[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5407-H5413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4870, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE
AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3230, PAY OUR GUARD AND RESERVE ACT
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 628
Resolved, That (a) at any time after 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. 4870) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) 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.
(c) 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. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3230)
making continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown
to provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty
training during such period, with the Senate amendments
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order or question of consideration, a single
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs or his designee that the House: (1) concur in the
Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the Senate
amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question. If the motion is adopted, then it
shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs or his designee to move that the House insist on its
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3230 and request a
conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, 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, H. Res. 628 provides for the consideration
of H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2015
under a modified open rule.
This resolution will give Members on both sides of the aisle the
opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish,
provided they comply with the rules of the House. It ensures that all
Members can be active participants in shaping this bill. I think my
colleague on the Rules Committee from Georgia described it best when he
called this process a ``festival of democracy.''
The underlying legislation will give the Department of Defense the
resources it needs to protect our country at home and abroad. I am
encouraged that both sides of the aisle can usually unite around this
cause. This bill is another example of that bipartisanship, as it was
reported out of the committee unanimously.
The DOD Appropriations Act will also provide support for our
warfighters, the 1 percent who risk all in defense of this Nation. It
is critical that we give our troops the tools they need to carry out
their mission abroad and the resources they need to support their
families here at home. This legislation will fully fund a 1.8 percent
pay increase for the military instead of the 1 percent raise requested
by the President.
Secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences
between the House and the Senate attempts to address the VA scandal.
While we have yet to uncover the full scope of this scandal, it is
apparent the problems are systemic to that institution.
There have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times,
inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against
whistleblowers, and a serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of
the issues plaguing the VA.
Tragically--tragically--veterans have died because of these problems.
Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. The fact that a veteran died waiting
for care from this country that they fought for, it is just tough to
come to grips with that reality, but it is a reality.
As a father of three sons serving in the military, I am appalled, I
am horrified, and I believe the American people are, too, as to the
treatment of our veterans. Our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a
whole heck of a lot more from their government than to have the
government turn their back on them. They deserve to be treated with
respect and dignity, and the House will make every effort to ensure
that these problems never happen again.
One of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the VA the
authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the
private sector, much like I had as sheriff. It is what most employers
have the ability to do. This will give the Secretary of the VA the
ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsified, in this instance,
wait times.
As we have come to find out with all other scandals this
administration is engulfed in, it is difficult to hold people
accountable in the executive branch, try as we might. Therefore, the
provisions are sorely needed.
We can also require the VA to reimburse private health care for
veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or those who
have not received timely medical treatment at the VA.
{time} 1230
This will allow our veterans to get the care that they need when they
need it.
Finally, it is a bit discouraging that we even have to codify this
into law, but we need to end the bonuses and awards at the VA for at
least the next two fiscal years. Incredibly, the Phoenix VA--where
veterans actually died waiting for care--felt it was appropriate to pay
out $10 million in bonuses over the last 3 years.
By prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide
to the VA are going where they are needed: toward the care of our
veterans and not to fatten bureaucrats' pockets.
I stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida, my friend Mr. Nugent, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5408]]
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, we debate the rule to consider two
measures: H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill;
and the motion to go to conference on legislation addressing the
problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I regret that this is not an open rule. Strict time limits have been
placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss
important issues. On issues regarding our national security, we should
have ample time for discussion. This is hardly a festival of democracy,
as my friend from Florida described this process--this is muzzling
democracy. But less debate in a more closed process has become the
signature of the Republican majority, I am sad to say.
I am pleased that legislation addressing the problems at the VA is
moving forward in a timely way. However, I want to echo the statement
of my friend from Maine, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, Mr. Michaud. The distinguished ranking member correctly
pointed out in testimony presented to the Rules Committee that while
this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of
the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. Like Mr. Michaud, I would prefer that this process
be more open, and it is just another example of how this closed process
denies many good bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted.
Although I have serious concerns with the final Defense
Appropriations product, I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and
Ranking Member Visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time.
Every day we turn on our TVs and see conflict, war, and turmoil around
the world. It is often hard to remember that most of the world is not
at war.
I am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war
in United States history: the war in Afghanistan. Even though the
President has announced that he will draw down most of our combat
forces by the end of this year, he has also said that he will keep
10,000 of our servicemen and -women in Afghanistan through 2016.
I believe strongly that Congress should debate and vote on approving
the President's proposal to keep our uniformed men and women in harm's
way for another 2 years. What are these 10,000 troops supposed to
accomplish that 100,000 troops have not yet done? Our own generals were
quoted in Monday's Washington Post saying that security is not the
problem in Afghanistan, corruption is the problem. Ten thousand U.S.
troops are now going to magically eliminate corruption in Afghanistan.
Just last month, at the end of May, during consideration of the NDAA,
Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and
I attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the
House to vote early next year on whether to maintain U.S. military
forces in Afghanistan as the President has proposed.
Outrageously, the Republican leadership of this House refused to let
us offer that amendment. We were denied the chance to debate one of the
most important questions facing this Congress, the American people, our
troops, and their families. So, as we get ready to deliver in this
Defense Appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the
President to continue the war in Afghanistan, I call upon the Speaker
and the leadership of this House to promise--to promise--that before
the 113th Congress adjourns they will bring before this House a joint
resolution whether to approve the President's proposal to maintain U.S.
Armed Forces in Afghanistan through 2016.
Let the House debate it, and let the House vote on it, up or down.
Let's do our jobs. I have no idea what the result of such a vote might
be, but I do know that we owe that vote to our troops, their families,
and to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired of endless wars. I am increasingly anxious as
I listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their
sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in Iraq, and many other
places around the world.
It is especially galling to listen to the people who got us into this
mess in Iraq in the first place. In The Wall Street Journal today, Dick
Cheney actually had the audacity to write:
Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at
the expense of so many.
Are you kidding me? How pathetic. If it is possible to have less than
zero credibility, then Dick Cheney has it on Iraq.
I believe in our military, Mr. Speaker. I believe in our men and
women in uniform. I believe we should have a military second to none. I
believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our Nation is
directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the
sacrifice of American lives.
But there are many problems--indeed most problems--in the world where
sending the U.S. military is not the solution. The crisis facing Iraq
has been years in the making. It is not happening because Iraq does not
have a well-trained and well-equipped military. The United States took
great pains to make sure that it is.
No, Mr. Speaker, Iraq is facing this current crisis because a
corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and
religious minorities and other factions of Iraqi society from
government decisionmaking. Indeed, the Maliki government often went out
of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and extend
the power of the Shiite majority. Now it is reaping the whirlwind that
it created, but in ways it likely never imagined.
If Iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then Iraqi leaders need to
learn real fast how to lead--not just their own faction, but how to
lead a Nation, to stand up for all their people, and to order their
troops and their militias to protect all the Iraqi people: Sunni,
Christian, Jewish, Bahai, north, south, and center. They know how to do
it. They just have to choose to do it and pray it is not too late.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the governments and powers
in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent
jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their
neighbors. They are the ones who need to lead the way to a political
solution to the challenges facing the entire region, or watch it go up
in flames around them.
Several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news
articles that it is difficult for the U.S. to respond with air power or
drones or special operations because the Iraqis rebelling against the
central government are not just made up of extremist ISIS members, but
they include local Sunnis and other disenfranchised Iraqis. So who do
you target? How do you target them? Should you target groups at all?
If one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and
listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in Iraq will
depend on Iraqis, not on American bombs or firepower, let alone
manpower.
Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Defense Appropriations bill, these
matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this
House. While we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have
what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be
clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that,
unfortunately, our military simply cannot fix.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Today, I rise in support of going to a conference committee with the
Senate on VA reform. I am pleased that the Senate has followed our lead
in swiftly passing legislation that will help the thousands of veterans
waiting for care in a dysfunctional VA system.
While I don't agree with everything in the Senate bill, we all agree
that our veterans deserve better than the VA has been giving them.
Today, Congress will renew its commitment, on a bipartisan basis, to
overhauling the VA and working to give our veterans the care they have
earned.
I was a surgeon at the VA for 20 years treating our veterans, and
today I am
[[Page H5409]]
grateful for the opportunity to continue that care by working to get a
VA reform bill to the President's desk.
The bottom line is this: we cannot allow the VA to continue operating
as a failed, bloated bureaucracy.
I believe we can give the VA the tools to be smarter, leaner, and
much more responsive to the needs of our veterans. As a father of a
veteran, I am dedicated to making this a reality. The time for excuses
is over, the time for action is now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I certainly
appreciate the gentleman's very expansive assessment on the two
underlying bills that we are about to address today.
Let me, first of all, say that I live in a community of a very major
veterans hospital. In fact, I carried the legislation to name it after
Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, who created the MASH units in World War II. We
care about veterans, as do my colleagues across the aisle in both the
House and the Senate.
I believe that it is important to move the Veterans' Access to Care
Through Choice, Accountability, continue through the process, and to
make sure that our veterans, after the many audits that we have
received on the individual hospitals, know that there is a long period
of time for those veterans newly accessing veterans health care.
Who does that include? That includes the recent returnees of
Afghanistan veterans or Iraq veterans or even those veterans who have
maintained good health and now find themselves in senior years, such as
Vietnam veterans, and are coming to the system for the first time. It
is intolerable for them to have to wait. I believe this is a very
important initiative. If we are to send soldiers overseas or in the
line of battle, as many are promoting now in light of the violence in
Iraq, can we not without shame stand and provide them the kind of
health care for them and their families?
I rise as well to comment on the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, and I am glad that there has been attention to PTSD. I intend to
offer an amendment addressing resources for PTSD and resources for the
epidemic of breast cancer among military women in the Appropriations
Act.
But I do think it is important that again we have a prohibition
against the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. That
means that this facility continues to be open.
Then, of course, we have appropriations for the overseas contingency
operations, for which the President has not yet made a request. But I
think in the context of providing an increase in wages for our military
personnel, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working
so cooperatively.
But I raise a point in the backdrop of the crisis in Iraq, the ISIS,
and all of the disjangled chords of calling for troops on the ground
and to do airstrikes when in actuality we live in a world family, we
live in a family with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, we live in a
family with NATO alliances, and we need to be able to work together to
demand why an untoward leader in Iraq, who was given an opportunity for
a consensus government, never made any effort. Yes, these individuals
are horrific, they are radicalized, they are vicious, they are vile.
But there are Sunnis and Shiites who have worked together, there are
Sunnis who are moderate, who want to be in the government, who want
their children to have an opportunity for education, they want their
young people to have jobs, they want an Iraq where they can pledge
allegiance to their flag, a united Iraq. Where was the leadership, the
selfish leadership of Maliki, to be able to do that--and now we must
clean up his dirty kitchen? I think not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
This must be a unified effort. Frankly, the President is right to be
deliberative. We yet do not know, as I speak--there may be some news
announcement--what his decision may be. But I do believe he has done
the right thing by providing security and safety for the thousands of
Americans that are in Baghdad and protecting our Embassy. That is the
right thing to do. He has done the right thing by finding one of the
perpetrators of Benghazi.
I would ask we do the right thing by not ignoring again another
terrorist threat, Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria, that is fueling the
flames, taking over municipalities, ready to pounce on places other
than the northeast. These are threats that need the collective body of
the United Nations--in this instance, the African Union, the ECOWAS,
and all the states surrounding Nigeria, and, of course, the Nigerian
government, of which we are friends with.
But I will say that America cannot continuously go it alone. We have
given our treasure. Our young men and women never say ``no.'' When they
are called to duty, they go, reservists and all.
I believe it is time to be responsible, respectful, and cautious in
the way we move forward using our troops around the world. I ask my
colleague to consider this as we deliberate on this appropriations
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 4860, the
``Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015'' and the underlying
bill.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their
work on this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men
and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation
safe.
I also want to extend thanks and appreciation to the men and women in
and out of uniform who defend our nation and serve honor and
distinction.
My work in the 18th Congressional District of Texas has allowed me
the privilege of working with men and women in the military, the
workers in aeronautics and space industries that contribute to our
nation's defense as well as those in the Department of Defense who work
in and around our nation's capital.
Through my work as a Member of Congress I know those who have served
and returned home to a tough economy, struggles with physical
disabilities and life changing injuries associated with their service
to our nation.
The men and women who serve in the military are collection of
statistics and data points, but individuals with names and faces--real
people who depend on us to ensure they are the best trained, best
equipped, and best led defense force in the world.
I appreciate the Committee's continued support for providing funding
that assists military men and women's ability in operating in
unconventional and irregular warfare and countering unconventional
threats, supports capacity-building efforts with foreign military
forces, and supports ongoing operations, as well as programs that will
improve the health and well-being of the force, including sexual
assault prevention.
This bill before us does much but not enough to recognize the
sacrifices of the men and women serving in the military.
The fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense military personnel budget
request was for $128.95 billion. The Committee appropriated $128.127
billion, nearly $800 million less the request and less than the need.
While we watch Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists in Nigeria in the form of
Boko Haram and ISIS in Iraq carry out terrible acts of violence, it is
important to ensure that military has the resources needed to respond
to any threat to our nation or its allies.
The bill recognizes that the military is changing due to the expanded
roles for women who pursue careers in the armed services and it is
essential that this change not lead to a diminution of rights or
opportunities from what women would enjoy had they pursued a different
career path.
That is why I will be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee No. 1) to
provide $5 million in increased funding and support for medical
research related to breast cancer research. The identical amendment was
offered and adopted by the House last year.
This additional funding will be made available for Triple Negative
Breast Cancer research. TNBC is one of the most deadly forms of the
disease that is extremely difficult to detect, and has an extremely
high mortality rate.
I will also be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2) to
reprogramming $500,000 toward outreach programs targeting hard to reach
veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved
urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). An identical amendment was offered by me and adopted by the
House last year.
PTSD, along with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), are the signature
wounds of the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
The need for treatment and support of those afflicted will be with us
long after the conflict ceases and our heroes have returned home.
[[Page H5410]]
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman as to how many more
speakers he has.
Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record a
Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, but first I would just
highlight a couple of points.
{time} 1245
The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4870, as it
now stands--and so do I--for a number of reasons. I want to highlight
one. There are provisions in this bill that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for the President to close down Guantanamo.
Let me read from the administration's statement in reference to some
of these restrictive provisions that prevent them from shutting down
something that I think does nothing to enhance our security:
Operating the detention facility at Guantanamo weakens our national
security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key
allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These
provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the executive
branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees
and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo
detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our
national security interests.
There are other issues as well, but that is something that Members
ought to know. This bill does contain these extraneous provisions.
Let me close by saying to my colleagues that it is no secret to
people in this House that I believe that the war in Afghanistan--the
longest war in U.S. history--should be brought to a close.
It is also no secret that I have expressed my frustration loudly on
this House floor over the fact that we have not been given the
opportunity to discuss that war in an open debate.
When the defense authorization bill came up before us, a germane
bipartisan amendment was offered that would give Members of Congress
the ability to vote on whether we should continue to maintain troops
there or not. That is an important question. That is an important
issue, certainly, as we discuss the defense authorization and the
Defense Appropriations bills.
We were denied that opportunity in this House of Representatives,
which my friend is saying is a festival of democracy, on the most
important issue that is confronting this country right now, the fact
that we are at war. We were denied the opportunity to be able to
deliberate on that issue.
As I said in my opening statement, we have Members of Congress and
pundits that are rattling sabers and trying to get us recommitted to a
war in Iraq. I think that would be a horrible mistake.
I want to close by making a plea to the leadership of this House to
let us discuss these issues openly on the House floor. Let us
deliberate on those issues. Let us live up to our responsibilities, as
Members of Congress, to have a role in some of these discussions. Let's
not abdicate that responsibility.
In fact, it has become a habit with this leadership to just kind of
brush aside those issues, to allow no debate, to allow no deliberation.
I find that appalling.
When you go to Walter Reed and talk to those veterans who have been
wounded and who suffered enormously as a result of their service, when
you talk to their parents and their loved ones, we owe those men and
women a hell of a lot better than they have received on this House
floor. The least we can do is deliberate on those issues.
I make a plea to this leadership to let us talk about these things.
This is important. If this isn't important, I don't know what is.
I oppose the final passage of the bill for a number of reasons, but I
do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work, as well as their
staff, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4870--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY, June 17, 2014)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
4870, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other
purposes. The Administration appreciates the bill's continued
support for providing funding that assists the warfighter in
operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and
countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building
efforts with foreign military forces, and supports on-going
operations, as well as the support for programs that would
improve the health and well-being of the force, including
sexual assault prevention. While there are a number of areas
of agreement with the bill, the Administration has serious
concerns with provisions that would constrain the ability of
the Department of Defense (DOD) to align military
capabilities and force structure with the President's defense
strategy and to reduce unneeded costs.
The Administration will soon submit a budget amendment to
request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
This request will reflect the President's decision on troop
levels in Afghanistan and include funding for the U.S.
military mission in Afghanistan, DOD's supporting presence in
the broader region, as well as the recently proposed
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance
Initiative. The Administration looks forward to working with
the Congress on this request.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress on an orderly appropriations process that supports
economic growth, opportunity, and our national security while
avoiding unnecessary fiscal crises that hold the Nation's
economy back. This process should include reconciling funding
levels for individual appropriations bills to promote
economic growth and national security, and passing bills
without ideological provisions that could undermine an
orderly appropriations process.
The President's fiscal year (FY) 2015 Budget provides a
roadmap for making investments to accelerate economic growth,
expand opportunity for all hard-working Americans, and ensure
our national security, while continuing to improve the
Nation's long-term fiscal outlook. At the same time, the
Budget takes key steps to both continue and enhance the
Administration's efforts to deliver a Government that is more
effective, efficient, and supportive of economic growth.
The President's Budget adheres to the FY 2015 spending
levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) and shows
the choices the President would make at those levels.
However, the levels agreed to in the BBA are already below FY
2007 funding levels adjusted for inflation and are not
sufficient--either in FY 2015 or beyond--to ensure the Nation
is achieving its full potential. For that reason, the Budget
also includes a fully paid for Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative--evenly split between defense and non-
defense priorities--that presents additional investments to
grow the economy, expand opportunity, and enhance security.
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would
provide $26.4 billion for DOD to make progress on restoring
readiness lost under sequestration, accelerate modernization
of key weapons systems, and improve DOD facilities across the
United States.
In the Administration's view, the risk to the Nation will
grow significantly should the Congress not accept reforms
proposed in the FY 2015 Budget. Without congressional support
for meaningful compensation reforms and other cost saving
measures, force structure changes, and flexibility to manage
weapon systems and infrastructure, there is an increased risk
to the Department's ability to implement the President's
defense strategy, which will contribute to a military that
will be less capable of responding effectively to future
challenges.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill and urges the Congress to resolve these issues
during the FY 2015 appropriations process.
Department of Defense
Prohibition on Retirement, Divesture, Realignment, or
Transfer of Aircraft. The Administration appreciates the
Committee's support of the Air Force's A-10 fleet divesture
plans. Divesting the A-10 fleet will help the Air Force meet
near-term readiness and achieve long-term modernization
objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to
provisions that restrict the Department's ability to retire
other weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance
with current strategic and operational plans. These
divestitures are critical and would provide funding for
higher priority programs.
Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to
sections 8122, 8133, and 8136 of the bill, consistent with
previously stated objections to provisions in the FY 2015
National Defense Authorization Act. Section 8122 of the bill
would prohibit the cancellation or modification of the C-130
Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). DOD plans to replace
the C-130 AMP with a less expensive, fully capable
alternative that has been validated by independent study to
ensure that the fleet continues to meet future requirements.
Section 8133 would prevent the Air Force from using funds to
divest or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve
[[Page H5411]]
component associated with E-3 airborne warning and control
system aircraft. This provision would force the Air Force to
take funding from higher priority defense needs in order to
operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are not needed
and are unaffordable in today's constrained fiscal
environment. Section 8136, which limits the transfer of
Apaches from the Army National Guard to the active Army,
would result in gaps in the Army's armed reconnaissance units
that would require approximately $4 billion to fill. As DOD
transitions out of a decade of war, aircraft force structure
changes are necessary to shape a force that is more agile and
ready to respond to the requirements of the defense strategy.
Compensation Reform. To achieve a proper balance between
DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to
servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops with
the training and equipment they need to do their jobs, it is
imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing
allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how
commissaries operate. The Administration strongly urges the
Congress to support these reforms, which would save
$2 billion in FY 2015 and $31 billion through FY 2019.
While the Committee restored funding to offset the FY 2015
savings associated with proposals that were not supported,
the rejection of these proposals will likely require DOD
to find over $27 billion in additional reductions to
readiness, modernization, and force structure for FY 2016
through FY 2019. The Administration looks forward to the
recommendations of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission on long-term
compensation and retirement issues, but delaying DOD's
holistic package of proposed initial changes will only
result in increased costs, degradation in training and
modernization efforts, and risks to the force.
Guantaanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration
strongly objects to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of
the bill, each of which would restrict the Executive Branch's
ability to manage the Guantaanamo detainee population. The
President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these
or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has
reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such
restrictions. As the President said in his State of the Union
Address, ``this needs to be the year Congress lifts the
remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the
prison at Guantaanamo Bay.'' Operating the detention facility
at Guantaanamo weakens our national security by draining
resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and
partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These
provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the
Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate
disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine
when and where to prosecute Guantaanamo detainees based on
the facts and circumstances of each case and our national
security interests. Sections 8107, 8139, and 9015 would,
moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers
principles under certain circumstances.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration
strongly objects to the proposed $4.8 million reduction in
funds that would support a BRAC 2017 round. This impairs the
ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or
make other needed adjustments that would improve military
effectiveness and efficiency. The Administration strongly
urges the Congress to provide the BRAC authorization and
funding as requested, which would allow DOD to rightsize its
infrastructure while providing important assistance to
affected communities. Without authorization for a new round
of BRAC, DOD will not be able to properly align the
military's infrastructure with the needs of our evolving
force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited
resources are available for the highest priorities of the
warfighter and national security.
Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The
Administration objects to section 8116 of the bill which
would continue and expand prohibitions on using funds to
procure certain equipment, including maintenance for the
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This section would
severely limit DOD's ability to sustain military-use
helicopters and other equipment that is already in ANSF's
inventory and is critical to their ability to continue the
fight against extremists who threaten the security of
Afghanistan, the United States, and our allies. If enacted,
this section could force DOD to seek more costly alternatives
than contracting with the Russian helicopter industry to
sustain ANSF aircraft, increasing costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
Liquid Rocket Engine Development. The Administration
objects to the unrequested $220 million for a new rocket
engine. An independent study recently concluded that such a
program would take eight years to field and could cost $1.5
billion with another $3 billion needed to develop a suitable
launch vehicle. This approach prematurely commits significant
resources and would not reduce our reliance on Russian
engines for at least a decade. With a goal of promptly
reducing our reliance on Russian technology, the
Administration is evaluating several cost-effective options
including public-private partnerships with multiple awards
that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base,
and reduce costs through competition. The Administration
looks forward to working with the Congress on this issue once
the analysis is complete.
Limitations on Phased Modernization of Weapon Systems.
While appreciative of the bill's overall support for cruiser
modernization, the Administration objects to the unnecessary
limitations on the current plan, which would preclude
modernization in the most cost effective and timely manner
and may hinder the Navy's ability to retain 11 modernized
cruisers into the 2040s.
Reducing the Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base. The
Administration objects to section 8123 of the bill, which
would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing
the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base and is
duplicative of section 341 of the FY 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act. Because DOD is nearing completion of the
section 341 requirements for Lajes, duplicating and
amplifying these requirements is unnecessarily onerous.
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Administration objects to
finding reductions for the LCS program. The reductions leave
the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in
FY 2015, delaying the delivery of much needed capability to
the Fleet. Deferring additional ships into FY 2016 would
compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in
funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained
environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and
increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier
suppliers.
Reallocation of Missile Defense Agency Funding. The
Administration objects to the reallocation of $370 million
from the FY 2015 Budget request. These changes would reduce
capability and capacity, and may possibly hinder the
Department's ability to effectively manage the Agency.
Specifically, this reallocation of funds would delay critical
engineering, testing, command and control, and weapons system
development, and would affect homeland and regional
commitments, including a likely delay of one year for the
European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3--a national
commitment to our allies. Also, the reduction in advanced
procurement funding for the Standard Missile-3 IB could
increase its planned procurement cost by about $140 million.
Opposition to Unrequested Funding. The Administration
objects to the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did
not request and does not need, such as additional EA-18G
aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, M-1
Abrams upgrades, and a significantly larger amount of funding
for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account than
provided in recent years. The Administration is also
concerned that section 8006 of 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.
Classified Programs. The Administration looks forward to
providing its views on the adjustments contained in the
Classified Annex to the bill once it becomes available.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the FY 2015 appropriations process moves forward.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent
consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.
Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job in the appropriations
area, working with his minority member, to craft this appropriations
bill to fit the needs of our military. They have done an excellent job.
Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility
that we share with the President. This Congress shares that with the
President. Without a strong defense, we have no way of ensuring that
our liberties we enjoy and the safety of our citizens from threats,
both foreign and domestic, keep us safe here at home.
The underlying legislation helps fulfill Congress' responsibility to
provide for our national defense by funding the Armed Forces and
addressing critical readiness gaps.
The DOD Appropriations bill provides $1 million to be used
exclusively for improving military readiness. That commitment is vital
because we need to give our warfighters the best possible chance to
complete their mission and make it home safe and sound.
As a father of three soldiers, I can only tell you that the ability
to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve
this country is the utmost responsibility that this country has to them
to make sure that they have the ability to come back. We need to give
them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families.
As a father who has sons serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we
have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military,
second to none in the world.
We want to make sure that our men and women have the ability to have
the medical treatment that they so rightly
[[Page H5412]]
deserve when they come back after serving their country. I think that
we have taken the steps in the Rules Committee to do just that.
This rule and this appropriations bill actually rejects, again, the
President's proposed cuts to TRICARE. Once again, in the last 4 years,
TRICARE has come under fire.
We don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of
our men and women who fight for this country. We need to make sure of
our priorities that we owe our troops, which is a debt we can never
repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't
repay it by cutting their pay, you don't repay it by ignoring them as
it relates to when they come back with a service-connected disability,
go in front of the VA, and be denied the service they rightfully
earned.
Finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to go to
conference with the Senate because, if you remember right, the Senate
passed a bill, the House passed a bill as it relates to the VA, in
regards to trying to fix the VA. It is a good first step.
Those bills have already been passed. Now, it is the opportunity to
provide an opportunity to conference with the Senate to come up with a
compromise that puts our veterans first--not last, not behind
bureaucrats, but in front of the line, not the back of the line.
We can quickly resolve those issues between the House and the Senate
by going to conference, and that is what this bill helps us do.
I think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been shameful.
It is a complete disservice to those who risked their lives for us. The
severity of this issue, the sheer gravity of it, demands input from
both Chambers.
We have heard about how keeping GTMO open makes us less safe. Well,
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that releasing five members of
Taliban's senior leadership positions makes America less safe--which we
just did, without input from this House or without input from the
Senate, as required by law. It was just done.
Are we safer because we released these five Taliban leaders? They are
not the trigger pullers. They are not the guys on the ground. These are
the guys that actually helped design and implement the Taliban and the
attacks on us. Some of those leaders are purported to be members of
that group that helped design and implement those.
I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts. We agree on a lot of
issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended
conflicts. We do agree on that.
Having sons that have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want to
make sure that this body has a say in what happens. I want to make sure
this body hears from the President in a cohesive way in regards to what
he expects to accomplish and what our mission is.
I have two sons in Iraq in the conflict. I happened to travel there
and got to see my two kids. The night that I was there, a U.S. base was
struck by an IRAM, which is an Iranian rocket warhead.
The only place you get that is from Iran. You don't find it on the
shelf at a store. Iran provided a warhead that killed five troops the
night I was in Iraq. They were part of the division where my youngest
son served.
Here we are, talking about working with Iran, who has been the most
destablizing country in the world, as it relates to Afghanistan and
Iraq. This is a sectarian issue going on between the Sunnis and the
Shiites.
I don't know what the best way forward is, but I want to hear from
the President what his plan is. We sent more troops to Iraq. I want to
hear specifically what we expect to get out of that. What do we expect?
I will tell you that the ISIL in the media, they want to hurt
America. They are the ones that are advancing towards Baghdad. They
have the ability, from what I am reading in the press, to reach out and
touch America.
Do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in Iraq? I
believe we do, but I want to hear from this President about how you
move forward and how you fix something that my good friend from
Massachusetts talked about, the corrupt government within Iraq.
We have some of the same issues in Afghanistan. How do we do that?
I think he hit it on the head. The people of those countries have got
to stand up and take control. The problem is we don't want terrorists
to take control. The ISIL is a terrorist organization; there is no
doubt about it.
Lastly, I just want to touch on the conference allowing us to give
instructions to conferees as relates to the Senate. We want to make
sure that that gets done--and it gets done right and done in a timely
fashion. It is amazing that the Senate, when motivated, can do the
right thing and move a piece of legislation through.
I support this straightforward rule and the much-needed underlying
legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same,
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 163, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
YEAS--244
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--163
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Becerra
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
[[Page H5413]]
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Bachus
Beatty
Bera (CA)
Bridenstine
Cantor
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Garamendi
Hall
Hanna
Horsford
Lankford
McKeon
Meeks
Meng
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Nunnelee
Rangel
Ryan (OH)
Waxman
Welch
{time} 1322
Ms. KUSTER, Mr. LIPINSKI and Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 18, 2014, on page H5413, the following appeared: Ms.
KUSTER, Mr. LIPINSKI and Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
The online version should be corrected to read: Ms. KUSTER, Mr.
LIPINSKI and Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
========================= END NOTE =========================
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably
detained today and missed roll No. 315. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
____________________