Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

As I rise to present the House Appropriations Committee's recommendation for the fiscal year 2016 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, there are nearly 200,000 servicemen and -women serving abroad, doing the work of freedom on every continent, and there are many more at home who are serving in every one of our States--Active, Guard and Reserve--all volunteers. We are grateful to them and their families.

They are certainly not all experts in some of the language and terms that will be part of our vocabulary during this debate over the next 24 hours--phrases like ``sequester'' and ``continuing resolution,'' ``Budget Control Act,'' ``overseas contingency account,'' and the ``global war on terrorism account''--but they have every expectation that they will have our united, bipartisan support for this bill whether they serve aboard a ship, fly through airspace, or provide overwatch on land to support a military mission. This legislation was developed after 12 hearings, many briefings, travel to the Middle East and Europe, and countless staff hours, with those who serve us, military and civilian, very much in mind.

This is a product of a very bipartisan and cooperative effort, for which I thank my good friend, the ranking member, Pete Visclosky. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We are both fortunate to have committee members who are engaged and committed so much to this product. We are grateful for the support of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey.

In total, the bill provides just over $578 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $24.4 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This topline includes $88.4 billion in the global war on terrorism funding for war efforts, and it is at the level assumed in the House-Senate budget conference agreement. I would point out that our House total is very close to the number President Obama submitted in his fiscal year 2016 budget request for national defense. Of course, the base funding recommendation is just over $490 billion, which reflects the budget caps enacted in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act, signed by President Obama.

To reach our reduced allocation, we reviewed in detail the President's submission and found areas and programs where reductions were possible without harming military operations, warfighter readiness, or critical modernization efforts. Please be assured we made every dollar count. To do so, we have taken reductions from programs that have been restructured or terminated, subject to contract or schedule delays, contain unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need, or because of historical underexecution and rescissions of unneeded funds.

Of course, our bill keeps faith with our troops and their families by including a 2.3 percent pay increase, a full percentage above the President's own request. It also provides general funding to their benefits and critical defense health programs. In another key area, this package contains robust funding to counter serious worldwide cyber threats--now an everyday occurrence.

But I think we would all agree that the world is a much more dangerous, unstable, and unpredictable place than it was in 2011 when the Budget Control Act was signed into law by President Obama. The budget caps developed back then could never have envisioned the emerging and evolving threats that we are seeing today in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

So, to respond to current and future threats and to meet our constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense, we developed, in a bipartisan way, a bill that adheres to the current law and provides additional resources to end catastrophic cuts to military programs and people. These additional resources are included in title IX, the global war on terrorism account. That account has been carefully vetted to assure its war-related uses.

Our subcommittee scrubbed the President's base budget for this year and past budget requests, and it has identified those systems and programs that are absolutely connected to our ongoing fight against threats presented by ISIL, al Qaeda, al-Nusrah, the Khorasan Group, Boko Haram, and other radical terrorist organizations, including the Iranian Quds Force.

We also projected what resources the military and intelligence community will need to meet ongoing challenges of nation-state aggressors like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and others. Not surprisingly, we have heard objections about the use of title IX to boost our topline national security spending in this bill. Frankly, I do not believe there is anyone on either side of the Capitol who believes this should be our first go-to option. Rather, it is a process we undertake as a last resort to make sure our troops can answer the call amid a worsening threat environment around the world.

Again, we have been very careful about what went into this global war on terrorism account. We resisted the temptation to simply transfer large portions of the base bill's operations and maintenance accounts into the global war on terrorism account. We painstakingly worked to provide needed resources for the preparation of our forces in the field whenever a crisis may exist or develop in the future, like the current unfolding disaster which is Iraq.

In a recent Statement of Administration Policy, the White House asserted that the global war on terrorism funding--the old OCO account, the overseas contingency account--in their words is a ``funding mechanism intended to pay for wars.'' I could not agree more, and that is why we enforce that account to provide President Obama with the funding resources he needs to lead us as Commander in Chief. Within that account, I want to highlight two areas of critical importance--ISR and readiness.

We believe that a strong intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance--ISR--capability is a critical component of the global war on terror; yet a succession of combatant commanders has testified before our committee that only a fraction of their ISR requirements is being met, in essence, leaving them blind to the enemy's activities, movements, and intentions. Accordingly, the global war on terrorism account contains an additional $500 million above the President's 2016 request to improve our ISR capabilities: the procurement of additional ISR aircraft and ground stations, the training of ISR pilots and other personnel, and the processing of that type of derived data.

Likewise, we share the concern of the Army, Air Force, and Marines about the overall erosion of readiness in the force. So, to begin to reinvest in readiness, title IX includes an additional $2.5 billion above the President's request for this purpose to be distributed to all of our services and to the Guard and Reserves. I would add that this sum must be detailed and justified to Congress 30 days before it is spent.

Again, this bill is structured to give the President the tools he needs to act. For example, when he finally does develop a long-awaited, complete, and comprehensive strategy to combat ISIL and other terrorist groups, we have provided in this bill the resources he will need to execute his plans. I think we would all agree that America must lead, and this bill enables leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I will allow myself a closing thought:

The Washington Post recently editorialized on the defense authorization bill: ``There isn't much bipartisan governance left in Washington, but if anything fits that description, it's probably the annual defense bill.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves bipartisan support, and after many hours of productive debate, I look forward to a bipartisan vote. Our troops deserve it. Our national security requires it. Our adversaries need to see it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

As I rise to present the House Appropriations Committee's recommendation for the fiscal year 2016 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, there are nearly 200,000 servicemen and -women serving abroad, doing the work of freedom on every continent, and there are many more at home who are serving in every one of our States--Active, Guard and Reserve--all volunteers. We are grateful to them and their families.

They are certainly not all experts in some of the language and terms that will be part of our vocabulary during this debate over the next 24 hours--phrases like ``sequester'' and ``continuing resolution,'' ``Budget Control Act,'' ``overseas contingency account,'' and the ``global war on terrorism account''--but they have every expectation that they will have our united, bipartisan support for this bill whether they serve aboard a ship, fly through airspace, or provide overwatch on land to support a military mission. This legislation was developed after 12 hearings, many briefings, travel to the Middle East and Europe, and countless staff hours, with those who serve us, military and civilian, very much in mind.

This is a product of a very bipartisan and cooperative effort, for which I thank my good friend, the ranking member, Pete Visclosky. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We are both fortunate to have committee members who are engaged and committed so much to this product. We are grateful for the support of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey.

In total, the bill provides just over $578 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $24.4 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This topline includes $88.4 billion in the global war on terrorism funding for war efforts, and it is at the level assumed in the House-Senate budget conference agreement. I would point out that our House total is very close to the number President Obama submitted in his fiscal year 2016 budget request for national defense. Of course, the base funding recommendation is just over $490 billion, which reflects the budget caps enacted in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act, signed by President Obama.

To reach our reduced allocation, we reviewed in detail the President's submission and found areas and programs where reductions were possible without harming military operations, warfighter readiness, or critical modernization efforts. Please be assured we made every dollar count. To do so, we have taken reductions from programs that have been restructured or terminated, subject to contract or schedule delays, contain unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need, or because of historical underexecution and rescissions of unneeded funds.

Of course, our bill keeps faith with our troops and their families by including a 2.3 percent pay increase, a full percentage above the President's own request. It also provides general funding to their benefits and critical defense health programs. In another key area, this package contains robust funding to counter serious worldwide cyber threats--now an everyday occurrence.

But I think we would all agree that the world is a much more dangerous, unstable, and unpredictable place than it was in 2011 when the Budget Control Act was signed into law by President Obama. The budget caps developed back then could never have envisioned the emerging and evolving threats that we are seeing today in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

So, to respond to current and future threats and to meet our constitutional responsibilities to provide for the common defense, we developed, in a bipartisan way, a bill that adheres to the current law and provides additional resources to end catastrophic cuts to military programs and people. These additional resources are included in title IX, the global war on terrorism account. That account has been carefully vetted to assure its war-related uses.

Our subcommittee scrubbed the President's base budget for this year and past budget requests, and it has identified those systems and programs that are absolutely connected to our ongoing fight against threats presented by ISIL, al Qaeda, al-Nusrah, the Khorasan Group, Boko Haram, and other radical terrorist organizations, including the Iranian Quds Force.

We also projected what resources the military and intelligence community will need to meet ongoing challenges of nation-state aggressors like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and others. Not surprisingly, we have heard objections about the use of title IX to boost our topline national security spending in this bill. Frankly, I do not believe there is anyone on either side of the Capitol who believes this should be our first go-to option. Rather, it is a process we undertake as a last resort to make sure our troops can answer the call amid a worsening threat environment around the world.

Again, we have been very careful about what went into this global war on terrorism account. We resisted the temptation to simply transfer large portions of the base bill's operations and maintenance accounts into the global war on terrorism account. We painstakingly worked to provide needed resources for the preparation of our forces in the field whenever a crisis may exist or develop in the future, like the current unfolding disaster which is Iraq.

In a recent Statement of Administration Policy, the White House asserted that the global war on terrorism funding--the old OCO account, the overseas contingency account--in their words is a ``funding mechanism intended to pay for wars.'' I could not agree more, and that is why we enforce that account to provide President Obama with the funding resources he needs to lead us as Commander in Chief. Within that account, I want to highlight two areas of critical importance--ISR and readiness.

We believe that a strong intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance--ISR--capability is a critical component of the global war on terror; yet a succession of combatant commanders has testified before our committee that only a fraction of their ISR requirements is being met, in essence, leaving them blind to the enemy's activities, movements, and intentions. Accordingly, the global war on terrorism account contains an additional $500 million above the President's 2016 request to improve our ISR capabilities: the procurement of additional ISR aircraft and ground stations, the training of ISR pilots and other personnel, and the processing of that type of derived data.

Likewise, we share the concern of the Army, Air Force, and Marines about the overall erosion of readiness in the force. So, to begin to reinvest in readiness, title IX includes an additional $2.5 billion above the President's request for this purpose to be distributed to all of our services and to the Guard and Reserves. I would add that this sum must be detailed and justified to Congress 30 days before it is spent.

Again, this bill is structured to give the President the tools he needs to act. For example, when he finally does develop a long-awaited, complete, and comprehensive strategy to combat ISIL and other terrorist groups, we have provided in this bill the resources he will need to execute his plans. I think we would all agree that America must lead, and this bill enables leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I will allow myself a closing thought:

The Washington Post recently editorialized on the defense authorization bill: ``There isn't much bipartisan governance left in Washington, but if anything fits that description, it's probably the annual defense bill.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves bipartisan support, and after many hours of productive debate, I look forward to a bipartisan vote. Our troops deserve it. Our national security requires it. Our adversaries need to see it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his strong support of national defense, his incredible dedication to the National Guard, and his great service to the State of Ohio.

His amendment, while it will be withdrawn, as he said, is intended to provide radio equipment for the Air National Guard F-16s but was only recently brought to our committee's attention. Should the Air Guard choose to purchase the ARC-210 radios with NGREA funding, which the committee has provided quite a lot of money for, the committee would support their decision.

We are sensitive to the need of the Air Guard, yet the committee needs to do its due diligence. Ranking Member Visclosky and I look forward to working with you and your staff on this important issue, as we have already been doing, and appreciate your indulgence and willingness to withdraw the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to use this time to heap compliments upon my colleague from New Jersey who heads up the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force and has been providing that leadership and support, and it is certainly bipartisan.

Just for the record, our committee has been very active in supporting this type of work and research. And for the record, our bill provides $155 million, which includes a plus up of $100 million above the request level of $55 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research.

In addition, our bill provides $676 million in operation and maintenance funding within the Defense Health Program to care for servicemembers affected by traumatic brain injuries and psychological maladies.

There has been an issue about the slow spend down of some of the money. Of course, if we are here on the floor advocating, as we should, for such an important program, we need to ensure that the bureaucracy gets the money spent. I am sure my colleague from New Jersey would agree that if we are going to put money on the table, let's make sure they spend it rapidly to address this ever-growing problem which affects so many people who come off the battlefield. I commend the gentleman and support his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in coal, and I am not an expert in what these men describe as an earmark, but I do know that coal is reliable, that it is cost-effective, that it is domestically produced, and that it has been used at this Air Force base for a long time. This provision both promotes domestic resources of energy and ensures that our bases and that particular base have a reliable, continuous source of energy for their daily operations.

I don't think we ought to dismiss the notion that Germany is under attack by Russian aggression, and Russia would at any time cut off fuel supplies, as they have done to other countries in Eastern Europe. Europe, as an area, as a continent, remains heavily reliant on Russia for its energy, and Russia uses its leverage on an annual basis to quiet potential opposition to that aggression in Ukraine and other parts of the region. This is a stark reminder of how important it is to ensure that our military has a reliable domestic source of energy wherever it is in the world. This may be an unusual circumstance, but I see no reason to change it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, what is really surrealistic around here, to use the gentleman's word, is that we spend more time on these Guantanamo detainees than we do on Americans locked up in Iranian prisons and jails--that is unconscionable--or with Americans detained in North Korea.

Let's focus on liberty for some of the people in those countries that we are trying to work with on the nuclear deal, such as the Iranians holding Americans prisoners.

You have the right to focus on these detainees. Ninety-nine percent of them are guilty as hell, but we seem to be doing little in the public way to release Americans held in prisons in various parts of the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, our committee strongly supports the Ohio class submarine. We have done it for years.

Both the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and I not only serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and provide its leadership, but we have also supported this program on Energy and Water, which is the other part of the package.

With respect, the gentleman from Virginia's amendment proposes to strike a provision of the bill, prohibits the transfer of funds to the national sea-based deterrence fund, a reserve established but not funded last year in the NDAA.

We recognize this submarine will be expensive; however, the national sea-based deterrence fund will not make the submarine any less expensive, and it will not increase resources available to the Department of Defense.

This Congress has an important responsibility to provide resources to all of our military services and the intelligence community. Under the structure of this special fund, the Secretary of Defense has the authority to divert dollars into this new fund from the Army, Marines, Air Force, Special Forces, missile defense, ISR, and other types of essential programs. This is the wrong approach. It removes, furthermore, congressional oversight from the Secretary of Defense.

Secondly, if the President determines the Ohio class replacement is a must-fund platform, then the Navy should buy it, just as it has every other submarine in its inventory that our committee has supported. Establishing a special fund to pay for the submarine is an attempt to have other military services pay for what is a Navy responsibility.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I certainly understand the gentleman's passion, and at times, I share some of the same concerns he stated in his remarks.

Just to put a little perspective on it, the coalition support fund allows the Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation for logistical and military support, including access, specialized training to personnel, procurement and provision of supplies and equipment provided by that nation in connection with the U.S. military operations in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Receipts for reimbursements are submitted by cooperating nations and are fully vetted by the Pentagon and follow strict criteria to meet the standard for reimbursement, and all payments are made in arrears and follow a notification to Congress, so there is a notification to Congress.

Regarding Pakistan, the coalition support fund remains a critical tool to enable Pakistan to effectively deal with future challenges emerging from the U.S. drawdown. At times, I wonder whether we are withdrawing.

It is also a cost-effective tool, some would say, for the U.S. to remain engaged in the region. I know all too well that our relationship with Pakistan is an uncomfortable one; I feel it, but these funds are sent to reimburse Pakistan for actions to protect our interests.

These reimbursements are made to maintain some 186 Pakistani forces along 1,600 miles of border between Pakistan and Afghanistan to deter cross-border conflict, movement, and counterterrorism-counterinsurgency operations throughout the FATA, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

The focus of this core level is against TTP, an al Qaeda-allied organization that conducts regional terrorist and insurgent attacks. Nearly 28,000 militants were killed, injured, or arrested due to these operations. Pakistan itself--and this doesn't get much press--has suffered a lot of casualties themselves, about 5,000, while attempting to secure this treacherous border.

Continued support of the deployment of the Pakistan Armed Forces in FATA and other areas in the future is needed for the long-term stability of the area.

I must oppose the amendment, although I understand the passion with which the gentleman has made his argument because I think it is in our long-term interest to have this relationship.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking member.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me echo some of the sentiments of Mr. Visclosky about some of the concerns and some of the reports that have been issued by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. It should be worrisome. A hell of a lot of money has been wasted.

I do think there are some projects that need to be completed. One that comes to mind is the Kandahar bridging solution, the plan to bring electric power to Kandahar. It ends in 3 months. We need to continue that investment. This was a top counterinsurgency priority. Most road projects are completed. The second is the Kajaki Dam has less than a year's work remaining and will supply renewable electric power to the grid.

These are elements of stability that sometimes get lost in reports of empty buildings where there are no occupants and no electricity. I think we need to continue to give a helping hand to the Afghan people because, if they don't have an economy, then they are not going to have any national security. They need a stable economy, and some of these projects near completion need to be continued.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I share quite a lot of the gentleman's sentiments.

I have said on a number of occasions, when you put the Defense bill forward, sometimes you have to support things that the Commander in Chief and the President want that you are highly dubious about. I have been very conflicted about this Train and Equip. At times, I think the enemy is doing a better job of training and equipping their own than we are, and, at times, it has been pretty deplorable. I want the gentleman to know I do support this effort. Let me just put some meat on the bones to, maybe, even make his point but, in reality, tell a little truth about the program.

The Iraq Train and Equip Program provides about $715 million in both funding and authority to assist military and other forces associated with the Government of Iraq, including Kurdish and tribal security forces, with a national security mission to counter ISIL. We do know in the overall mix--and the gentleman from Minnesota knows it--there are some good guys over there. Of course, a lot of the good guys have been taken over by the Quds Force and the Iranians to the south, but, in reality, we do have some good allies in the north with the Kurds, so I haven't given up on all parts of Iraq.

I think we need to continue to support the program. Evidently, our President does as well. We are sending 400 more advisers over to, shall we say, set up a new base camp in Ramadi in Anbar province to sort of respond to a huge crisis there when that city was taken over. I would hate to abandon the people of Iraq without giving it one more try.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking member.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment, this is a complicated issue--that is an understatement--with multifaceted policy ramifications that really can't be fully debated in 5 or 10 minutes. The situation in Syria remains highly complicated and complex and poses imminent threats to the United States and allied interests, particularly Israel, Jordan, and Iraq.

Recognizing congressional concerns regarding potential U.S. military involvement in Syria, our bill appropriates funds in the GWOT account, the title IX that I talked about several hours ago to train and equip Syrians. It also further prohibits the introduction

of U.S. military forces into hostilities in Syria except in accordance with the War Powers Act.
However, this amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, for it attempts to tie the U.S. Government's hands in navigating the complicated situation we--or, more importantly, our allies Israel and Jordan--face related to threats emanating from ISIL in Iraq and Syria every day. We have to be realistic. There are many countries, including our allies, as well as other groups already involved in Syria.

This amendment would do nothing to stop the arming of the Syrian opposition. What this amendment would do is remove the possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstances, even if such engagement would be in the best interests of the United States or allies. Even at this rate, the U.S. is paying just a portion of the costs.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for any comments he may wish to make.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source