[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 91 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4506-H4511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2219.
{time} 1752
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I first would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), the former chairman of the subcommittee, for the complete
cooperation that we had with each other in preparing this very
nonpartisan, nonpolitical Defense appropriations bill for 2012.
The base budget of this bill is $530 billion, which is $9 billion
below the President's budget request. It was not easy to find the
savings, but we were determined to find those savings without having
any adverse effect on the warfighter or the readiness of our Nation.
The base bill is $530 billion. In addition to that, rather than
having a supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, we included a section
that is referred to as OCO, the Overseas Contingency Operation, which
is $119 billion. The bill includes no earmarks for Members' districts.
The bill contains no money for Libya because none was requested. The
administration did not request money for Libya. We asked numerous times
what their plans were, how long it might take, what the cost might be.
We did not get an answer until just very recently. And they said, No,
they did not request any funding, and they were basically going to make
up the balances by a reprogramming. They would not ask for a
supplemental, but they would reprogram some of the existing funds.
It's a good bill. I wish it had more money in it for certain areas. I
would like to have seen a much larger pay raise. We provided the
necessary funding for the 1.6 percent pay raise for the military, which
was the authorized level and the requested level, but we just had to
find that $9 billion. The staff had to work extremely hard to make sure
that we did not have an adverse effect on any of our soldiers or our
overall readiness.
The bill provides $32 billion for the Defense Health Program. We
understand the needs of our soldiers that are wounded. There are,
unfortunately, too many of them. We have provided what we think is
adequate money to care for whatever their medical requirements, their
medical needs are. And it includes considerable research into medical
issues. The research is important because a lot of the injuries that
came out of Iraq and we are seeing come out of Afghanistan are such
that in previous wars, the troop would probably not have survived. But
because of advancements in medical care, because of the research,
because of advancements in medicines, because of the ability to remove
the casualty from the battlefield quickly and get to a hospital
quickly, we're saving the lives of many of our troops that would
probably not have survived in previous wars.
We include funding for the construction of 10 Navy ships. We include
money for 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. We include $3.3 billion for
28 F-18 Super Hornets and 12 EA-18 Growlers, $2.8 billion for 116 H-60
Blackhawk helicopters, and $699 million for the Reaper UAV, which is an
advancement of the Predator. I'm trying not to go into too much detail
because it is a very lengthy bill.
The reductions that we made in order to achieve the $9 billion in
savings, we took favorable contract pricing adjustments, contract and
schedule delays resulting in fiscal year 2012 savings, unjustified cost
increases, or funding requested ahead of the anticipated or historical
underexecution of contracts, rescissions of unneeded prior year funds,
and reductions that were authorized in the House-passed 2012 National
Defense Authorization Act under the chairmanship of Chairman McKeon.
Specific reductions include $435 million in savings from those contract
and production delays in the AMRAAM system. We will provide for the
Record the details of all of the areas where we took the savings.
All in all, it is a good bill for the money that we had available.
There are things that we would have added. We would have increased the
military pay raise. We just didn't have the money. So we went to the
authorized level. There's much more to be said that will be said as we
read this bill for amendments, which will probably not happen now until
we come back after next week's recess.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. It has, once again, been an honor to work with my friend
from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, to prepare the Defense
appropriations bill for FY 2012. In the longstanding tradition of this
committee, the bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis, and I
support the bill. I know that Chairman Rogers will be glad to hear
that.
I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to
support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the
investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully
equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge.
{time} 1800
Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee
exercised its constitutional responsibility
[[Page H4507]]
to allocate resources to those programs that best support the
requirements of our military forces.
In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The
allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request.
While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level,
much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and
maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts.
The bill also provides the funds needed to support U.S. service
personnel. Examples of this include the military pay accounts fund at a
1.6 percent raise, consistent with the budget request and the level
included in the House-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services
authorization bill.
The bill also provides $32.3 billion for the Defense Health Program,
including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's
longstanding efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic
brain injury and psychological health conditions. The bill also
includes funding increases for several research efforts including peer-
reviewed breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung
cancer research.
The bill fully funds $2.3 billion requested for family programs and
adds funding for several initiatives including $250 million to replace
schools owned by local education authorities and $40 million for Impact
Aid.
The bill addresses many of DOD's most pressing investment needs. It
funds 10 ships, as requested in the budget, and 32 Joint Strike Fighter
aircraft. I would like to have seen more Strike Fighter aircraft
because I believe they're doing a much better job on this program. Last
year it was in some trouble. This year Admiral Venlet has said
repeatedly that they're, in fact, ahead of the training schedule. So I
think this is very good news.
The bill also adds funding to fill gaps in DOD capabilities. Some
examples include the M1A2 System Enhancement Package: $272 million is
included to prevent a break in production of tanks. And this is
something that our committee agreed with on an overwhelming basis, that
shutting down the tank line in Ohio would be a terrible mistake because
we'd lose the skilled workers and then we're going to reopen this tank
line in 2 or 3 years, and it would just be a waste of money. So we
bridged that gap.
HMMWV Force Protection: $50 million is added to develop and test and
improve armor and other blast protection technologies on the HMMWV.
Long Range Strike: $100 million is added to reduce technical risk and
schedule risks for this program. We're moving ahead on a replacement
for the Trident submarine. The C-17 replacement is included to replace
the operational loss of a C-17 aircraft. The committee has steadfastly
replaced--when there have been operational losses, we've replaced the
equipment. This is another example.
Special Operation Command shortfalls: this is one thing we had in our
bill in 2011, and this year an increase of $250 million is added to
address unfunded requirements identified by the Special Operations
Command.
National Guard and Reserve equipment: $1.5 billion is included to
fund equipment shortfalls in National Guard and Reserve equipment.
Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance: $50 million is included
above the request to continue to fill gaps in DOD ISR equipment.
Israeli missile defense programs: $130 million is added to enhance
Israeli missile defense programs including the Arrow missile defense
system.
Small business innovative research: $50 million is included to
continue the committee's efforts for SBIR Phase III transition.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $20 million is added to
continue defense research at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
Energy efficiency improvements: the bill includes $82 million above
the request to field equipment that will reduce the energy footprint of
deployed Marine Corps units. The bill also includes $10 million above
the request for pilot programs to improve DOD energy efficiency.
The bill provides $118.7 billion for operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq and for continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The
bill ensures that troops have essential force protection and provides
the means for the Afghans to provide their own security. The bill
includes $12.8 billion to train Afghanistan's National Security Forces.
While the bill provides essential support for our troops, I remain
concerned about our Nation's direction in Pakistan and ongoing
operations in Afghanistan. There is cause to question the reliability
of our partnership with both countries. In the light of recent events,
we must reassess the extent of U.S. military involvement and the
objectives of U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world,
reexamining whether U.S. national security requires a continued
deployment of over 100,000 U.S. service personnel.
I welcome President Obama's decision to start the withdrawals, and I
also urge a ceasefire and a political settlement. After a careful
review of the security situation, I believe it is time to significantly
accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
To accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. By
necessity, a political solution in Afghanistan will involve
negotiations with Taliban representatives. It will also demand taking
into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those
neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal
divides within Afghanistan.
Finally, we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one
that occurred at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Even with
these cautions in mind, I believe it is time to begin the process of
bringing the level of deployed U.S. troops in line with a new
assessment of our security interests in the region.
I look forward to hearing from General Petraeus and General Odierno.
We worked with them on the surge in Iraq, which turned out to be very
successful. The military has done a very good job in Helmand and
Kandahar and has dominated the Taliban in recent times, which is very
positive.
We still have a problem on the eastern front between Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and we need to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, though
the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was something that all the
troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in,
the person who led the effort against the United States in one of the
most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that
has ever occurred to our country.
While I have concerns about our Nation's policies in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, I strongly support this bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and it
provides the resources needed by our troops. I urge your support for
the bill.
I also want to thank the staff. I know Chairman Young will join me in
this. We have a tremendous staff that works together. They worked
together when I was chairman. They're working together now that
Chairman Young has--he had been chairman before and has now regained
his chairmanship. And the staff has done an extraordinary job. It's a
major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all
these programs, and I commend them for their good work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to
the very distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank Chairman Young for yielding me this
time.
And thank you and your other partner, this dynamic duo that we have
here between Chairman Young and Chairman Dicks. Thank you for your good
work.
The nearly $649 billion in total funding within this bill will
provide our Armed Forces with the resources they need for the Nation's
missions abroad and the protection of our people here at home.
This bill sustains our military readiness, facilitating the continued
modernization of our national defense systems and preserving the
American Armed Forces as the greatest military in the world.
As our soldiers and marines continue to put their lives on the line
to eliminate terrorism and protect freedom around the globe, Congress
must provide the necessary support and funding to keep them safe and
well equipped, and we must do so in a timely manner.
[[Page H4508]]
These efforts include adequate funding for equipment procurement,
base operations, and military pay. To improve our defense capabilities
and prepare for future challenges, we've provided funding for research
and development into new technology.
{time} 1810
This legislation also provides essential funding for health and
quality-of-life programs for the men and women of the armed services
and their families.
But, as in all of our appropriations bills, this year especially,
this legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower-priority
programs, reduce spending in programs that can be scaled back, and
target funds where they're needed most so that our Nation can continue
on the path to fiscal recovery.
No bill, no Department, including the Pentagon, should be immune from
scrutiny during these precarious financial times. This legislation
identifies fiscally responsible savings, savings that will in no way
impair the safety or effectiveness of our troops, the success of our
military operations, or our military readiness.
The bill also increases oversight of Defense programs and funds to
ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently. We've
taken a critical eye and increased scrutiny on some programs to ensure
American taxpayers are receiving the proper benefits for their defense
investments.
I want to thank, again, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for
their tireless work. In fact, it's a very bipartisan spirit and
commitment, and that's the rule of this subcommittee over the decades
of time, and their commitment to crafting a very responsible Defense
bill. And of course the staff has worked tirelessly to make this day
possible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill. It's
a good one.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is a former member of the Defense
Subcommittee and now is the ranking Democrat on the Military
Construction-VA Subcommittee.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support
of the committee's recommended FY12 Defense appropriations bill.
I'd first like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Dicks, Chairman Rogers, the subcommittee members and staff on both
sides of the aisle for continuing the fine tradition of bipartisan
cooperation and teamwork in producing this bill.
Of note, the bill provides $530.5 billion in total for the DOD in
fiscal year 2012, $17 billion more than the current level. In addition,
the bill provides $118.7 billion for contingency funding for the
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It continues our longstanding commitment to our troops and their
families by including a pay raise for the troops, strengthening health
care services for servicemembers and their families, and providing $2.3
billion for family support and advocacy programs.
The bill protects our troops in harm's way by providing $3.2 billion
for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, $2.8 billion for
combating IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a total of $453 million for
the modernization of the M1 Abrams tanks.
The bill also includes an additional $1.5 billion for the National
Guard and Reserve equipment, $633 million for military medical
research, including $233 million for cancer research, $125 million for
psychological health and traumatic brain injury research.
I'm pleased that the committee included $141 million for University
and Industry Research Centers, of which $20 million was included for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities for research.
As a former member of the subcommittee, I'm reminded of my dear
friend and colleague, former Chairman Jack Murtha, who followed one
central creed and principle in developing an annual House Defense
appropriations bill, and that was to create a bill which provided our
servicemen and -women all the resources and tools they need to do their
job as effectively and efficiently as possible. I believe this bill
does just that. And I do earnestly believe that Chairman Murtha would
be very proud of this bill. And I'm pleased to support its passage.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of this
subcommittee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much Mr. Young of
Florida and Mr. Dicks of Washington for the fabulous work they've done
working together and developing this measure, which is something over
$500 billion. And the public certainly will know that that's no small
amount of money. But certainly, also they'll know it is the reason for
us to have a Federal Government--funding available to preserve our
Nation.
And as we leave this weekend to celebrate the 4th of July and the
history of our country and the history of freedom, not just here but
also available around the world, we know it's the work of this
subcommittee and people like these leaders that have allowed us to
continue to be on the point of the spear for freedom around the world.
Indeed, if there's a reason for us to have a Federal Government, it
is to be able to preserve our freedom and to provide opportunities for
others elsewhere in the world.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it's also very, very important for me
to point out that we are about serious and difficult challenges,
especially in the Middle East at this moment.
A while ago, my friend Norm Dicks mentioned 1989 and Afghanistan and
the challenges there. At that point in time, the Soviet Union was
attempting to take over all of Afghanistan as a way of taking over the
Middle East and to extend their desire to take over the world. A stop
to that came by way of this committee's work and leadership from this
committee.
If you have not taken the time to read about Charlie Wilson's war,
you should, and recognize that that war led to the chants for freedom
in Afghanistan.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If one would recognize, as of Charlie
Wilson's war's time, we were successful at stopping the Soviet Union.
But as we had that success, America did what it often does overseas: We
walked away and left a vacuum in Afghanistan. And it was that vacuum
that allowed the terrorists, al Qaeda and others, to extend themselves
and train themselves and put us in the pressure box that we are in
today in the country.
America must constantly be aware that we are the force for freedom
and, working together, we will continue to help freedom in the world.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my deepest
congratulations to these two gentlemen, these two leaders of this
committee, Bill Young and Norm Dicks, extremely talented people who are
bringing our committee and the Congress back to regular order so that
we can work with one another and make changes in bills like this with
free debate on the floor. Indeed, that is the strength of our Congress.
If the people will be patient with us, we'll actually accomplish some
things. Indeed, freedom will continue to be a force in the world
because of the work of these gentlemen. And our congratulations, as
well as our best wishes, go out to their continued work and success.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and
someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that I enjoy
working with.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank our ranking member, Mr.
Dicks, for your leadership for this time, but also for your patriotism
and for your commitment to our country and to our troops. And it is an
exciting committee, and it's a very important committee. And I want to
thank Chairman Rogers for your leadership, and for also his service and
for the attempts to bring this committee together in the spirit of
bipartisanship.
While I think everyone knows that I respect and support the President
and I applaud him for his tremendous leadership on so many issues, like
many of
[[Page H4509]]
my colleagues, I was tremendously disappointed to hear the President's
announcement last night.
{time} 1820
Almost three out of four Americans want to bring our troops home from
Afghanistan, and this was far from the significant reduction that the
American people were expecting. A token troop reduction of 10,000 by
the end of this year and waiting another year to remove another 23,000,
which in total would merely reverse the 2009 troop escalation, is
really, for me, unacceptable; and quite frankly, it flies in the face
of the growing bipartisan calls across our war-weary Nation to exit
Afghanistan and to refocus on our priorities here at home.
Now, I voted against this original authorization in 2001, which was a
very difficult vote for me to cast because I ended up being the only
one to cast a ``no'' vote. But I knew then that that authorization was
an authorization that was a blank check to wage war for any reason,
against any nation, for any length of time. And this has now become the
longest war in American history.
As we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war, critical
programs--like programs for women and children, nutrition programs,
food stamps and Medicare--are on the chopping block. So enough is
enough.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan. And in a world where
terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of Yemen or a hotel room
in Germany, we cannot adequately address these challenges through a
military-first, boots-on-the-ground strategy. It is clear that
occupying states and nation-building does not make for effective
counterterrorism, and the financial and human costs of continuing this
war are indefensible.
With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously
wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount each and
every day. So we need to bring our troops home and use the savings for
our economic challenges here at home, especially for job creation.
That's why I'm going to offer some amendments to this bill to end
funding for combat operations in Afghanistan and to provide, though,
funding for the protection and the safe and orderly withdrawal of our
young men and women as quickly as possible. I urge Members to support
this amendment.
I will also be offering an amendment to transfer the $5 billion
Pentagon war slush fund to a deficit reduction.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.
Ms. LEE. I want to explain these amendments today during general
debate, so I appreciate the time because I think this is important for
the public to know that there is a $5 billion Pentagon war slush fund
just sitting over there. So I want to offer an amendment to take that
war slush fund, $5 billion, and apply it to deficit reduction.
Especially in this time of deficits and a struggling economy, I hope
we can all agree that we should not be handing the Pentagon a $5
billion blank check for a war slush fund that has little accountability
and runs counter to our constitutional duty to control the purse
strings through this Congress.
We also cannot forget about the 45,000 troops in Iraq. I will be
offering an amendment to ensure that all of them are brought home at
the end of the year as agreed to in our Status of Forces Agreement. My
friend and colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and
myself will offer an amendment to simply require the Department of
Defense to provide audit-ready financial statements. That's a pretty
simple request, I would think. Now, this $648 billion budget is $17
billion above last year's budget. It could be cut at least by $75
billion to $100 billion without, mind you, jeopardizing our troops or
our national security.
As the daughter of a military veteran, let me just say that I support
each and every dollar in this budget for our troops because they
deserve our support for their safety and their protection and their
economic security; but we should be cutting waste, fraud and abuse out
of the Pentagon. And we should begin to cut these Cold War-era weapon
systems that have no mission, no reason to be developed in this new
world of terrorism when we see ourselves faced with asymmetrical
warfare. It just doesn't make any sense. So $648 billion is too much;
it's much too much. We can ensure our national security, protect our
troops, and reinvest some of these dollars to create jobs at home with
a rational defense budget.
We will never pay down our debt as long as the military budget
continues to soar.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to a very
distinguished senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee and
also chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself
with your remarks and those of the ranking member. This is a good
bipartisan bill carved out of an allocation that I would have preferred
be higher; but we, too, on this subcommittee must do our part to lower
the Federal deficit.
This bill deserves our strong support because, as the chairman said,
and others, it has an important pay raise in there for all of our
troops who are volunteering. It also provides more first-class medical
care for those that are injured. It provides more money for ships, 10
new ships--two of them being Virginia class submarines--additional
money for fighter aircraft, which are badly needed, and as was
mentioned earlier, $1.5 billion for the National Guard equipment for
both overseas and home State missions. Remarkably, this money was not
requested by the administration.
I also want to take a minute to reflect on the collective bipartisan
frustration many are feeling with the administration's handling of the
Libyan operation, another of what we might call ``overseas contingency
operations.'' We will debate the nature of our national interest on
Libya tomorrow as we consider measures that go to the heart of
Congress' constitutional role to declare war.
But here this evening this committee is in the process of developing
an incredible spending program for fiscal year beginning in October. I
understand there are no funds designated for Libyan operations in this
bill. However, in reality, this Libyan mission, whether NATO-led or
not, is heavily dependent on U.S. assets, and these assets must be
accounted for by our committee.
We are all aware that our chairman, Mr. Young--and he referred to it
in his remarks--since April 1 sought information from the
administration about, first, the nature of the mission in Libya; two,
the cost of the mission; three, the length of the mission; and, four,
any anticipated changes to the mission. We are also aware that the
President finally responded with his June 15 letter to Congress in
which he reports that the Department of Defense has spent over $750
million over the last 3 months, $10 million a day in Libya. Mr.
Chairman, the President errs when he fails to provide this committee
with accurate, timely, and precise information about any mission.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I support this mark, I support this bill,
and I thank the chairman and the ranking member and the committee staff
for the great work they've done.
Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very
important member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of this
fiscal year 2012 Defense appropriation bill. I want to particularly
thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks and their staffs for a
fantastic job. Thank you very much for your hard work and a great bill.
This bill is a great example, when it comes to our national defense,
that we work together as Americans, not as Democrats, not as
Republicans, but as Americans. At a time that we're in a number of
conflicts around the world, it's important that we show that we stand
united in support of our troops and against our enemies.
There was a point made about what's the longest war. I would say the
longest war in American history is the Cold War. We were in that war
for well over
[[Page H4510]]
40 years, and we're at war today against terrorism and radical elements
out there that are trying to kill us and to maim us and to harm our
national interests.
This is a long-term commitment, and I certainly congratulate this
committee for doing the job that's necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2012
Defense Appropriations bill. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks and
the staff on both sides have worked together to produce a very good
bill that supports our warfighters, plans for the future, and funds
current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also taking into
account the fiscal restraints of the current economy.
I think every Member would agree that our troops deserve the absolute
best we can give and this bill reflects that they are our top priority
by providing a 1.6 percent pay increase. The bill also provides for
important health research--from traumatic brain injury to psychological
treatment--in order to help troops transition from battle to home.
The defense funding bill also ensures our military has the necessary
equipment to succeed not only in the present, but in the future as
well. The bill replaces the C-17 that went down in Alaska last summer,
provides for the procurement of 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, funds
the building of 10 Navy ships, and provides for the purchase of 48
Reaper UAVs.
Finally the bill accounts for the current operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, ending the bad habit of ``emergency'' funding bills that
were rarely subjected to regular order and often loaded up with non-
emergency items. The bill is $9 billion less than the President's
request--a reflection of our times and the realization that no
department in the Federal Government is exempt from budget cuts.
Again, I rise in strong support of the FY12 Defense Appropriations
bill. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for their hard
work and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another very
important member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
{time} 1830
Mr. COLE. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal 2012 Defense
Appropriations Act and urge all Members to extend their support as
well. This is a fine bill that the committee worked on in an open
fashion, and it includes input from both sides of the aisle. Thanks to
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, it is a strong, bipartisan
bill that will do much good for the defense of our country.
Mr. Chairman, we will have many spirited debates on amendments during
the course of the consideration of this legislation, and that is a good
thing. But, rest assured, at the end of the day this legislation is and
will remain a very good product.
The spending levels in the bill do not exceed the 302(b) allocations
adopted by the Appropriations Committee, which are within the overall
spending level approved by the House budget resolution.
The bill itself includes $530 billion for the normal operations of
the Department and $118.7 billion for the conduct of the global war on
terror. It includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for the troops. It has $453
million for the procurement of additional updated Abrams tanks, and it
has $2.7 billion for the continued development of the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter, a weapons system that is critical to maintaining air
superiority for the United States Air Force.
Additionally, the bill will withhold 75 percent of the funding for
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund until the Secretary of
Defense provides lawmakers with a report detailing the strategy and
metrics for the use of those funds. The committee also adopted an
amendment that would provide $1 million for the creation of a
bipartisan commission to make policy recommendations on Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Mr. Chairman, this is a strong piece of legislation, one that I fully
believe we should support, and I would ask all Members to do so.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to advise the Chair that I have no
further speakers. I do have a brief closing statement after Mr. Dicks,
when he is prepared to close.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to again thank
the chairman for his great work and the work of the staff.
The President did lay out the rationale for why we got involved in
Libya. He said that we were there to help protect the Libyan people.
There were two resolutions adopted by the United Nations. And it wasn't
just the United Nations. You had the Arab League and NATO involved in
this. And, yes, I think the President would have been better advised to
have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the Libyan
people were going to be slaughtered and the President felt that he had
to act.
Some of us just got back from a trip. We saw the men and women who
handle the equipment, who fly in there, do the jamming, all the
different things that are done. They have done a phenomenal job. And
now the President has turned the leadership of this over to NATO and
they are taking the lead, though the gentleman from New Jersey is quite
correct; they cannot do all these things without tankers, without other
things, some of the special intelligence and reconnaissance that we
have that just isn't out there for anybody else.
So I hope that tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. Let's look at
this thing; let's talk about it. I think this will be a worthwhile
discussion. But remember, there was going to be a no-fly zone, an
embargo. We were going to protect the people. I think the President
laid out exactly what this was about.
We have to look at this in terms of Egypt and the other countries in
the area. Thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from Libya, and
this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround
Libya.
Ronald Reagan attacked Libya. I think he called Qadhafi a ``mad
dog,'' and I don't remember him coming to Congress before he let the
bombers go in there and attack him.
So I am one who is very restrained at the use of force, but in this
case I think the President had to act, and he had the United Nations,
the Arab League, NATO, he had the French and the British demanding
action.
I think we have to look at the result here, too. I think right now
the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding, and I hope they can
do it in a timely way. We would all like to see this over as quickly as
possible. But remember Kosovo. That took a significant amount of time
before that worked out. There were a lot of critics, a lot of critics
of President Clinton when he did that, but in the end it turned out
very well for everyone. In Libya, I think Qadhafi should be replaced. I
wish we were more candid about that, and the President has said that.
So I hope we look at this fairly and realize the damage that would be
done to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the United States all
of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. They would not be
able to continue. This would be a worldwide embarrassment to the United
States of America, to our great country and to our military.
I think we have to look at all of the ramifications of this issue.
This is a serious matter and should not be politicized. Senator Jackson
from my State used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best
politics is no politics. Call it on the merits and do it in the best
interests of our country and in the best interests of people serving
our military.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Dicks for being such a good partner and
working in a bipartisan way to guarantee that we did the best we could
with the money we had available to provide for the national defense. I
would say again, we have not had any impact adversely on any of our
troops and we have not adversely affected the readiness of our country,
while we have taken some of those slush funds and some of those
wasteful funds, we did take some of those, in order to achieve the $9
billion in savings that we were required to achieve.
The bill is lengthy. As you can hear from the various speakers, there
are many, many, many parts of this bill. The specific details of the
bill have been available for over 2 weeks so that Members have had
every opportunity to study the bill.
In order to get where we are, it took a lot of work, because, number
one, we
[[Page H4511]]
had to finish last year's bill. That was no fault of Mr. Dicks. He
worked hard as chairman last year to produce another very good
bipartisan bill, cooperating totally with us on the minority side, the
minority at that time. But we didn't get that bill to the floor. I wish
that we had, but it didn't quite make it.
So this year we finished the work for FY 2011, and now this is the
bill for FY 2012. Again, it is a strong, bipartisan, no-politics good
defense bill. But in order to get to this point, to get where we are,
required tremendous dedication on the part of all of the members of the
subcommittee, as well and very specifically as well as the staff. The
professional staff of our Defense Subcommittee is very, very special
and works extremely hard. I would like to call attention to that staff.
On the minority side, Paul Juola, who also worked on the majority
side at one point, and Becky Leggieri. On the majority staff, Brooke
Boyer, Walter Hearne, Jennifer Miller, Tim Prince, Adrienne Ramsay, Ann
Reese, Megan Rosenbusch, Paul Terry, B.G. Wright, Sherry Young, and the
chief of staff, Tom McLemore.
They have done a tremendous job. I know that oftentimes when the
House finished its business and Members would retire to their
respective homes, staff stayed and they did the analysis that had to be
done to achieve the savings that we achieved, but also to make sure
that we accomplished what had to be accomplished to provide for our
troops, to provide for their welfare, to provide for the readiness of
the Nation.
{time} 1840
I said in my opening remarks there were other items, other things,
other parts of this bill that I would like to have increased. I would
like to have been able to increase the pay raise that goes to our
military. The money just wasn't there. But we did insist on funding the
full 1.6 percent, which doesn't sound like a lot. At least it's not a
reduction.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We're not going to vote on this
bill tonight. We will read this bill--it's my understanding now from
leadership--for amendment under the 5-minute rule the week after next
and we'll be prepared to, again, in a bipartisan way, deal with any
issues that might come up at that time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________