On the recordMay 22, 2018
First, let me say I agree with Mr. Nolan on a couple of key points. Number one, I think the overseas contingency fund has come to be relied on too much. Yes, it was created before the Budget Control Act, but these wars have been going on long enough now that we ought to be able to incorporate it into the funds. So I agree with him on that. But completely zeroing out the overseas contingency fund, I think, is irresponsible, because while I agree in some cases the terrorism threat may be overblown, it is, nonetheless, real. {time} 1900 Yemen is always the best example. We went into Afghanistan after 9/ 11. We dealt with that. We thought we had al-Qaida contained. And then we had the underwear bomber in Detroit and the package bombs that both almost came into the U.S. and attacked us, and they came out of Yemen. So we had to respond to that. We had to respond in our own self- defense. And that is part of what the overseas contingency fund funds. So, if we wanted to reduce it, if we wanted to get more transparency, I am all for that. But to simply zero it out would basically be to say that we have all these wars and we really have none of them. I am somewhere in between on that. So I can't support zeroing out the overseas contingency fund, although I do agree with some of the statements that the sponsor of the amendment made. Mr. Chairman, because it zeros it out completely, I have to oppose the amendment.
Source
govinfo.gov




