Mike Conaway: “This amendment is very similar to the one we just debated except as to the amounts, and it does strike the entire…”

“This amendment is very similar to the one we just debated except as to the amounts, and it does strike the entire infrastructure account. I would like to make a couple of points that I didn't make earlier with respect to the previous amendment. None of the conversation that I was ever aware of prior to bin Laden's death remotely said that the war was over or that the fight was over if we killed bin Laden. Had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle been making that argument from start one, then it might have some validity to it; but quite frankly, that was just a marker in this long fight against Islamic jihadists and these terrorists. The other issue of invoking past costs, or sunk costs, is informative as to how we got to this point in time and as to looking at where we go from here to when we have all American troops out of there; but how we make the intelligent decisions and intelligent investments in Afghanistan between now and then is the bigger question. Whatever it costs to fight in Afghanistan, whatever it has cost to fight in Iraq over the past 8 years or whatever, I understand those are big numbers; but we are looking forward as to how we push the Afghan security system to a point where they can take care of themselves and, in fact, begin to run their country as they should. Most of my good colleagues' arguments were better suited for the conversation we had in April with reference to the overall budget. That budget passed.…”