On the recordJune 13, 2013
No, I will not yield to the gentleman. Here is the most important thing: The gentleman says that these troops need to be reduced. We've reduced troops. Mind you, the gentleman served in the early seventies. Here is 1989. We had 213,000 troops. We've already drastically reduced them. They're already down to one-sixth of what they were. We are headed towards 30,000 troops in 2013. You have to think about what it is that these troops do--they do regional security; they do international cooperation; they do partner nation training; they're part of our ISAF support in Afghanistan; they're part of NATO cooperation. These troops are active. If you go and meet with any of our troops who are currently in Europe, they are actively working--our men and women in uniform--on our operations now. No one since the seventies has been staring down the bad Soviet Union. They are there protecting the United States and the United States' interests. They are our active men and women in uniform, and we have them forward-based because they help the United States in its functions of being able to deliver forces and our men and women to the important areas of where there are conflicts. General Breedlove of the European Command says that this is as far as we can go. He vehemently opposes this. Even those people who might be for reducing troops should not be for this. Congress should not be specifically telling the Commander in Chief where troops should be and how to move them.…





