Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. While my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle will argue that disclosing the personal information of the students and instructors of WHINSEC is in the name of transparency and good oversight, what they're actually suggesting is that the United States does not respect the privacy of foreign citizens and, more specifically, our allies in the western hemisphere who are invited to attend the U.S. military schools. What concerns me is that this amendment exposes WHINSEC's students and instructors, which includes U.S. citizens, to hostile personal hazards, such as identity theft and surveillance, intimidation or attack from foreign intelligence security and terrorist organizations. In terms of oversight, Congress already receives the information. We just received a copy of the attendees for 2008, and we were able to keep our partners and their families safe. I think it's important to recognize that WHINSEC is an important tool for strengthening security cooperation with our key allies in the western hemisphere. This includes Mexico, our neighbor to the south. WHINSEC provides training to Mexican land forces in the Spanish language and builds their capacity to prevail in the fight against drug trafficking, organized crime and other transnational threats. Such training and cooperation is critical to our homeland security. It baffles me that given the narco-fight on our border, some of my colleagues think that now is the right time to expose our past, current and future partners and deprive them of their safety and security. I will oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McKEON. I think Mr. Hunter just stated it very clearly. The exit strategy should be to win, and then bring our forces home. It was stated earlier that General Petraeus made a statement that Afghanistan has been known over the years as a graveyard of empires, and we cannot take that history lightly. That was part of a speech that he gave. I would like to say some other things that he mentioned in that speech: ``We have a hugely important interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational terrorists. And to complement and capitalize on the increased military resources, more civilian assets, adequate financial resources, close civil- military cooperation and a comprehensive approach that encompasses regional states will be necessary. Our objectives are of enormous importance. We all need to summon the will and the resources necessary to make the most of it.'' It was just a couple of years ago when we were having a similar debate when we were being told by some that we needed to get out of Iraq, that there was no way we could win, and General Petraeus was called to lead the surge. And now he is telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, I think now is not time to be retreating. Now is not the time when we're sending 20,000 troops and are ready to embark on this surge to win, to help the people of Afghanistan and preserve our national interests there. Now is the time to let the forces know that we support them. We support their mission. We want them to be successful and return home safely. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a young man who joined the Marine Corps the day after 9/11, served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and is a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Chairman Skelton.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute at this time to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Skelton and I agree that this amendment does more harm than good. This amendment sends the wrong signal at the wrong time for the government and people of Afghanistan, our military men and women deployed and deploying to Afghanistan, our NATO and non-NATO allies, and the enemy. Focusing on an exit versus a strategy is irresponsible and fails to recognize that our efforts in Afghanistan are vital to preventing future terrorist attacks on the American people and our allies. In March of 2009, the President rightly outlined a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its affiliated networks and their safe havens. While we debate this amendment, our military men and women are deploying to the Afghan theater as part of an additional 21,000 forces being sent to fight the insurgency in the south and train the Afghan National Security Forces. Instead of focusing on an exit, as the amendment calls for, Congress needs to provide the funding and resources required to support the President's strategy and allow our military commanders to succeed. As the commander of U.S. Central Command, General Petraeus has consistently stated it will take sustained, substantial resources to implement our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and give our troops and the government of Afghanistan the opportunity to succeed. Lastly, the Department of Defense opposes the amendment, and I also oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I yield back my time.

Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

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

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

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have had, I think, a lot of good input tonight on the bill. I ask that all of our Members tomorrow support the bill. In the morning we will move into the amendment process. The chairman and his staff have done a tremendous job of helping put the 60-plus amendments that were approved out of the Rules Committee into a process that I think will help us in moving forward in an expeditious manner in the morning. I look forward to that. Again, I thank the chairman for his graciousness and his leadership in moving the bill to this point. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. As you know, Chairman Skelton and I included in our committee report language that stresses our belief that these insourcing initiatives should not be driven by random goals or arbitrary budget reductions. In the language we also note that these insourcing initiatives should give appropriate consideration to the impacts on the contractor workforce. I'm also very concerned that the estimated cost savings will never be realized. That said, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Ohio and any other interested parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important issue of how to balance the defense workforce: military, civilian employee, and contract.

Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. You are correct, the Defense Department is moving toward reshaping its workforce by reducing the number of service support contractors and replacing them with government employees. We have been told this effort will hire over 13,000 government civilians to replace support contractors at a proposed savings of $900 million.

Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?