[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 106 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4866-H4872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2397, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2610,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 312
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2397) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read through page 157, line
2. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure
to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
(b) No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, the amendment described in section 2 of this
resolution, and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of
this resolution. All points of order against amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and against
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
(c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn
by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole.
Sec. 2. After disposition of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution, it shall be in order for the chair of the
Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer an
amendment reducing funding levels in the bill.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. The original proponent of an
[[Page H4867]]
amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a
statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the
disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. After the conclusion of consideration of the bill
for amendment, there shall be in order a final period of
general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Sec. 5. When the committee rises and reports the bill back
to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 6. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2610) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
{time} 1230
Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 provides for House
consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these
bills is H.R. 2610, which is the appropriations bill to fund the
Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and other
Federal agencies. The second bill is H.R. 2397, which is the bill that
funds our military and our national security programs for the next
year. In perfect honesty, I don't think this is a perfect rule, but I
know that it's the right rule for what we're doing today.
When I came to the Rules Committee as a freshman a little over 2\1/2\
years ago, one of our promises not only to the House but also to the
American people was that we were going to return to regular order. We
were going to make sure the House worked in an open and transparent
process.
We promised the American people they would see what was happening in
the House and read bills before they came to the floor for a vote. We
promised that all Members would have the opportunity to amend and
improve legislation. We also said we were going to have an open
amendment process on appropriations bills.
The rule provides for a true open rule on the Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development appropriations bill. However, we're also taking
up the Defense funding bill under a structured rule. While that may not
be ideal, when I look at the alternatives, I know that this structured
rule is the best way forward.
As Members of the House of Representatives, we have a duty to fulfill
our core mission of the Federal Government. I can't think of a single
function of government more inherently Federal in nature than providing
for the common defense of this great Nation.
At a time when our troops are stretched too thin, the Department of
Defense has been cut repeatedly in the last few years, and the Pentagon
is now facing sequestration head on. We cannot let the new fiscal year
begin without passing a Defense appropriations bill.
There isn't anybody in this House who is more concerned about our
Nation's involvement in Egypt and Syria or more upset about the
allegations of the NSA spying on American citizens than I am. However,
we cannot let these issues prevent us from beginning to debate on a
bill that ensures our military has the funds it needs to get their job
done. So if the choice is between a structured rule and never getting
the Defense appropriations bill passed, or a structured rule versus
passing a Defense appropriations bill that actually makes our Nation
less safe than we are today, then I will vote for a structured rule
every time. That doesn't mean I think it's a perfect process, but the
alternative is unconscionable.
The Department of Defense already is bearing the burden of half of
the sequestration cuts, which, in conjunction with cuts they've already
sustained, will completely hollow out our military. We need this
Defense appropriations bill if we're going to restore flexibility to
our military. And that's an issue that must come to the floor, even if
it's under a structured process. So I come here today with a
compromise.
Far and away, the vast majority of the amendments offered to the
Rules Committee on H.R. 2397 will be allowed on the House floor. Our
philosophy when considering amendments really is as simple as this: if
it would have been allowed under an open rule, it will be allowed under
this rule.
There are only three exceptions to that general rule of thumb. Those
exceptions were amendments dealing with Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. And
even then, these issues are in no way being swept under the rug. I
wouldn't stand for that. I wouldn't allow it.
The rule provides for extended debate time on amendments dealing with
both Egypt and Syria. Additionally, the rule provides debate on two
amendments getting at the issue of NSA--including one amendment that I
personally offered. My amendment would strike a balance between making
sure our government has all the necessary tools to keep our citizens
safe and protecting American civil liberties. Both of the NSA
amendments will get extended debate time.
In total, this structured rule allows for debate on 100 amendments.
In comparison, the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2010 also
came up under a structured rule. Back then, however, only 16 amendments
made it to the House floor.
As I said, it's not a perfect world. I wish we didn't need to deal
with choosing between an unlimited debate on these issues and making
sure that our troops have the tools they need to protect themselves and
our Nation. But that's the nature of the world we live in today. And
when it comes down to it, the Defense appropriations bill isn't the
right place to be having some of these debates.
I am downright furious over what NSA has been doing. And the more I
learn about the programs, the more outraged I get as it relates to
trampling on our rights as citizens of this great Nation. But to try to
change these programs on the DOD appropriations bill, where we can't
legislate, isn't the right way to go about fixing something that's
broken.
I'll be the first one to say that we need to have a long and serious
discussion and debate about the current law as it stands. Frankly, it
seems to me that we need to fix that law--clearly. That's why I'm a
cosponsor of stand-alone legislation to do just that. The fact is that
it's impossible to make the real, substantive changes by amending this
bill.
Appropriation amendments are blunt tools. If there ever was an issue
that needed thoughtfulness and finesse, it's when we're looking at
programs that are used to keep our Nation and its citizens safe. So
today, I offer you an open rule--the rule for the Transportation
appropriations bill--and one
[[Page H4868]]
that is as close to open as we could get while still ensuring that the
House votes on and hopefully passes a bill this week that keeps our
troops funded, our Pentagon open, and our citizens safe from harm. It's
not perfect, but it's as good as we can get in an imperfect world, and
I'm proud to bring it today to the floor of this House.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Nugent), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we're here today to consider one rule for
two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense appropriations bill
and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations
bill.
While the T-HUD bill will be considered under an open rule--that is,
if it's ever considered in this House at all--the Defense
appropriations bill is another story. That's because the FY 2014
Defense appropriations bill is not an open rule. This bill is
structured. Many good amendments were denied. The Rules Committee
cherry-picked amendments that could be considered and prevented many
germane amendments from being considered today. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
last month, Speaker Boehner touted Republican use of open rules for
appropriations bills. But now, just 1 month later, this Tea Party-run
House is limiting debate on the Defense bill just to avoid taking some
tough votes.
My colleague said that they made exceptions and limited amendments
with regard to Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. Those were the only three
areas, he said, that they purposefully made exceptions. Well, those are
the three most important areas before us. Those are the things that our
constituents want to make sure that we are debating and deliberating
on.
Let me note another area where this structured rule inhibits having a
robust debate on a critical issue, namely, the debate on the need for
greater transparency and oversight of NSA collection of telephone and
email records from people who are not under any suspicion or
investigation whatsoever.
I'm grateful that a couple of amendments were made in order on this
subject, but they were only given 15 minutes of debate apiece. That's
it. This is a pretty big issue. We all want to provide our law
enforcement officials with the tools they need to safeguard our country
from potential terrorist attacks. But we also want to protect the basic
rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans from unwanted and
unwarranted searches and invasion of privacy by government agencies.
Issues of transparency, accountability and oversight are critical
duties and responsibilities not just of the executive branch but of
Congress. Who is providing the necessary oversight of all of this
massive data collection? Who is watching the watchers? Isn't it time
for Congress to take a serious review of how the law is being
implemented, how it is touching and affecting all Americans, and
whether any of those laws and their implementation now require changes?
I, for one, welcome such a debate, which I hope will occur at least in
a limited fashion on the amendments that were made in order under this
structured rule.
I believe a far better debate would have occurred under an open rule,
where all Members could have voiced their concerns and outlined
proposals for change. Regrettably, this will not happen under the time
restrictions of this structured rule.
Turning to the T-HUD appropriations bill, I am disappointed and
concerned with the committee's proposed funding level for the Community
Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG. The bill cuts CDBG from
$3.071 billion in FY13 to $1.637 billion in FY14, almost halving the
program and bringing it to a historic low in terms of funding. CDBG
funds are working in neighborhoods throughout our country, and this
proposed reduction will negatively impact local economies and economic
development projects all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed
by 101 Members of the House of Representatives expressing support for
effective CDBG funding levels. If this bill is actually considered by
this body before the end of the fiscal year, I hope there will be an
attempt to restore funding for this critically important program.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2013.
Hon. Tom Latham,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ed Pastor,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: We write to
share our concern about the impact the proposed funding
levels for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program in House Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development Subcommittee-passed bill would have on
redevelopment authorities and local municipalities. While we
understand the difficult fiscal decisions we must make in
Washington, the proposed bill reduces CDBG formula grants by
nearly 50 percent, from $3.071 billion in FY2013 to $1.637
billion in FY2014. This proposed funding level also marks an
historic low since the program's beginnings in the 1970s.
As you know, 144 Members signed a bipartisan letter in
April for your review in developing FY2014 legislation. The
letter supported maintaining the funding levels that the
subcommittee recommended last year. The now proposed,
substantial reduction--essentially halving the program--would
impact local economies, threaten the program's national
scope, curtail on-the-ground lead-abatement projects helping
to revitalize our older cities, and reduce ongoing
capabilities to aid veterans and other workforce training
services.
We are concerned about the implications of this reduction,
especially as the program's funds have already fallen
substantially--by nearly $1 billion since FY2010. As you
know, CDBG is largely managed by local municipalities,
providing flexibility and tailored needs in our local
economies and remains a lifeline for families and
communities. For example, HUD reports that between FY2007 and
FY2011, CDBG helped over 174,000 businesses expand economic
opportunities and over the last decade, CDBG programs have
rehabilitated more than 1.4 million homes for low- and
moderate-income homeowners and renters. As a proven program
with an effective track record, it serves an ongoing,
continual need that not only impacts lives, but provides a
documented return on its investment to leverage local
dollars: Every $1.00 of CDBG leverages an additional $3.55 in
non-CDBG funding, according to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD).
The pressing need in the current economy for these funds
remains critical. We look forward to working with you to
maintain effective funding levels for this work. If we can
provide any further information, please contact Kate
Ostrander, Legislative Director of the Northeast-Midwest
Congressional Coalition, at 6-6106 or kate.ostrander@mail
.house.gov. Thank you for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Mike Kelly; Michael R. Turner; Robert A. Brady; Lou
Barletta; Peter T. King; David B. McKinley; James P.
McGovern; Chaka Fattah; Christopher P. Gibson; Emanuel
Cleaver; Niki Tsongas; Jim Gerlach; Stevan Pearce; Marcia L.
Fudge; Peter Welch; Elijah E. Cummings; John K. Delaney; Tony
Cardenas; Matt A. Cartwright; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.
Colleen W. Hanabusa; Nick J. Rahall, II; Wm. Lacy Clay;
John D. Dingell; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Chris Van
Hollen; Juan Vargas; Mark Takano; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott;
Mike Doyle; Ann M. Kuster; William R. Keating; Danny K.
Davis; Jim Matheson; Bobby L. Rush; Carolyn McCarthy; Alcee
L. Hastings; Janice D. Schakowsky; Linda T. Sanchez; Doris O.
Matsui.
Brian Higgins; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Eliot L. Engel;
Ruben Hinojosa; Albio Sires; Yvette D. Clarke; Charles B.
Rangel; Diana DeGette; John Conyers, Jr.; Richard M. Nolan;
Paul Tonko; Gene Green; James A. Himes; Anna G. Eshoo; Suzan
K. DelBene; Sander M. Levin; Ron Kind; David Loebsack; Grace
F. Napolitano; Michael H. Michaud.
Corrine Brown; John F. Tierney; Lloyd Doggett; Bradley S.
Schneider; Joyce Beatty; Steven A. Horsford; Judy Chu; Carol
Shea-Porter; Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jerrold Nadler; Louis
Capps, Gwen Moore; Tammy Duckworth; David N. Cicilline; John
A. Yarmuth; Cedric L. Richmond; Pete P. Gallego; Suzanne
Bonamici; Theodore E. Deutch; Loretta Sanchez.
Michael E. Capuano; Donna M. Christensen; Debbie Wasserman
Schultz; Ann Kirpatrick; Janice Hahn; Gerald E. Connolly;
Filemon Vela; Julia Brownley; Timothy J. Walz; Jim Costa; Joe
Garcia; Raul M. Grijalva; Stephen F. Lynch; Earl Blumenauer;
Jared Huffman; Xavier Becerra; Maxine Waters; Bill Pascrell,
Jr.; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Jared Polis; Patrick Murphy.
Now, as for the Department of Defense appropriations bill, everyone
in this House on both sides of the aisle supports our men and women in
uniform. We want to make sure that they have the equipment, the
training, and
[[Page H4869]]
the logistical support they need to carry out their duties and
missions, and that they have peace of mind that their families are
being taken care of when they're deployed to perilous places abroad.
We want the most effective and efficient modern military in the
world. There is no argument and no debate over these priorities in this
House. However, that doesn't mean we should just throw money at the
Pentagon, which is infamous for wasting tens of billions of taxpayer
dollars each and every year for as long as I can remember.
In these tough budget times, we need to be smart with our money, and
that includes with our defense dollars. I strongly believe that we
could make better choices if the Republican majority would recognize
that we need to negotiate a balanced approach to our national budget in
order to get rid of the harsh and indiscriminate cuts caused by
sequestration and I appeal to them to appoint conferees so that we can
begin negotiations with the Senate on the budget. Now, I thought that
was a priority for the House Republican leadership, but clearly I was
wrong, as they have let budget negotiations languish for months.
Now, in the absence of a balanced approach to the budget, which would
have provided greater clarity to our defense priorities, I have several
concerns about the fiscal year 2014 Defense appropriations bill.
First, the bill neither reflects the current levels of defense
spending that are the result of the current sequestration, nor does it
reflect the next round of potential sequestration cuts that will go
into effect for FY 2014. This would be easier to understand if the
Republican majority showed any inclination to go to conference with the
Senate on the budget resolution or return to serious negotiations with
the White House on an overarching budget agreement. But the Republican
leadership has stated clearly, time and again, that it will not
negotiate a balanced and comprehensive solution to resolve our overall
budget spending, revenue and deficit issues.
While critical domestic priorities are facing deep cuts in other
appropriations bills, and the Appropriations Committee is demanding
sequestration cuts be included in these bills, the Defense bill sails
on through relatively untouched. In reality, it's those painful and
draconian cuts in the other appropriations bills that allow this
Defense bill to emerge relatively unscathed.
So let me share with my House colleagues a few words from the
Statement of Administration Policy on the Defense appropriations bill:
Enacting H.R. 2397--while adhering to the overall spending
limits in the House budget's top-line discretionary level for
fiscal year 2014--would hurt our economy and require
draconian cuts to middle class priorities. These cuts could
result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing
access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children
with disabilities losing Federal funding for their special
education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal agents who
cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime, or apprehend
fugitives, and thousands of scientists without medical
grants, which would slow research that could lead to new
treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and
Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.
{time} 1245
The statement goes on to say:
Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an
overall budget framework that supports our recovery and
enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure,
innovation, and national security for our economy to compete
in the future, the President's senior advisers would
recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation
that implements the House Republican Budget framework.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy on H.R. 2397.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2397--Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2014
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The President is committed to our national defense and
funding other important priorities within a budget framework
that strengthens our economy and advances middle-class
priorities. The Administration believes H.R. 2397, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, funds
critical priorities, and looks forward to working on its
provisions as part of an acceptable budget framework.
However, enacting H.R. 2397, while adhering to the overall
spending limits in the House Budget's topline discretionary
level for fiscal year (FY) 2014, would hurt our economy and
require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. These cuts
could result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children
losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of
children with disabilities losing Federal funding for their
special education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal
agents who cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or
apprehend fugitives, and thousands of scientists without
medical grants, which would slow research that could lead to
new treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and
Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.
More than three months have passed since the deadline for
action and the Congress has yet to appoint conferees and
agree on a budget resolution. Prior to consideration of
appropriations bills the Congress should complete an
appropriate framework for all the appropriations bills.
Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an
overall budget framework that supports our recovery and
enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure,
innovation and national security for our economy to compete
in the future, the President's senior advisors would
recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation
that implements the House Republican Budget framework.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. The Administration
appreciates the support of the Committee in working to
eliminate the threat that sexual assault in the military
presents to our Service members and our national security.
Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to
the provisions of sections 8107 and 8108 that limit the use
of funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict
detainee transfers, which, in certain circumstances, would
violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 8107 undermines national security and this
unnecessarily constrains the Nation's counterterrorism
efforts, particularly where Federal courts are the best--or
even the only--option for incapacitating dangerous
terrorists. For decades, presidents of both political parties
have leveraged the flexibility and strength of this country's
Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and
gather critical intelligence. The continued prosecution of
terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of
counterterrorism efforts--a powerful tool that must remain an
available option. Additionally, the restrictions in section
8108 on the transfer of detainees to the United States and to
the custody or effective control of foreign countries or
entities in the context of an ongoing armed conflict may
interfere with the Executive Branch's ability to determine
the appropriate disposition of detainees and to make
important foreign policy and national security determinations
regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers
should occur.
In addition, the Administration strongly opposes section
8109, which would prohibit the use of funds to construct,
acquire, or modify a detention facility in the United States
to house individuals held in the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay. This would constrain the flexibility that the
Nation's Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need
to deal with evolving threats, intruding upon the Executive
Branch's ability to carry out its mission.
Topline Funding Levels. The Administration strongly objects
to unrequested Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding
in the bill and the reduction of base budget funding relative
to the President's request. The FY 2014 Budget carefully
aligns program priorities and resources based on the
President's strategic guidance, and it fully funds OCO
requirements.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration
strongly urges the Congress to provide BRAC authorization and
funding as requested so that the Department of Defense (DOD)
can right-size its infrastructure while providing appropriate
transition assistance to affected communities. Without a new
round of BRAC, DOD cannot properly align the military's
infrastructure with the needs of its evolving force
structure, a critical tool for ensuring that limited
resources are available to the highest priorities of the
warfighter and national security.
TRICARE Fees and Co-Payments. The Administration strongly
urges the Congress to support its proposed TRICARE fee
increases, because military retirees deserve an excellent,
sustainable health care benefit. The Administration is
disappointed that the Committee has consistently failed to
support requested TRICARE fee initiatives that seek to
control DOD's spiraling health care costs while keeping
retired beneficiaries' share of these costs well below the
levels experienced when the TRICARE program was implemented
in the mid-1990s. While the bill restores the projected FY
2014 TRICARE savings associated with the initiatives, the
Department will be forced to make deeper reductions to troop
levels, readiness and modernization accounts in order to
offset higher health care costs of over $8 billion through FY
2018.
[[Page H4870]]
Military Pay. The Administration strongly urges the
Congress to include the proposal to set the military pay
raise growth at 1.0 percent in FY 2014. Consistent with the
views of the uniformed military leadership, the President's
Budget requests a 1.0 percent increase to basic pay, a 4.2
percent increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing, and a
3.4 percent increase in Basic Allowance for Subsistence. This
total compensation level recognizes the sacrifices made by
the men and women in our Armed Forces, while adhering to the
current budget constraints faced by DOD. The bill provides
$580 million in additional appropriations to fund the pay
raise in FY 2014, but it would increase costs by a total of
$3.5 billion from FY 2014 through FY 2018. After FY 2014,
these future costs would need to be offset by deeper
reductions to troop levels, readiness and modernization
accounts at a time when statutory spending caps require
defense reductions.
Building Partner Capacity. The Administration strongly
objects to reductions in funds for programs to build partner
capacity, which would limit the Department's ability to
address current and emerging threats to our national
security. The bill provides $83 million less than the $358
million requested for the Global Train and Equip program and
does not fund the request for $75 million for the Global
Security Contingency Fund.
National Intelligence Program Consolidation. The
Administration strongly objects to section 8105 because the
provision's prohibitions would impinge on the President's
prerogatives to seek efficient budget structures and unduly
constrain the President in future budget decisions.
Unrequested Funding. The Administration is concerned about
the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did not
request and does not need, such as Light Utility Helicopters,
National Guard High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
(HMMWV), additional medical research, and the modernization
of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships. The
Administration is also concerned that the bill makes spending
on these and other unnecessary items statutorily required,
diverting scarce resources from more important defense
programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage
the Department efficiently.
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (C-130 AMP). The
Administration objects to the $47 million in unrequested
funding provided for the C-130 AMP, which would start initial
production of C-130 AMP kits for the modernization of earlier
generation C-130 airlift aircraft. The President's FY 2013
Budget canceled the C-130 AMP because of its high total
program cost of $2.7 billion, and because the aircraft would
still be able to perform their missions with less expensive
upgrades. In addition, as required by the FY 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act, DOD is conducting an independent
cost-benefit analysis of the C-130 AMP, and it would be
premature to reinstate the program before that study is
complete.
Advanced Innovative Technologies. The Administration
objects to the $115 million cut for Advanced Innovative
Technologies, an 88 percent reduction from the President's
request, which funds on-going research and development
efforts that support the new Defense Strategy and the
rebalance to the Asia Pacific. Specifically, this program
supports initiatives that would provide cost-effective and
cost-imposing capabilities that are critical for meeting the
Combatant Commander's objectives in the region. This
capability is needed to address real world threats and full
funding is required to research, develop and test performance
of the Electromagnetic Railgun system.
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUONF). The
Administration objects to the elimination of funding
requested for the JUONF. This funding is critical to DOD's
ability to quickly respond to urgent operational needs of
Combatant Commanders. Elimination of funding may delay
fielding of important capabilities that help accomplish
critical missions.
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
Programs. The Administration objects to the restoration of
funding for the STARBASE program, which would perpetuate the
Federal Government's fragmented approach to STEM education,
whereby more than 220 programs are scattered across 13
agencies. The Administration's proposed reorganization of
STEM programs would improve STEM education quality and
outcomes across the Federal Government.
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The
Administration opposes the reduction of $205 million from the
FY 2014 Budget request for the DAWDF. Failure to provide the
full request would require DOD to collect the shortfall
between the appropriation and the statutory minimum for DAWDF
from other budget accounts. In addition, the Administration
opposes appropriations language that would not allow use of
prior year expired funds for the FY 2014 DAWDF collection.
Components should be allowed to use these funds per the
authority provided in current law.
Civilian Pay Raise. The Administration urges the Congress
to support the proposed 1.0 percent pay increase for Federal
civilian employees. As the President stated in his FY 2014
Budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor
desirable.
Missile Defense. The Administration appreciates the support
for DOD's air and missile defense programs, as well as
support for the government of Israel's Iron Dome rocket
system.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The Administration
appreciates the Committee's continued strong support for U.S.
efforts to build and develop the security forces of
Afghanistan. However, the Administration strongly urges the
Congress to make $2.6 billion of the $7.7 billion request
contingent upon pending policy decisions and the progress
made by the Afghan National Security Forces during FY 2014,
as requested in the President's Budget.
Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The
Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for a
responsive and flexible program to train and equip the
security forces of Afghanistan. However, the Administration
is concerned that some of the limitations proposed in section
8119 will prevent the Department from meeting critical
equipment requirements and delivery timelines for the Afghan
National Security Forces and will unnecessarily increase
costs for the U.S. taxpayer. The Administration urges the
Congress to work with the Department to develop an
alternative approach.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the FY 2014 appropriations process moves forward.
Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill not only
continues funding for the war in Afghanistan; it also increases the
Overseas Contingency Operations account, adding $5 billion more above
the Pentagon's request, for a total of $85.8 billion.
Now, let me see if I understand this correctly, Mr. Speaker. During
the time period when the United States is significantly reducing the
size of our forces in Afghanistan, and when we are withdrawing from the
war, this bill actually adds $5.1 billion to the OCO account above and
beyond what the Pentagon asked for.
That is simply crazy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe those extra billions will
pay the $70-plus million exit tax that Afghanistan is demanding of the
United States to pull out our military equipment. That's not fuzzy
math, Mr. Speaker. The word for that is ``extortion.''
My colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) had an amendment that simply
said that the American taxpayers aren't going to pay this extortion tax
that Mr. Karzai is demanding. His amendment wasn't even made in order.
It was germane, but it wasn't even made in order.
While I appreciate the language in the bill that none of these funds
can be used for President Karzai's personal benefit, since we found out
earlier this year that he was lining his pockets from a U.S. taxpayer-
dollar slush fund, it certainly won't stop Karzai's government from
squeezing every last dollar it can from the United States to carry out
the military drawdown over the next 15 months.
Mr. Speaker, I am sick and I am tired of asking our brave servicemen
and -women to fight and die for this corrupt government. While I hope
to be surprised, I really have little faith that next year's
parliamentary and presidential elections in Afghanistan will be free
and fair, let alone usher in a new order committed to eliminating
corruption and cronyism.
I am sick and tired of U.S. tax dollars being wasted in Afghanistan
on military headquarters that will never be used, only to see them
built and torn down.
I am sick and tired of building roads to nowhere or having our
convoys pay a tax to transport troops and much-needed supplies to
provinces outside of Kabul.
In brief, just like the overwhelming majority of the American people,
I want to see this war brought to an end and our troops safely home,
reunited with their families and loved ones, and contributing to home
communities right here in the United States.
Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker: the $85.8 billion total for the OCO
account is still designated ``emergency funding.'' That means it is all
put on the national credit card. Not a penny of the hundreds of
billions of dollars for this war has ever been paid for or offset or
balanced with revenues from someplace else in the national budget.
We certainly do not need to add even more billions to the OCO
account. What we need to do is to end this war as quickly as possible
and bring our troops home.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time
and rise in support of his rule and the underlying Department of
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.
[[Page H4871]]
First of all, I congratulate my chairman, Mr. Rogers, and also
Defense chairman, Mr. Young, as well as Mr. Visclosky and Mrs. Lowey,
for their hard work and leadership getting this legislation forward.
Mr. Speaker, as we are all keenly aware, the budget of the Department
of Defense is under severe stress. We are already seeing the effects of
the President's budget cuts and the sequester on military readiness.
To fight effectively, our Armed Forces must be staffed, equipped, and
trained to operate under dangerous, complex, and uncertain conditions,
often with little or no warning. They require the right personnel using
the right equipment and the right training.
But if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the future is
highly unpredictable. Unanticipated events often catch us by surprise.
We constantly ask our military to be prepared for any contingency. Yet
today we have burdened them with new levels of budgetary uncertainty
hampering modernization, planning, and training.
Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform need this Defense
appropriations process to move forward. We should not force them to
contemplate another inefficient continuing resolution on top of
additional crippling sequester cuts. That is what will happen if this
House cannot find a way to pass this important legislation: more delay,
more uncertainty, diminished readiness, more risk for the men and women
we ask to go into harm's way.
Is this a perfect rule, this structured rule? Absolutely not. The
committee always prefers open rules and regular order.
At the same time, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill so that we can work with the Senate to fulfill our most
basic mission under the constitutional duty--to provide for the common
defense.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again why
these are tough budgetary times. This Defense bill is being treated
differently than appropriations bills that actually fund needs right
here in the United States.
I would remind my colleagues that national defense also includes what
happens here in the United States--whether people have housing, whether
people have food, whether or not people have good health care, whether
or not we have good roads and good bridges, whether or not we have
jobs. All these domestic needs are being ignored. In fact, they are
being obliterated by the Republican numbers in the appropriations
process.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I also thank my colleague from
Florida. I appreciate the courtesy that the Rules Committee extended to
Mr. Gibson and me last evening when we offered our amendment on Syria.
Mr. Speaker, my moment here is to discuss this fundamental question
about whether America is going to be taking military action in Syria
without any congressional debate. We have a responsibility under the
Constitution.
Article I, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare
war and raise and support the Armed Forces. My colleague from Florida
rightly said that we have an obligation to support the military men and
women. They will do anything that we ask them to do.
But this is the moment when we face our responsibility or shirk it--
to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. The
idea that we would take military action, and arming the Syrian rebels
is military action, it is intended very specifically to take down the
Government of Syria--and I want Assad to go, and we all do--but I don't
want this Congress to back into a policy, stumble ahead, where we find
ourselves engaged in military conflict where we haven't even met our
basic responsibility to have a debate about it.
We have to decide: Are we going to be men and women of Congress, are
we going to do our jobs, are we going to be Congressmen and -women, or
are we going to be cowards? It is the coward's path to avoid taking
responsibility for a momentous decision that we know at this moment is
upon us.
Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' But to have no debate, to actually once
again stumble into a military action, have we learned nothing from Iraq
and Afghanistan? Iraq right now is supporting Assad; it is supporting
Iran.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WELCH. Afghanistan is now, after 11 years, ripping us off as we
try to bring our material home. Does anybody on the either side of the
aisle support this? Why don't we have a debate?
I admire Speaker Boehner for saying he wants to have this House work
its will. But I say to Speaker Boehner: give us a vote, let us debate,
let us meet our responsibility. There will be men and women that will
go into harm's way, stumble ahead, because we did not stand up and take
responsibility. We are accountable to the people who elect us.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving on both the Armed
Services Committee, as well as the House Depot Caucus. Our U.S.
military has its own defense, repair, and sustainment capabilities,
precisely because the government needs to guarantee that soldiers in
the field will be sustained and supported in times of war. They will
guarantee that needed equipment will be there in working order when and
where it is needed because their lives and our freedom depend on it.
That is why I object to the current furlough policy of some of our
DOD civilian workers. I have great sympathy for the Department of
Defense. Unlike every other budget of the Federal Government, they did
not receive an increase of appropriations before sequestration. In
fact, the military is the only area where in this administration they
received two cuts in their funding before sequestration hit, which was
the third cut. Our defense has been hit disproportionately because of
sequestration.
The Department of Defense's approach is to have everyone sharing in
the burden or the pain of it. That is actually a political decision,
and I don't use that in a pejorative sense. But Congresses have
understood the work of our sustainment sector for decades, passing
title I, sections 129 and 2472, which deal with working capital funds,
and we have five such working capital funds.
These are revolving funds that are self-sustaining, which means by
law if you have a workload and you have the funds, then these employees
should not be thrown under the bus with a furlough. It is silly to
think that the workload would be there. The funds are actually there,
but the workload will be sitting in depots and the technicians and
mechanics working on those will be forced to take off days without pay.
It will increase our delay; it will increase our cost. The furlough
working fund that funds employees does not save the government any kind
of money, but it hurts delay.
The gentleman from Oklahoma will have an amendment, which I hope the
House will take seriously, which will look at these working capital
funds, and realize the unique situation they have within our system and
will hopefully solve this problem going forward in the future.
It has been said that we have a foreign policy which we will fund.
Actually, the book I read said, ``The foreign policy for which we will
pay for.'' I just didn't want to end in a preposition.
Our foreign policy is funded here in the Defense Department
appropriations. This is what gives us the flexibility diplomatically to
do things not now, but 5 years from now and 10 years from now and 15
years from now.
We are truly looking at our future with this particular fund, and it
must be taken seriously. We are living since the Cold War ended in a
much less secure world than we were while we were in the Cold War, not
just because of what is being done by our traditional adversaries in
Russia and China, but in the Rim countries, Third World counties, which
have used new technology to create what is called ``technological
claustrophobia,'' as their efforts are now compressed together and we
are having to respond to that.
[[Page H4872]]
There are many issues in this particular bill which help us move
forward, not only in defense of our military, but in our foreign policy
opportunities. There are a few amendments out there that actually do
harm to that. I hope we look at it very carefully. It is a well-crafted
rule with a whole lot of amendments--perhaps far too many amendments
made in order--and it will provide for a logical debate. I hope when we
come out of it, we realize the significance of this, not just funding
our military, but also funding our diplomatic future.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to build on something that Mr. Welch of Vermont said here on
the House floor about the lack of debate on Syria. As somebody who was
here when the Afghanistan war began and when the Iraq war began, I
believe that both of those wars were unnecessary. We ended up getting
Osama bin Laden not in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops, but with a
small well-trained group of Navy SEALs in Pakistan.
This notion that somehow our strength can only be measured by the
number of troops we have overseas or the number of weapons that we send
overseas I think is just crazy. I think the amount that we have spent
on these wars that have been added to our debt have weakened our
security. I think the fact that we have lost so many incredibly brave
men and women to these conflicts is a tragedy.
What the gentleman from Vermont raised was the issue that I think is
on a lot of our constituents' minds, and that is what is going to
happen in Syria. The real problem with this rule, Mr. Speaker, can be
seen in the debate surrounding Syria. There is a real split when it
comes to Syria. There are some who don't believe we should get involved
at all; and there are others, like Senator McCain, leading the
Republicans over in the Senate, saying we ought to do more, we ought to
get more involved in Syria.
____________________