A Conversation with Congressman Don Bacon, R-NE

From VOA, Press Conference USA.

Here is your host, Carol Castiel.

Welcome to Press Conference USA on the Voice of America.

I'm Carol Castiel.

Our special guest on this edition of the program is Congressman Don Bacon, a Republican from the Midwestern state of Nebraska.

Elected to Congress in 2016, Don Bacon sits on the House Armed Services and Agriculture Committees.

Prior to running for Congress, Don Bacon had a distinguished career in the US military.

He served in the US Air Force for nearly 30 years before retiring as a brigadier general, according to his congressional website.

Congressman Bacon specialized in electronic warfare, intelligence, and reconnaissance.

In total, he served 16 assignments, including four deployments in the Middle East to include Iraq in 2007 to 2008 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Congressman Bacon received numerous military decorations, including the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, two Bronze Stars, two Legion of Merits, five Meritorious Service Medals,

and the Aerial Achievement Medal.

In addition to these and other honors too numerous to mention, Congressman Bacon earned two Master's Degrees, one from the University of Phoenix in Arizona, and another from the National War College here in the nation's capital.

After he retired from the Air Force in 2014, Congressman Bacon was a military adviser to former Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, whom I interviewed on this very program many years ago.

On this edition of Press Conference USA, we will talk with Congressman Bacon about a variety of national security, economic, and political challenges facing our nation.

Congressman Bacon joins us via Zoom.

Welcome to the program.

Thank you for having me on.

I'm very honored.

Congressman Bacon, first thank you for your extraordinary military service.

After this illustrious career, what drove you to run for office in 2016?

Well, first off, I love my country.

I love reading about great statesmen who made a positive impact.

I love Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, folks like that.

And I wanted to have a positive impact on our country.

I think we've been blessed to live in the greatest country in the world with the great freedoms.

We've helped spread freedom through much of the globe.

So that's my overarching drive.

But too, in 2016, I came out of the military as a brigadier general.

Our military was hurting after I would say about 5 years of sequester, they called it, where we made over approximately 15% reduction in the military in real dollars after you factor in inflation.

While we're fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military was really hurting.

And I felt like I had a voice that I could make a difference in Congress advocating for all of our services for readiness and training, modernization.

And I feel like we've had a positive impact on our military since I've been elected.

But that was the immediate motivator was to help get our military healthy.

But more broadly, I wanted to be a positive voice for our country, the greatest country in the world.

And I want it to remain so for my kids, my grandkids, and my great-grandkids.

Well, thank you for that, Congressman Bacon.

And I want to segue into an issue that relates to your military service and what you just said.

And that relates to a recent bill that Congress passed.

Now, this was just with mostly Republican votes, the so-called National Defense Authorization Act.

A lot of different amendments were added that alienated many Democrats.

The bill is now in front of the Senate.

They're going to revise it.

Of course, this funds the Department of Defense in the very military in which you served.

What was your vote on that particular bill?

And what do you make of the way the changes that were added, some of the amendments that had more to do with abortion service and other things that were unrelated to the defense budget?

I voted yes.

And it's not uncommon for the majority of the House to using 218 votes, that's what it takes to have a majority on any bill, to 218 votes and to push legislation to fit their ideology.

The Democrats did it too when they were the majority in 2018, 2019 time frame.

But then it goes to the Senate, you have to have 60 votes in the Senate.

So even if you have a Republican majority in the House, you have to get 60 votes and it has the effect of moderating any legislation.

And so I anticipate when this defense bill comes back out of the Senate, whereas we reconcile with the House and the Senate versions, that this bill will become much more bipartisan, just like it was when the Democrats were in charge in 2018 and 2019. It got moderated with a Republican Senate also requiring 60 votes.

Now, some of these bills that I would beg to differ that they had some connections to the military.

For example, on the abortion issue, you know, we have the Hyde Amendment that says you can't take taxpayer money and put it towards abortion.

What the administration has done is said, if someone wants to get an abortion, that the military will pay for the travel, the accommodations, and everything but the abortion itself.

And some folks like from Alabama, where that's the number one issue, think that's a violation of the Hyde Amendment.

I do too personally.

I think there was a way to find a compromise here that both sides could have maybe agreed to, but the administration did it unilaterally.

Or saying that military hospitals have to provide transgender surgery on minors.

Many Republicans do not agree with that.

And so those are the kind of bills that we were talking about.

We also defeated about 10 amendments that I thought went too far.

So a lot of people don't hear about that as well.

But in the end, I believe that this bill will come out of the Senate and the House much more bipartisan, and it will be passed in a bipartisan manner.

And one more question related to that, Congressman Bacon.

Are you concerned about Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville's current hold on military promotions in the Senate?

Again, relating to what we call here the culture wars related to once again, the fact that the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which then had the states regulate abortion as opposed to being a national right or a constitutional right.

Are you concerned about what he is doing?

I am concerned in the long run, it is a problem.

But the one side of the aisle wants to just put this all on Senator Tuberville.

I would point out that Secretary Austin, I talked to him personally, I know the chairman on the House Armed Services Committee told him, "If you unilaterally impose this policy on DOD, saying that the taxpayers will have to pay for travel,

accommodations, and 3 weeks of leave, for anybody that wants to get an abortion, that you're going to get pushback from states where abortion or being pro-life is the number one issue.

And it is in Alabama.

So Senator Tuberville's representing his constituents here on this.

And the secretary was warned that this would have a tremendous pushback.

And it received tremendous pushback.

Now, in our form of government with a bicameral, we have three branches of government, separation of powers, anytime anybody does something unilaterally that is controversial, there's going to be pushback.

And there was in this case.

Now, I think Senator Tuberville and Secretary Austin should be able to sit in a room, shut the door, and find a middle ground approach where it becomes more of a win-win instead of a 100 or a zero.

That's what's happening right now.

Both sides are demanding 100% and the other side gets 0%.

So, for example, why couldn't Secretary Austin have offered permissive TDY where people could travel and be on leave but wouldn't count against their leave days.

There's some middle ground here that could be done.

But when you start saying you're going to spend taxpayer money supporting abortion policies, uh, you're going to have a large segment of Congress that's going to say no.

And so who started the culture war here?

I would say it was actually the administration who did this in a unilateral way.

You do something in a unilateral way, you're going to get pushback.

And that's what happened here.

While we're on the topic of abortion, a highly controversial issue, on the other hand, one on which a majority of Americans are in agreement that national access should be allowed.

But we know that the Supreme Court overturned that in Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision last year.

Some Republicans are talking about passing a law, a national law against abortion.

What is your position on that topic?

Well, I disagree with your premise.

Most people think there should be access for early pregnancies.

But the average polling that I see, the Americans would like to see restrictions on abortion between 12 and 15 weeks, probably nationally.

If you're talking the coasts, maybe 15 weeks.

Here in Nebraska, it's 12 weeks.

Under Roe v. Wade, that wasn't allowed.

Anything under 20 weeks was not allowed to be done under the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court construct.

So I think most voters wanted to have more say.

So I would disagree with your premise that when you say access, it implies late-term access.

I would agree with you if you said early pregnancy access.

Yes, actually I really meant that, uh, Congressman Bacon.

I mean, I wasn't trying to say at any term.

What I meant was, and statistics do show that a majority were not in favor of having overturned Roe v. Wade, which in itself had restrictions.

Up to 20 weeks, it was allowed.

It depends how you ask the question.

If you say Roe v. Wade, you would get a one way.

If you said, "Do you think voters want the right to act to restrict abortion at 12 or 15 weeks?"

it would be yes, which was counter to Roe v. Wade.

So it sort of depends how you want to ask the question there.

What I find is most voters support 12 to 15 week restrictions.

What the Supreme Court said is that the voters should have the right to make this decision that nine people at the Supreme Court don't, because it doesn't directly talk about abortion in the Constitution, obviously.

There's no words that quote say the right to privacy equates to abortion in the Constitution.

So the Supreme Court said this is really a voters' decision.

And for the most part, it's going to be done at the state level because in the Congress with the filibuster in the Senate, you're not going to get a very draconian pro-abortion bill or pro-life bill because you can't get 60 votes.

So most of this is going to be done at the state level.

I do think that because like California, New York, and states like that have legislation that says you can't restrict abortion even an hour before birth, I do think there's a move by some Republicans, and I would agree with them,

that some late-term abortion bans would be something that we should talk about at Congress.

Though I don't think you can get the 60 votes in the Senate.

And I do think that there is large support for the Hyde Amendment to be more broadly instituted that would protect taxpayer money from going direct to abortions, which has been a debatable topic between the Republicans and Democrats right now.

So I think when it comes to the Hyde Amendment and protecting taxpayer money going to abortions, and also looking at late-term abortions, maybe at the 15 week and beyond, I believe that there is a consensus on the Republican side generally that that that is appropriate for Congress to look at.

But I don't deny that it would be challenging to do so with the filibuster requirements, particularly with a 52-48 Senate or 51-49 Senate.

I would say both sides can't get what they really want with the filibuster, which means the states have the most say on this right now.

We're going to take a short break.

We'll be right back.

You are listening to Press Conference USA on the Voice of America.

Our special guest is Congressman Don Bacon, a Republican from the state of Nebraska, who sits on the Armed Services and Agriculture Committees.

I'm Carol Castiel.

This is a reminder that our PCUSA podcast is available on our website at voanews.com/pcusa.

Here's a shoutout to a loyal listener and Facebook fan based in Kuwait, Mohammed Al Rushaid.

Now, back to our very special guest, Congressman Don Bacon, a Republican from the Midwestern state of Nebraska.

Congressman Bacon, let' turn to, I guess another hot button issue might say, and it intersects with our politics and national security, democracy, and that is related to former President Trump,

who is facing many indictments.

He's facing another potential indictment over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Some Republicans have accepted his interpretation of events that he did not lose the 2020 election and that a lot of these challenges are part of a so-called liberal smear campaign against him.

Congressman Bacon, how do you see Mr. Trump's behavior on January 6, 2021?

Do you hold him partly responsible or fully responsible for either fomenting the riot on the Capitol, the goal of which was to stop the peaceful transfer of power, or not doing anything to really stop it once it turned violent?

What is your interpretation?

Well, in representative government, which is one of the forms of democracy, you have to respect the election results.

Now, I think we have the ability to challenge the results if we disagree with them in courts.

But once the courts decide, we should shake hands and move on because that's very important for the survival of our representative government.

So the courts were overwhelmingly in favor of the final results at the election.

Also, we have to accept the fact that in our Constitution, the states have the majority say on how they do their elections.

And so some states really favored mail-in balloting, which the president disagreed with.

But these are things to be settled at the state level, and they have been.

And in some states have revised it since then.

So bottom line is we have to respect the results, and if we find an area that we disagree with, we have the courts to look at it.

And in this case, they did look at it and ruled against President Trump.

So I would say that up front.

Secondly, people do have a right to protest, but they do not have a right to protest violently.

140 police were injured that day, and it was wrong.

Those who were there peacefully, that was their right, and we defend that right.

But those who attacked cops and who vandalized the Capitol, there was vandalism, some defecated in the Capitol, that's not acceptable.

And as a Republicans, we should support the rule of law, and I do.

Finally, I would point out the area that bothered me the most was pressuring Vice President Pence to overturn or to not consider certain states Electoral College votes.

At National War College, where I attended, the Civil War was my elective, my focus area.

I love studying the Reconstruction Era.

The legislation that we have in effect for counting the Electoral College, along with the Constitution and the amendments that we have, focus on that, takes us to this.

If a state has two different slates, which we had in the 1870s, you had the more pro-union slate and you had the more leftovers of the Confederacy were trying to take back the state governments after the Civil War, you would see instances where states were put in two slates.

In that case, Congress had the responsibility to determine which slate was the official Electoral College votes.

What we saw in 2020 were states doing single slates, and often case Republican governors signing off on it, which to me was very clear that the Congress's role was to count those votes.

And you have a single slate, governor signed off, Republican or Democrat.

In many cases it's a Republican, I have to point out, to my side of the aisle.

And I would say that the Vice President had no constitutional right to overturn or to delay any counting of any states.

If that was so, why wouldn't have Al Gore done it in 2020 during that contested election?

Why couldn't Vice President Harris do this in 2024 if they don't get the results that she wants in 2024 and she's the Vice President?

So really, that is to me a significant sticking point on what happened on January 6 and that I disagree with President Trump on

Thank you, Congressman Bacon.

And since you brought up your side of the aisle, so to speak, the Republican Party, I do want to ask you a follow-up question with respect to the party.

Congressman Bacon, some say it's not recognizable anymore, that it's very different.

It has become in many ways the party of former President Trump.

It used to be very pro-trade, anti-Soviet Union, and I say that because now the current government under Vladimir Putin is so authoritarian, it is reminiscent

of those days of the former Soviet Union.

It's a Party of freedom from excessive government intervention, pro small government and so on, and very much pro law enforcement.

So recently there was a hearing where FBI Director Christopher Wray was being questioned in front of the House of Representatives, and there was quite a bit of hostility toward him, primarily emanating from the Republican members of Congress.

How do you see that?

Are you concerned about that type of criticism and the characterizing of the FBI as somehow not doing its job correctly?

I differentiate criticism of the leadership of the FBI versus the rank and file.

I know the FBI agents here in Omaha, they're great Americans.

They defend our country from Russian spies, Chinese spies, mafia, human trafficking.

I think there has been justifiable criticism of the FBI Director in cases or more specifically the DOJ leadership when it comes to how they've handled Hunter Biden with kid gloves and we're seeing it right now with the IRS whistleblowers coming forward saying how they recommended felony charges against Hunter Biden but the DOJ intervened.

I think it's our test of honest debate on the leadership, but I don't think it's right to besmirch the FBI rank and file, our law enforcement in general.

We are the Party of law and order.

That's where I stand.

And by the way, when we're talking about like with Russia and Ukraine, we had votes recently to defund Ukraine and the Republicans voted in favor of Ukraine at three to one in the U.S. House of Representatives.

So a lot of people want to focus on the one, but the pro Ukraine votes came out at three to one, and I just want to stress that that it was overwhelmingly supported by the Republicans in the House.

But in the end, there is an argument about free trade right now.

There is about our role in the world and NATO, and I come from the Reagan Republican position that peace through strength, the U.S. as the indispensable leader in the free world.

We can't do it by ourselves, obviously, but I do not believe in isolationism.

I saw what happened in the 1930s.

I read about it.

It was the Joe Kennedy crowd, the Lindbergh crowd in the late 1930s who wanted the isolationists.

They were claiming America first back then.

That did not serve us well against Germany and Japan.

And U.S. has a strong voice in the world, and if we don't do it, the world becomes a more dangerous place and we get drug back into it.

We should support law enforcement.

When the Republicans are not with law enforcement, I believe it's not right.

I'm more the traditional Ronald Reagan Republican, and I will advocate for that within the Party.

Congressman Bacon, since you mentioned America's role in the world, let me pivot now to Ukraine and the NATO summit.

We witnessed the NATO summit in Vilnius.

Ukraine wants desperately to be part of NATO, and NATO did say that, well, one day yes, but there was no calendar date.

Do you think that was maybe too tepid?

Should NATO have provided a date for Ukraine?

What is your position on that with regard to our undying support for this very important country at the forefront of freedom in Europe and for the free world?

Well, we have to be clear.

Russia is invading Ukraine because they saw Ukraine going towards the West, wanted to become part of EU, embracing free markets, representative government, and Russia and Putin could not stand the thought of Ukraine becoming more pro-Western and following where their people and the citizens wanted.

The Russians view the Ukrainians as not Ukrainian, but as little Russians.

They have a very bigoted view towards Ukrainians.

And the Ukrainians, they want their independence.

They want their freedom.

They've been under the heel of the Russians for a couple centuries.

Stalin killed roughly 4 million Ukrainians in the 1930s.

And I could just skip other examples as well that were just as egregious.

So I believe it's in our national security interest for independent Ukraine that wants to be more pro-West.

This is a good for people that share our values.

And if Ukraine fell to this invasion, I believe the Baltic States will be in a dire position, perhaps Poland and other countries on the periphery of Russia.

So when it comes to Ukraine, I think we should be more strong in how we respond to Russia on this.

We should say, if you don't withdraw from Ukraine right now, we will be committed to bringing Ukraine into NATO.

We don't have to say the time frame, but the Russians need to know if they do not stop this unprovoked, unjust, barbaric invasion, that the consequence will be eventually Ukraine will be in NATO.

And we should use this as leverage and be more adamant about what the future uh store.

I personally think Russia has lost all moral authority to dictate to Ukraine on NATO, period.

When you do this invasion, you're killing hundreds of thousands of people, you lose your voice on this.

That's my view.

So I think there should be a commitment to Ukraine on this.

I don't know about the timeline.

Here's the problem.

If we bring in Ukraine into NATO, that applies NATO will be at war with Russia, and you got nuclear weapons and I don't think that that is the right answer either to do this in an immediate way.

But I think we should use this as leverage against Russia to get them to withdraw out of Ukraine.

And I believe Ukraine should immediately become part of EU right now.

We can

Oh, yes.

We can do the rest later.

Very interesting.

Another angle to this whole question of Russia's aggression in Ukraine and NATO's unity.

and pushing back.

Some say that we need, that is the West, the Alliance has to demonstrate unity and solidarity, not just to save the Alliance and Europe from Russia, but also to teach a lesson to Beijing not to try to attack Taiwan.

That's also a critical message.

What do you say?

I agree.

If we show weakness with Ukraine, I think Taiwan would be more vulnerable to China.

The way we respond to Ukraine will be implied by the Chinese how we'll respond to Taiwan.

So I do think that free world standing together like we have has sent a strong voice to China that hey, doing this in Taiwan is unacceptable.

Also the fact that Russia has got two black eyes and a bloody nose and broken ribs right now fighting Ukrainians is a warning to China that any invasion of Taiwan, while it may look easy on paper to them, will not be easy in reality.

By the way, they're going to have to cross 90 miles of ocean to get to Taiwan.

We need to ensure that Taiwan has anti-shipping mines, anti-shipping missiles, anti-ballistic missiles, anti-air missiles.

And we need to make that like a porcupine, as this is using Taiwanese talk, so that it's so prickly that the Chinese can't get a foothold inside of Taiwan.

But even if they got inside Taiwan, it's a very mountainous country and it will be very challenging for the Chinese to conduct a successful invasion.

But we got to make that clear on paper too with the weapons that we've provided to Taiwan.

So we got to challenge it.

We're providing a lot of weapons to Ukraine, and we have a backlog right now of about 19 billion dollars in weapons to go to Taiwan.

Now, most those weapons are about the same as what Ukraine wants.

But our supply chains are so messed up right now that we are behind.

It should be a priority for us to get these weapons to Taiwan so that China will know how hard it will be to do an invasion.

It's all about deterrence.

We don't want war, but we got to make clear to China that any invasion will likely not succeed, and will make them think twice.

Staying on the topic of China, Congressman Bacon, the Biden administration is trying to reach out for greater dialogue.

We have some common interests.

We certainly want to restrain North Korea, mitigate Russian aggression in Ukraine, make sure they're forewarned about any aggressive actions vis-a-vis Taiwan.

Both of our countries are the greatest greenhouse gas emitters, so there's the climate change piece.

Are you in favor of President Biden's outreach to try to dialogue with Xi Jinping?

We saw Secretary of State Blinken there, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was just there.

I believe President Biden will most likely meet with Xi Jinping at the upcoming APEC summit.

Is that a good approach?

Is that the right approach?

I think we've looked pretty weak in our dealings with China.

We traveled there with our hat in hand and sort of like begging for a deal with them.

They should be traveling here doing that but in my view.

They've made it clear they want to be the regional superpower now and the world superpower in three decades or so.

We don't want war with China, but they can't walk all over us.

They have economically.

They steal our technology.

They do predatory trade with us where they buy out our companies, loot the technology, and leave them basically in shambles.

They're investing all over the world, particularly third world countries.

Say, hey, we'll put an airport in.

Here's the loan.

The loan outlines that you got to pay us back on it.

And if you don't, we'll take control of the airport and own it.

They're doing this all over the world.

They're taking over airports, seaports, because these countries can't pay back the loans.

We got to go into a relationship with China with eyes wide open.

They'll say, hey, we want peace-oriented relationships, status quo, but while we're doing that, they're eating our box lunch.

So we've got to be a lot more vigilant in protecting our economic and interests and those of other countries that are aligned with us.

I think we should put a spotlight on what they're doing with the Uyghurs.

When you have a million people in slave labor, when you're doing forced sterilization on women because of their race and religion, that is a genocide.

They're doing the same thing in Tibet in different ways.

We should put a spotlight on their behavior, because what I have found is totalitarian regimes like China and like the old Soviet Union, when you put a spotlight on them and show the evil nature of what they're doing, it has an impact.

So we should make the Chinese wear every single day what they're doing with the Uyghurs, what they're doing with the Tibetans, how they've just thrown away their democracy in Hong Kong.

That said, we don't want war, but we got to come from it from a position of strength and not weakness.

Secondly, we don't want a total decouple from China when it comes to trade.

I think buying clothes and things like that, that's acceptable.

But we should not be dependent on China for 100% of our penicillin as an example.

So we need to review our vulnerabilities on our supply chains and trade.

And those areas that we don't think is appropriate to have China to own 100% of what we need on any particular product, then we need to have a policy in place to try to diversify.

It doesn't have to be in America.

It could be maybe with our allies.

But we need to review this stuff.

We should not be dependent on key supply items and from China.

Thank you for that, Congressman Bacon.

You know, you went on four deployments in the Middle East, including in Iraq from 2007 to 2008 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Any thoughts with regard to the trajectory of Iraq today, the region?

How do you see the Middle East evolving in terms of bolstering U.S. interests?

We're always going to be a part of the Middle East discussions.

For one, Israel's one of our close allies.

And our strategic interest that Iran not get a nuclear weapon, for example.

And there's so there's countless examples where we have allies there that want us at their side.

Many the Arab States like UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, want our presence there because they fear Iran primarily.

Let's go backwards.

What happened in Afghanistan was one of the biggest disasters to hit our country in in over a century.

Not the biggest, but one of the biggest.

I think it directly led to Putin's decision that it could invade Ukraine.

I think he saw what happened in Afghanistan and said we have a weak leader in the White House, won't be able to respond.

What we did to the Afghan allies that we had there, the interpreters, was unspeakable.

We have thousands of interpreters in Afghanistan, many of them being murdered, and we promised them that they could come to America and we left them.

How we left Afghanistan was a travesty.

And I need to be clear.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CENTCOM Commander advised the President not to do what he did and how he did it, and he overruled them and we got the disaster that we had.

And so that has made the Middle East more unstable because you have Taliban in charge.

And we were told by the President, there's no Al Qaeda there anymore or minimal presence.

And yet right away the number one Al Qaeda leader went right to Kabul and was living in a house of a Taliban leader where we found him and killed him.

But it shows that right away the Taliban invited the Al Qaeda right back in.

So I wanted to say that upfront.

We're going to have a presence in Syria right now.

We have tens of thousands of ISIS terrorists incarcerated in Syria and we're not sure how to respond, what to do with these thousands of terrorists.

And so we have troops in Syria with our allies from the Kurds keeping these ISIS terrorists there.

But if they were released, you would have thousands of terrorists back out in the world, and that's a clear issue.

With Iraq, we see a positive trajectory right now towards democracy.

The country is much more peaceful.

It's probably the best it's been since our invasion.

However, they are threatened by Iranian proxy groups that are within the country.

There still is a ISIS threat.

But by and large, Iraq is in one of the better spots that we've seen, and I hope someday that people could travel there on vacation, see some of the famous places in Iraq.

And I stand with our Iraq allies, particularly with our Kurd allies that's really fought with us since 2003. I think the number one concern right now in the Middle East is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

They have committed themselves to destroying Israel.

They call us the Great Satan, and that is the number one concern and the number one threat to the regional countries, and it's a challenge.

And so I think because of that, the U.S. will continue to have a presence in the Persian Gulf, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, you name it, to serve as a deterrent to Iran.

I wish we had more time, Congressman Bacon.

I do want to make one little comment, and that is the fact that no question there has been bipartisan condemnation about the way in which the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan back in August in 2021. On the other hand,

we do need to remind ourselves that it was former President Trump who did the deal between the United States and the Taliban in Doha, and he did set the withdrawal in place himself, excluding the government of Afghanistan from those negotiations.

I've criticized President Trump then, and we had legislation that passed Congress saying the President could not just withdraw unless certain conditions were met.

Then President Trump vetoed it.

We overrode the veto.

But guess what?

President Biden ignored it.

So yes, President Trump, I think made a bad deal, though it was conditions based.

So I don't know that he would have done exactly what Biden did.

But in the end, Biden owns this because it was his actions that did this.

Congressman Don Bacon is a Republican from the Midwestern state of Nebraska.

Congressman Bacon, thank you so much for your time and your insights on so many important national and foreign policy issues.

Press Conference USA on the Voice of America was produced in Washington with technical assistance from Rick Pantaleo.

I'm Carol Castiel.

Thank you for listening.

This is the Voice of America.