Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Fiscal Year 2016 Defense Appropriations Bill

Hearing

Chairman Frelinghuysen, I want to thank you on the collegial and transparent manner in which you crafted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Defense bill. You have been placed in a very untenable position and have produced a sterling work product.

I also would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for their efforts. I would particularly like to express my gratitude to the four new Members of the Subcommittee -- Representatives Israel, Ruppersberger, Diaz-Balart, and Graves -- for the contributions they have made in their inaugural year. Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee staff and the associate staff for their hard work.

The Chairman has fully and fairly described our bill and my full remarks have been printed and are before you. I wish to use my time this morning to discuss the albatross around the Committee's neck, the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011. Despite near universal disdain, and plenty of buyer's remorse, the BCA has proven to be an extremely resilient yet utterly ineffective piece of law. We have seen short postponements of sequestration (ATRA) and two-year alleviations of the caps (BBA), yet we find ourselves, nearly five years since the BCA's enactment, far away from the consensus needed to repeal the law. Further, the continued half-hearted attempts to fix the BCA are almost as detrimental as the law itself, as they add to the uncertainty and waste everyone's time.

Additionally, it is becoming increasingly difficult to point to any positive changes in our fiscal situation as a result of the BCA. While intended to reduce the budget deficit through spending limits and reductions, our nation's debt has increased by 24.5 percent since the BCA was signed into law, mainly because Committees that are not truly constrained by the BCA's discretionary spending caps continue to push politically popular legislation with little regard for its impact on the federal budget. For example, in April of this year, Congress passed legislation that permanently fixed the long-standing issues with Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this "fix" will result in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits over the next ten years and yet the measure sailed through both Houses with very little opposition and was greeted by a cheerful signing statement at the White House. After 17 temporary overrides since 2003, I cannot argue that the permanent "Doc fix" was not long overdue. However, I believe it illustrates my larger point that we are nowhere close to having a sincere conversation about our deficits while non-discretionary spending and lack of revenue continue to largely get a free pass.

Until the President and Congress stop whistling past the graveyard and confront the continued growth in mandatory spending while simultaneously increasing revenues, this Committee has no choice but to carry out the implausible mandate contained in the BCA and try to control deficits with jurisdiction over only 34 percent of one-half of the federal ledger.

It does not help that I fear a majority of our colleagues have no idea when the fiscal year starts, except that is when it is time to shut down the government. I despair that most think Continuing Resolutions are the norm, and sequestration is not that bad; that some delight every time a civilian federal employee is furloughed. All are symptoms of failure to me.

The time we have caused people to waste by not finishing our work on time, enacting innumerable CRs, and vacillating from one topline to another is deplorable. Whether it is a federal agency, a state, other political subdivisions, non-profit organization, contractors, or an allied nation, all have been less efficient in recent years because of the constant uncertainty surrounding the federal government's finances.

To illustrate, in nearly every fiscal year since the BCA's enactment there have been attempts to alter the caps on defense and non-defense spending. For example, just two years ago, the House and Senate had top-line allocations that were $91 billion apart, yet the sub-allocations for Defense were less than $4 billion apart. Needless to say, we ended up at a point somewhere between the two, but only after a lot of wasted time and a federal government shutdown.

While not a mirror image of two years ago, the FY 2016 process is careening towards a similar fate. This fiscal year, the President got the process started by submitting a budget request that did not comply with the limitations mandated by the BCA across all budgeted fiscal years. Paired with the President's budget request was a threat to veto any appropriations bills that adhered to the BCA caps.

The Majority party's response to the President was to pass a Budget Resolution that purports to abide by the BCA caps in FY 2016 for defense and non-defense discretionary spending, yet evades the defense cap by proposing $38 billion above the President's budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or for the purposes of today's markup, the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Despite objections from the Secretary of Defense, this additional GWOT funding was further entrenched by the recently passed FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.

Needless to say, I find this solution very troubling and not because I object to providing additional funding for the Department of Defense. I agree with the Commander in Chief that sticking to the BCA caps on defense spending would necessitate our forces assume unacceptable risk in carrying out our National Defense Strategy. At this moment, the United States military and Intelligence Community are actively engaged in responding to current and emerging crises and conflicts around the globe. And we need to have them ready to respond at a moment's notice to future challenges, both foreseen and unforeseen.

But at the same time, we need a strong nation as well as a strong defense. We cannot continue to let our country deteriorate with interstate bridges that collapse and kill our citizens, meaningful scientific research that atrophies, and a population whose educational attainment falls further and further behind. Increasing OCO funding is merely a fleeting salve to the sequester caps for one agency and does not allow the Department of Defense to properly plan and budget for the future. Further, if the President is true to his veto threat, then we are playing a serious game of brinksmanship with DoD and the rest of the federal government.

Each member of the committee knows we will be in the throes of another crisis in December -- our time should no longer be wasted and the President and the leaders of both Houses and both parties ought to start meaningful negotiations now, so that they can be concluded before October 1st, to allow this preeminent committee to again do the business of the country in an orderly, thoughtful, and timely fashion.

Additionally, the Administration, DoD, and Congress have been complicit since 2001 in using emergency war funding to fund enduring requirements for the military. Over the past few years, despite the constraints of the BCA, the Subcommittee, led by Chairman Frelinghuysen, had begun to make strides in limiting what is an eligible expense in OCO and shift activities to the base budget. This was done because it is increasingly difficult after fourteen years into the fight to argue that this operational tempo for our military is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our nation and our interests. If the higher GWOT funding were to be enacted, much of the progress we made in reining in Title IX will be undone.

Despite the concerns I have just expressed, I close by observing that Chairman Frelinghuysen and the Subcommittee did an exceptional job in putting together this bill. In particular, the Chairman has been very meticulous with the $37.5 billion added to Title IX of the bill by the FY 2016 Budget Resolution. He has avoided the easy path and did not dump large portions of the Operations and Maintenance accounts into GWOT. Rather, he has painstakingly worked to provide the needed resources for the preparation of our forces in the field. Further, the Chairman was very thoughtful in his construction of the base portion of the bill and I believe it and the report provide the stability needed for our military personnel, emphasizes readiness, and preserves the industrial base.

Highlights of the Bill

The Subcommittee has again included further resources for sexual assault prevention and response. This year, there is a new and welcome focus on retaliation. Specifically, the bill fully funds the budget request for the activities and offices tackling this act of mistrust with an additional $20 million to be divided among all services and components.

The bill continues to robustly fund research for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, suicide prevention outreach programs, and medical research. The report, again this year, carries language to ensure our concerns about interoperable electronic health records becoming a reality for our veterans and service members.

I would again like to point out the funding increase for the Humanitarian Mine Action program. While it may be a small program, I still believe its mission is of immense value. It may take years to reclaim lands around the world from the explosive remnants of war, but we can share our military's expertise with host nations on detection, clearance, disposal, and demilitarization of explosive ordnance to protect innocent civilians.

I appreciate the Chairman's focus on resourcing the Combatant Commands beyond Central Command. Let me be clear -- while the support for our almost ten thousand U.S. service members still serving in Afghanistan and threat of ISIL is paramount, there are other Areas of Responsibility that need attention. The $200 million in the bill to provide assistance to the Ukrainian national security forces to help Ukraine secure its sovereign territory and protect its citizens against foreign aggressors is an example of how the committee can, and will, help those who ask for help. The additional money added to support Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug-Activities, especially the additional $15 million for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance activities in Southern Command is another example of support included in this bill. The additional funding to allow Africa Command to maintain a persistent presence on a continent that rules with "the tyranny of distance" is ensuring US efforts in that part of the world are successful.

Also, this bill addresses the Service Chiefs' concerns about readiness. The billions allocated to readiness activities with reporting requirements should allow the services to mitigate the effects of constant deployments and financial unpredictability. The concern for readiness is also addressed in the $1.4 billion added across the services for Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization although this figure could be much lower if Congress allowed the Department of Defense to divest itself of unusable infrastructure through a Base Realignment and Closure round.

Traditionally, the Subcommittee emphasizes the positive side of the ledger; however, I believe the Subcommittee should highlight the other side of the ledger, as reductions in funding are also a result of good oversight. In this bill, there is a reduction of $100 million to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's total request. This bill also made a reduction of $82 million, denying the purchase of radars because the programs were delayed. The elimination of funding for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund drives requests from the Combatant Commanders back into the normal acquisitions process for more oversight and scrutiny.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation for your work with us on many issues. You have ensured the Defense Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship--the Subcommittee has operated collaboratively and effectively for many years and, within the constraints you were faced with, you have largely addressed the interests we have expressed. Despite my concerns with this bill's reliance on the additional OCO funding, I look forward to working with you and the members of the Committee to advance the process and complete the task before us.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman for the time.

Source