Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with Ms. Esty of Connecticut, Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island that works to assure the appropriate use of American taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan.

This amendment is in keeping with the clear position of the House, as we have voted numerous times in bipartisan fashion to limit funds for the Afghanistan infrastructure fund, a program which has been poorly run and is lacking in oversight.

This amendment would specifically strike the language which allows $50 million in funds for the Afghanistan security forces fund to be redirected toward the Afghanistan infrastructure fund account.

Mr. Chairman, we have spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and Congress has provided $1.3 billion to the Afghanistan infrastructure fund since it was created in 2011. However, funds have been slow to be spent; and, as of March 31, 2015, more than 55 percent of AIF funds remain to be expended.

Additionally, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, has repeatedly found that DOD has experienced challenges in executing large infrastructure projects and that many projects underway are behind schedule and face serious cost overruns.

SIGAR's audits have also found that we have inadequate sustainment plans and that projects lack an identifiable counterinsurgency benefit. SIGAR has also expressed reservations about the Afghans' ability to even operate and maintain these energy projects upon completion.

Now, it is my understanding that DOD requested this repurposing of funds because the budget authority on previously authorized funds is about to expire. I know we all look to our commanders in the field for guidance on what they need to finish the job in Afghanistan, but with over half of existing funds remaining to be expended, I ask: Mr. Chairman, why should we take away from other programs and give to this one?

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words, the sentiments, the compassion of both my colleagues; but this is an issue that we have addressed for quite some time. It is not new.

I am as concerned about our administration of the funds, our Department of Defense encouragement of Afghans to use the funds, and to make sure that contractual arrangements are in place so completion will take place. We have not seen that.

I think it is time that reality strikes home. While I understand the need to encourage a new government, sometimes, the best way is tough love and a clear indication that comes through finances as well.

I, again, encourage my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that would reiterate Congress' objection to a proposed policy change by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OFCCP, that would treat healthcare providers as Federal contractors.

In December of 2010, OFCCP quietly issued directive 293, asserting that contractual arrangements under Medicare, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program will trigger OFCCP jurisdiction. This is absurd. This directive would reclassify a majority of hospitals in the United States as Federal contractors, subjecting hospitals in your district and mine to OFCCP's often crushing regulatory burden.

With respect to TRICARE, the agency aggressively asserted its jurisdiction in a 2009 administrative case, OFCCP v. Florida Hospital of Orlando. OFCCP argued the hospital was a Federal subcontractor by virtue of its participation as a provider of a TRICARE network of providers. The agency took this troubling position despite the fact that the Department of Defense, which regulates TRICARE, previously concluded, Mr. Chairman: ``It would be impossible to achieve the TRICARE mission of providing affordable health care for our Nation's Active Duty and retired military members and their families if onerous Federal contracting rules were applied to the more than 500,000 TRICARE providers in the United States.''

Unfortunately, the administrative law judge in the case did not heed DOD's warning and failed to see this policy change for what it is--an expansion of government power over the healthcare sector. As such, Congress acted to oppose this outreach, and in 2012 the National Defense Authorization Act clarified that a TRICARE network healthcare provider is not--is not--a Federal contractor or subcontractor.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I am deeply concerned by this attempt by OFCCP to expand its jurisdiction through executive fiat. In response, I introduced the Protecting Health Care Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act in the 113th Congress, which clarified that healthcare providers are not Federal contractors subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor's OFCCP.

Our actions on the committee in bringing attention to this issue have been successful in prompting OFCCP to place a moratorium on the policy. However, as OFCCP has previously defied Congress and the Department of Defense, I believe this amendment is necessary. Therefore, I ask the House support my amendment that would prohibit funds to be used under this act for implementing this overreaching policy and affirmatively show the House will not support such actions by the Department of Labor and OFCCP.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source