the Senate last week and again reiterated the need for this money, as Secretary Gates had the week before. He said that if we didn't get this money, we had to start doing stupid things. General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. He is on his way right now to Kabul to take over this command. And we're here debating a rule that will delay further the money that those troops need over there. Sunday is the Fourth of July. George Washington on the 9th of July in 1776 was so impressed by that Declaration of Independence that he had all of the Continental Army come to ranks and have that document read to them. We're going to be reminded again of that Sunday, and how important it is for us to follow our Commander in Chief and to give our troops the things they need.

Mr. McKEON. The letters that General Washington wrote to the Congress, I wish we could have him here now and see the letter that he would probably send us, accusing us of dithering while the troops are out there putting their lives on the line. I ask that we defeat this rule. It doesn't have to be that complicated. We can defeat this rule and this afternoon turn it right around, pass the bill that the Senate already passed, and have the money on the way to the troops next week. I ask my colleagues to please join me in defeating this rule and moving forward in that.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the leader for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the House Democratic leadership would allow a vote on these three amendments at this time. Make no mistake, all three would go far to cripple the war effort in Afghanistan and directly undermine the Commander in Chief. Just 24 hours ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as the new commander of the U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan. And yet, not a day later, here we are on the House floor taking dangerous political potshots at our troops' mission and the President's strategy to surge an additional 30,000 troops in the region. I strongly oppose all three Afghanistan amendments before us. Not only would they tie the hands of the Commander in Chief, but they send the exact wrong message to our allies and enemies alike at such a critical moment in our efforts in Afghanistan. Today, our newly confirmed commander walked the halls at NATO headquarters, working to reassure our allies that our country is committed to this war. And right now he is heading to Afghanistan to take command. We should stand in unity with him, not sit here in Washington taking vote after vote to strip funding from our warfighters before his plan even touches down. General Petraeus has proven himself to be one of America's most capable military officers. He turned around a perilous situation in Iraq, and our combat troops have started coming home. By the end of August, our troop levels in Iraq will be down to 50,000 for training and reserve purposes. I believe the President has chosen the right commander and the right strategy in Afghanistan. I'm confident that General Petraeus and our troops can succeed if given the time, space, and resources they need to complete their mission. As the General arrives in Afghanistan, those of us here in Congress cannot lose sight of the broader perspective. Our brave military men and women and their civilian counterparts are in the midst of a tough fight that's critical to the U.S. national security. Cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment. In December, and again last week, the President reminded us why we are in Afghanistan. It was the epicenter of where al Qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent Americans. After an exhaustive 90-day review last fall, the President recommitted the United States to defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban. The timeline for success in Afghanistan cannot be dictated by arbitrary political clocks here in Washington. It must be driven by the operational clock in Kabul, Kandahar and the Afghanistan countryside. We all hope and pray that the goal can be accomplished by July 2011, but the President must adhere to his recent comments that conditions on the ground will dictate the pace of any withdrawal next summer. I urge my colleagues to reject these ill-timed measures, reject attempts to strip funding for our warfighters and, instead, show our troops and allies a united front in our efforts.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Bethel A.M.E. Church for 59 years of outstanding community service. Organizations such as Bethel A.M.E. strengthen communities through faith and selfless charity. From the Church's humble beginnings to the present day, those involved with Bethel A.M.E. have shown steadfast dedication to their surrounding community and have worked diligently to improve the lives of those less fortunate Americans. Once again, congratulations to Bethel A.M.E. Church on its 59th anniversary. The Church has truly been a force of good in Barstow and I look forward to its continued growth and progress in advancing goodwill throughout California's 25th District.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), who is the author of one of the amendments.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I am sorry that we weren't given more time to debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in using the time that I do have, I would like to read a couple more letters into the Record. This first one is from the American Legion, from the national commander, and this is a letter that he sent to President Obama. ``Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about reports that you might seek an amendment in Congress which would end the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy,'' which amendment will be before us shortly this evening. ``As the Nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we feel strongly that the current policy has served the U.S. military well for 17 years and it would not be wise to make a major cultural change in the middle of two wars and with tension rising on the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the Department of Defense has already directed a study on the policy, and it would be premature to act before the commission conducting the study releases its finding. It defies logic.'' I will put that letter in the Record. The American Legion, Indianapolis, IN, May 25, 2010. Hon. President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about reports that you might seek an amendment in Congress which would end the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' (DADT) policy. As the nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we feel strongly that the current policy has served the U.S. military well for 17 years and it would not be wise to make a major cultural change in the middle of two wars and with tension rising on the Korean peninsula. Moreover, the Department of Defense has already directed a study on the policy and it would be premature to act before the commission conducting the study releases its findings. It defies logic. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, who sat on the committee when DADT was implemented, opposes its repeal. Additionally, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey have also voiced concerns about the impact such a change would have on the current forte structure. The military is a unique environment, in which DADT has worked well without diminishing our nation's war-fighting capability. Indeed, the core purpose of our military is to fight and win our nation's wars. We believe that repealing the DADT policy at this time may well be detrimental to the security of our nation. Therefore, we urge you to postpone any such decision until the wisdom of this action has been fully studied. Sincerely, Clarence E. Hill, National Commander, The American Legion. The second one is from the National Military Family Association. The letter says, ``The National Military Family Association has long been an advocate for improving the quality of life of our military family members who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has appointed a working group charged to look at the true views and attitudes of our servicemembers and their families if that policy is repealed. We believe inclusion of servicemembers and their families in the process is imperative and that the review process must be allowed to run its course. ``Our association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the assessment of the impact of such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our servicemembers and their families deserve no less.'' I will include that letter in the Record. May 21, 2010. Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Boehner: The National Military Family Association has long been an advocate for improving the quality of life of our military family members, who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our Association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has appointed a working group charged to look at the true views and attitudes of our service members and their families if that policy is repealed. We believe inclusion of service members and their families in the process is imperative and that the review process must be allowed to run its course. Our Association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the assessment of the impact of such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our service members and their families deserve no less. We join with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen in opposing any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to completion of the assessment process. Should you have any questions please contact Kathleen Moakler, Government Relations Director. The National Military Family Association is the only national organization whose sole focus is the military family and whose goal is to influence the development and implementation of policies that will improve the lives of the families of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For over 40 years, its staff and volunteers, comprised mostly of military family members, have built a reputation for being the leading experts on military family issues. Sincerely, Joyce Wessel Raezer, Executive Director. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Let me reclaim my time because here's what's actually going to happen. And as I talked to the chiefs on the phone, one of them said very clearly, Look. I know how this works around here. I know what this means. I know how the amendment was written, that we take the vote tonight and then we follow through the process. But it becomes a sham because the headline, as he said, would be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' is repealed. And it's already on the headline. I just saw the news alert. ``Senate votes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He says, I understand that. But those troops out at the FOBs in Afghanistan, when they see it, when they hear it, they're going to see it's repealed. Why are you now asking me my opinion? It's done. It's a done deal. So while we may understand that by law that it will follow through this process, in reality, it will be set tonight. And that's why we should have had more than 10 minutes, 5 minutes on our side, to discuss this. All we were given was 5 minutes. And that's why we've had to take time. We could have spent time talking about all of the wonderful things in this bill, and yet we've had to talk because this thing is going to have more impact on our military and on our country. You smile, Mr. Leader. And if you really feel that, then why don't we just follow the process? And I'll be happy to yield.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, I listened raptly to the majority leader. I always try to. He always has a lot to say, and he says it very well. And that was a very eloquent speech, and because you are a Member of Congress and because we are Members of Congress, we can come here to the floor and we can express our opinion. I'm asking that the members of the armed services have the same opportunity before we have this vote tonight on the Murphy amendment. And the reference was made to General Powell. And I was not on the committee at the time. But when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was instituted, he was a strong proponent. And he also mentioned that he didn't believe the comparison held up between the blacks having civil rights and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So while I think that your comments were very, very well spoken, I think all of us should have that opportunity to have that great debate. I just think that we should follow the process that's been established where the Secretary appoints this study. They make the study, and then after the study is presented to us in December, after the military has a chance to give their say, that after the study is released, we follow the process. I don't know why we're so afraid to stick with the policy, to listen to the members of the armed services, to give them the opportunities they have. I have letters from each of the Chairmen and the members of the Joint Chiefs saying we owe that to them. We should not break faith with them. They went out in good faith after the Secretary set that policy, and now we're short circuiting. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time we have remaining.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to how much time we have left.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Djou), a new Member that will be serving on our committee that we are really happy to hear from at this time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to, again, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I will not oppose the amendment. I will support the amendment as a good member of the committee.