Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is the Defense appropriations bill for 2013. It has been done with the cooperation of the Republicans and the Democrats on the subcommittee, the Democrats led by Norm Dicks. I would say that Norm and I have worked together for so many years in making sure that these Defense appropriations bills were strictly nonpolitical--no politics in Defense appropriations. And there should not be.

Our investment in our national defense should be based on what is the real threat to the United States and what does it take to protect against that threat and what does it take to protect the men and women who provide for that national defense.

I want to compliment Mr. Dicks for having worked together with each other so well, regardless of who was in the majority, for 35 years, Mr. Dicks. And I just want to recognize that this will be the last Defense appropriations bill that Mr. Dicks will preside over on the floor because he is seeking retirement at the end of the term.

This committee will miss Mr. Dicks, the House will miss Mr. Dicks, the Congress will miss Mr. Dicks, and I will say the country will miss his service to the United States of America for so many years. So Mr. Dicks, I extend to you my very, very best and my appreciation and thanks for your friendship and your spirit of cooperation over the many years.

The subcommittee held many hearings and many briefings on so many subjects that it took most of the year leading up to this date in order to do that. I will compliment the members of the subcommittee because they were very attentive. The subcommittee hearings and meetings were all very, very well attended. The members were very loyal and faithful to their assignments and to their responsibilities.

During these hearings, we heard one word that bothered me a lot, that was the word ``risk.'' As we got into the issue of the budget requests, we were told that this might bring about a certain risk, or a prudent risk, or an acceptable risk. We pursued the issue of what is an acceptable risk when it comes to national defense or what is a prudent risk. Let me explain briefly some of the things that we heard.

One, we were told that the United States is going to show much more presence in the Pacific area. I certainly agree with that. That is a very, very important part of the world, and we have got to be present.

The other point was that, as we did our hearings, we were told that in the Mid East, in the Persian Gulf area, we need a buildup of naval forces in order to do the job that has to be done, especially as we watch what Iran is doing, what Iran is threatening to do, and the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz where much of the world's oil transports.

Well, these risks, we think, have been met. But on the Navy buildup, the budget request actually would reduce the naval capability, the number of assets that we have. So we differed with the budget request on that, and we added funding. And by the way, with the support of the Secretary of the Navy, we added funding for an additional DDG-51 destroyer.

In addition, the Secretary of the Navy was really determined to build a second Virginia-class submarine for 2014. And it was not in the budget, but he convinced us that it was important to do; and so besides the DDG-51, we provided the advance procurement to schedule that second Virginia-class submarine for 2014.

In addition, there are three cruisers that were about to be decommissioned; and for a lesser fee than decommissioning, we determined to keep those cruisers in business and keep them capable and keep them available for that naval buildup that our hearings told us the Navy felt that they really needed.

One other issue that I would like to raise is the Air Force--and we're not at war with the Air Force, by the way, but we have some differences. The Air Force determined to take away aviation assets from the Air National Guard in our States. And we heard from all of our Governors. We heard from all of our TAGS, the adjutant generals, that this would really be crippling to the mission of the Air National Guard and the National Guard if those assets were lost.

So we recommended to the Air Force, we provided $850 million to do what we call a ``pause,'' to let's get together and let's work with the States, let's work with the Governors, let's work with the adjutant generals to see what is the right thing to do here, and not deny the States the assets that they need, the aviation assets that they need.

There's so much more to this bill. The bill has been available online. The copies of the bill have been available. The lists of all of the issues have been isolated in press releases, so the actual contents of the bill have been available for weeks and so at this point I'm not going to go further into the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to say to the House that we understand the importance of sequestration, and we've got to stop sequestration. It's just not good, especially for our national defense. This Congress, this committee has not ignored the issue.

Last year, last year alone, this committee recommended a bill that reduced fiscal year '12, fiscal year '13, a total of $39 billion, but we did it carefully. We did it by not just going across the board, cutting muscle out of our national defense. We took money that wasn't going to be spent anyway. We understand the importance of meeting deadlines on funding reductions.

We don't want sequestration. It is not good for the military, it is not good for the country, and it is not good for the economy.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is one of our subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to take a minute to thank the staff who have worked tirelessly on this bill, Mr. Dicks mentioned them earlier on. We have the responsibility to appropriate for the authorization of the Intelligence Committee and for the authorization legislation of the Armed Services Committee. You can imagine that that is quite a responsibility. The staffing is extremely important because our staff is limited in size to the combined numbers of staff on those two committees that we do appropriate for.

But I want to call special attention to, for example, the minority staff who worked directly with Mr. Dicks, Paul Juola and Becky Leggieri. Paul Juola actually worked in that capacity for the majority staff when we were the majority. In fact, when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I hired Paul. So you can see, this is a very nonpolitical subcommittee.

I would also like to recognize Brooke Boyer on the majority staff; Walter Hearne; Tom McLemore, who is the chief clerk of the majority staff; Jennifer Miller; Tim Prince; Adrienne Ramsay; Ann Reese; Megan Rosenbusch; Paul Terry; BG Wright; and Sherry Young. They are quite a team.

They are able to analyze the budget requests, the budget justifications, and keep the membership advised. So I want to thank them very much for the good work that they do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm reluctant to do that because I have the privilege of working with Ms. McCollum on other subcommittee and on the full committee, and she's always very sincere and very generous in the way she treats the issues that she's working with, but I just don't think that we want to eliminate military bands.

First, I must tell you that those who play in the band are trained as basic combat troops and they are called upon in a time of emergency. They are called upon to provide security for military headquarters, wherever it may be located. So I don't think that we want to do away with that capability.

Now, 91 percent of the money that goes to these military bands is to pay the members and their allowances--their uniform, their food--and I just don't think that we want to do that. Our military bands play for the President, play for military functions; but many communities in our country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic programs in our hometowns, and this is good for our community. This lets us be part of our military. This doesn't put our military in a barracks someplace and keep them isolated from the general population, and I think the military should be part of our general population.

I just believe that this is not a good idea.

Ninety-one percent of this money will come out of the military personnel account, which pays for very important things like salaries, military expenses of feeding and caring for our military personnel. Why should we have our military isolated in the community? They should be part of our communities. It's an all-volunteer force, and this country needs a good shot of patriotism because we've had too much negativism coming at us from all different directions.

This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to allow our military to show off their talents not only on the battlefield where they risk their lives, lose their lives, or are terribly injured.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm reluctant to do that because I have the privilege of working with Ms. McCollum on other subcommittee and on the full committee, and she's always very sincere and very generous in the way she treats the issues that she's working with, but I just don't think that we want to eliminate military bands.

First, I must tell you that those who play in the band are trained as basic combat troops and they are called upon in a time of emergency. They are called upon to provide security for military headquarters, wherever it may be located. So I don't think that we want to do away with that capability.

Now, 91 percent of the money that goes to these military bands is to pay the members and their allowances--their uniform, their food--and I just don't think that we want to do that. Our military bands play for the President, play for military functions; but many communities in our country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic programs in our hometowns, and this is good for our community. This lets us be part of our military. This doesn't put our military in a barracks someplace and keep them isolated from the general population, and I think the military should be part of our general population.

I just believe that this is not a good idea.

Ninety-one percent of this money will come out of the military personnel account, which pays for very important things like salaries, military expenses of feeding and caring for our military personnel. Why should we have our military isolated in the community? They should be part of our communities. It's an all-volunteer force, and this country needs a good shot of patriotism because we've had too much negativism coming at us from all different directions.

This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to allow our military to show off their talents not only on the battlefield where they risk their lives, lose their lives, or are terribly injured.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Much of the debate that I would have on this amendment would be very similar to the one I'd had earlier when the issue was of the military bans, so I won't repeat those again.

I would mention the fact that this amendment was defeated by this same House several times last year on the Defense appropriations bill. We have an interesting situation here, though, today. This amendment is very similar to language later on in the bill that is subject to a point of order. It has been skillfully rewritten so that this one is not subject to a point of order, but it is basically the same issue.

Now, understand the United States of America does not have the largest military in the world. We do have, by far, the best--but not the largest--and our military is all volunteer. Members of the military serve because they want to. Yet, as the all-volunteer force rotates and changes, members are leaving--they retire; their time is up; they get out; they have to constantly be replaced. There has to be a constant flow of recruits coming in as the older members leave. The military has been running recruiting programs for years and years and years and very, very successfully. They know a little bit about what it takes to encourage recruiting.

The amendment, itself, does more than just strike out the sports--NASCAR--and all of these issues. It actually cuts $30 million more than is spent on these issues. I don't know why they won't take that extra $30 million. Anyway, we should not pass this amendment. It is, like I said, very similar to one that is already in the bill that is subject to a point of order.

I say let the military run the recruiting as they have done successfully for all of these years in order to maintain an all-volunteer force--a powerful message to the young Americans or the older Americans who want to serve. Men and women want to serve their country in the military, and these recruiting programs get their attention and direct them where they need to be directed. So I think this just isn't a good idea to pass this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, what he wants to do. But a lot of these sites, there is no disposition. We don't know what's going to happen to them.

Will they stay as owned by the Federal Government, will they go to communities? We don't know the answer to that. We don't know the disposition. But they do need cleaning up, and there is no doubt about that.

Here's my problem with this amendment. He takes the funds from the defense-wide readiness fund, the operations and maintenance fund, which provides for our readiness, which provides for training. It provides for our Special Forces; it provides for the support, safety and quality-of-life programs for our troops and their families, including programs to assist spouses of servicemembers with employment and job training, which is a key initiative of the First Lady.

As much as I agree that this needs to be done, we do not want to take it out of the defense operations and maintenance, which is our defense-wide operations and maintenance funding.

I oppose the amendment. While I would like to help him in some other way to accomplish this, not from this fund that is so important. Readiness is readiness is readiness; and our troops have to be trained, they have to be equipped, they have to be ready, and I oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm happy that I'm finally given an opportunity to be supportive of an amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Kucinich, because so often I have to oppose his amendments.

This bill already includes $10 million for the program. He's concerned that the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Subcommittee did not include an additional $5 million. And I understand that. And that's okay. But medical research on Gulf War Illness, or whatever it is, is important. What we learned from this program could help us in other programs on diseases coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. We're seeing, if you get a chance to visit at Walter Reed Bethesda Hospital, some very strange bacteria and viruses and mold and funguses that are coming from places that we never expected to see. But we're seeing them now.

So this research program could help another research program to deal with these deadly diseases that are affecting our troops in large numbers. And so while we've already done $10 million in this bill, I'm going to agree with Mr. Kucinich and agree to his amendment to add the additional money.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We have also funded money for the Yellow Ribbon Foundation, which is actually to help servicemen and -women return to society to avoid their desire to commit suicide.

Just putting money here is not going to solve the problem. It's going to take a lot of work on the part the military, on the part of the social workers who deal with these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines coming out of the services. Just money is not going to solve this problem. It is a bigger issue than money. But we have provided a lot of money, and we continue to keep pressure on the military organizations to do everything they can.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment for much of the same arguments I used earlier by taking the money out of O&M defense-wide accounts, which is where we provide for our readiness. And we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it as a slush fund. Readiness, we have got to maintain. We can't take a chance on not being ready in the event a situation develops.

Now, on the issue of cyber, there's no doubt that this is a growing threat. It's even a larger threat than most people realize today. And members of this committee understand that threat because we have spent a lot of time dealing with cyber. But there are other places in this bill where the gentleman could offer his amendment that would, I think, apply better.

If we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done through the Homeland Security bill, and they do have money in that bill. If it has to do with the FBI's law enforcement work on cyber, it should be in the Commerce-State-Justice bill where there is money there for that.

I'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that is not an earmark. For example, there are those in the media suggesting that Members are increasing program amounts just so that that program would favor something in their own district. This gets very close because of a particular laboratory in Mr. Hanna's district. I'm not opposed to his supporting his laboratory, but I think it does get to the point that maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific district or a specific project.

We've already funded a lot in cyber, and we will continue to fund cyber. Every year it grows, we grow with it. But we can't do this at the expense of our defense-wide Operation and Maintenance accounts that provide for our readiness.

I'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts into the readiness of our Nation, the ability to defend our Nation. We're not going to do it. The cyber accounts have their own place in the legislation, and they are being taken care of properly.

So I'm opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all throughout this last year, we have heard from the administration and we have heard from the Navy that it is important to be able to have a large presence in the Pacific area. This is something that we're going to do that is new. We're going to have an increased presence in the Pacific. That is the administration's statement.

During our many hearings, all of those hearings that we did on the Central Command area in the Mideast, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the threats from Iran, we were told by the military leadership who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in order to counter any threat from Iran and similar threats, and to keep open the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz.

Today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest that we need. So the committee added this DDG-51 for this year. The Navy actually asked for advanced procurement for the DDG-51 so they can build it next year. We were able to find the funds to actually build it this year so that we can begin to prepare for the presence that the Navy and the President have all said that we have to maintain. That's the DDG-51.

In addition, in order to try to accomplish the coverage that the Navy said they need, we have taken three cruisers that would have been taken out of service, and we reconfigured those cruisers. We provided funding to reconfigure the cruisers to add to this effort, to add to the effort to have more naval presence in the Mideast, and to cover the Pacific. As everyone in the military and in the White House has said, we've got to have that presence.

We have to oppose this amendment. We need this DDG-51 in order to meet our obligations.

It is interesting that we understand that some of these programs are costing more than was anticipated. The CBO just issued a report saying that in order to do the President's budget request, it will cost $123 billion more than they estimated that it would cost. We do have a problem with numbers, and with dollars.

Covering the Pacific region, covering the Mideast region, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, that is important to our national security interests, and that's important to our allies, and to our troops overseas in that region.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not a good amendment. It is not good for our national defense.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The amendment tends to remove language from the appropriations bill, which we're going to agree with, by the way. It has been carried in appropriations bills for a number of years. However, when the laws were codified, it became part of the permanent law. It doesn't even need to be in the appropriations bills any longer.

So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while I did not object to taking up this amendment, I am going to object to the amendment. This one actually was an earmark in the FY10, funded as an earmark at $1.6 million. It also takes the money from that source that I have objected to before, the Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts. I just really cannot support anything that is going to affect our readiness to defend our country.

So I strongly object to this amendment, although I did agree to allowing us to go back to consider the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not object to what the gentleman is trying to do. Although, I have to be very honest in that his amendment does not accomplish what he thinks it will accomplish. We are okay to transfer the money, so we are not going to object to the amendment.

The fact is that this is controlled by law, not by appropriations. This is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act, not by the appropriations bill. So, while I understand what the gentleman wants to do and while I agree with what he wants to do, this won't do it, but I am not going to object to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that Mr. Poe said. You cannot have an ally who is an ally today but not an ally tomorrow, and that has been our experience with Pakistan. The Defense Department will tell you that it is very complicated because they do enjoy a nuclear capability that could be dangerous if it got into the wrong hands.

I would ask Mr. Poe a question and would yield to him for an answer:

Your amendment is not limited to Pakistan. Your amendment would cut across the board and reduce money for the Kurdish Republic, Jordan, which is one of our most important partners and coalitions in the region; funding for the northern distribution networks; and numerous other coalition partners who are helping in the fight against terrorism.

I wonder if we could talk you into amending your amendment or rewriting your amendment to make it specifically to Pakistan. And let me say this to you before you answer, and then I will yield to you.

In this bill, the money for Pakistan cannot be spent. We have fenced this money--all of it--until the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress that the government of Pakistan is doing this: cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism efforts, including taking steps to end support for terrorist groups and preventing them from basing and operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross-border attacks; Pakistan is not supporting terrorist activities against the United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan; Pakistan is not dismantling IED networks and is interdicting precursor chemicals used in making IEDs; preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials.

There are four or five more, and I won't take the time. I want to do what you want to do, but I don't want to have an adverse effect on our coalition partners that we rely on so much.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Yellow Ribbon program is a very great program, and the gentleman has made the case very powerfully. I am in support of what he is trying to do. I support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this gets to be a very serious issue if we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan. At numerous hearings, General Allen, who commands in Afghanistan, General Mattis, commander of Central Command, this was their recommendation. This is what they said they needed in order to get us and get our troops out of Afghanistan, which I think we all want to see happen as quickly as possible. Certainly I can tell you that I do.

We did not fund it totally because some of the plans were not sufficiently considered; but, generally, this is what our commanders in the field, those responsible for fighting the fight, those responsible for leading our troops, this is what they tell us they need to get our troops out of Afghanistan. I do object and oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the sponsor of the amendment that this is a more reasonable approach--yes, it is--but this actually cuts the fund in half. Now, that is a major cut on something that our military commanders in the field say that they really need to have.

Now, the committee took a $25 million cut, but that was in agreement with the commanders. They felt that they could absorb that cut and still do the program, but I don't think I can support cutting this program in half.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I want the troops out of Afghanistan as soon as our military commanders advise us and the President that we can do so and we can do it safely.

I have seen on my weekly visits to the Walter Reed/Bethesda Hospital, I have seen the terrible, terrible tragic cost of this war, and that doesn't even talk about those who have lost their lives.

I don't want to walk through that hospital and see any more quadruple or triple amputees. I don't want to see that, and our military commanders must make that decision. We are not in a position to make that decision of how, when, where do we accomplish this departure from Afghanistan with victory.

And so I still have to express my objection to this amendment because it cuts the fund that our military commanders tell us that they need--cuts it in half. And so I just have to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I had opposed similar amendments in the past because of the source of the funding, the defense-wide O&M accounts which we just really cannot afford to cut into our readiness accounts. This does not take funding from that account. And so I appreciate the gentleman's changing the source of his amendment, and I'm agreeing to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times that I have said this on this floor and in the committee and to anyone that would listen: You cannot make your decisions on national defense based on politics. You can't make your decision based on national defense just on a number. And this number, by the way, on this similar amendment, has changed. Where is the commitment?

The policies and the investment in our national defense must be based on the real threat to our own security, to the security of the United States, to the security of our troops, and to the security of our allies and our interests, whatever they might be. Stop and think. The threat has not diminished. The threat has not gone away.

Did anybody happen to watch Iran's exercises last week where they fired short-range missiles, medium-range missiles, and long-range missiles? Iran is moving to make itself a strong military capability nation. That is a threat. Their commentaries about the United States and to the United States, that's a threat. We have got to be careful.

China is expanding its military, expanding its technology, and expanding its work in cyber. The threat is growing, and so this is not the time to reduce our capability, to reduce our readiness, to reduce our training, to reduce in preparing our troops for whatever is required to defend the Nation that we love so much.

This amendment just can't go, and I strongly ask Members to oppose this amendment and the message that it would send around the world that we don't care about the threat. We do care about the threat, and we are aware of the threat, and we know what it could mean to us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It has been a long-standing practice put in place by appropriations legislation years ago that the contracts for these pans must be awarded under a competitive process. In fact, the FY 2010 DOD appropriations bill required that the contract be competitive, and every year the Army holds an open competition where it asks all qualified companies to place a bid.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment is necessary, but I do agree with what it does, and I accept the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlelady. She is certainly determined. This is the third or fourth amendment on the same subject, just by changing the numbers. I'm not going to make the same arguments about the threat and about the need to defend our country. Again, you have heard that many, many times. But it is serious. It is serious.

The numbers keep changing. I don't know why they keep changing, but the fact that they keep changing indicates to me that there's not really a real determination here on the number. But there is a determination on my side and from my viewpoint and, that is, the threat cannot be ignored, the threat is growing, and this is not a good amendment and I ask that our Members oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his work on this important issue.

The gentleman is correct. Our Nation's ability to produce the 40-millimeter ammunition is a critical readiness issue. I am very proud of the work that is done in Florida and other States to support production of this ammunition. This is a matter of importance to the readiness of the Army, and the readiness of all of our Armed Forces is a matter of top priority to me and it is a matter of great importance to both of our districts.

I'm committed to ensuring that the funding necessary for production of 40-millimeter ammunition in 2013 is available and that the supply chain and workforce associated with the 40-millimeter ammunition remains strong.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Iowa to ensure that the final bill reflects that priority.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in working with the administration, the Department of Defense, and our commanders in the field in Afghanistan, we have come to a proper amount to be funded for this purpose. It's already included in this bill. I think to change the formula now from one that has been agreed upon by the administration, the Defense Department, and the commanders in the field who have the responsibility for operating this entire Afghan operation, I just oppose this amendment. I think it's the wrong thing to do.

It's very balanced. It's agreed to by the parties that have the responsibility. I just hope the Members will vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source