Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 94 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3786-H3804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

General Leave

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5293, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 778 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5293.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1633

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to present the Appropriations Committee
recommendation for the fiscal year 2017 Department of Defense
Appropriations bill.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to those who are not with us
today--our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--who serve all
across the globe defending our freedom. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines provide the mantle of security that allows us to meet in
settings like this every day, and they should never be far from our
minds.
Mr. Chairman, they, those who serve in uniform and their families,
deserve our heartfelt thanks for their personal sacrifice.
I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Mrs. Lowey for their support
during the process, and special thanks to my counterpart, Pete
Visclosky, for his partnership in this effort. I thank him for his
assistance and collaboration.
Mr. Chairman, our Defense Subcommittee conducted 11 formal hearings
and had numerous briefings to help shape this legislation. These
meetings allowed us to look in great detail into our national defense
posture and the capabilities of our adversaries and our partners, and
we are very concerned by what we see.
Over the past several years, we have largely focused on the dangers
posed by Islamic terrorist organizations--al Qaeda, barbaric ISIS, al-
Nusrah, and others. They remain a clear and present danger. But in
recent years, new threats have emerged: a more aggressive and capable
Russia, an expansionist China, emboldened states like Iran, and rogue
nations like North Korea. At the same time, we are dealing with fiscal
constraints imposed by sequestration and budget caps.
So, looking today at our Department of Defense and intelligence
community, we note that our readiness levels are alarmingly low for our
soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen; our decisive technological edge
over our adversaries is eroding; and our adversaries' resolve and their
capability are only growing.
The bill before you begins to reverse these trends by providing more
money for national security.
This measure includes a total of $575.8 billion for the Department of
Defense for functions under our subcommittee's jurisdiction and $58.6
billion for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism
funding.
Our recommendation mirrors the funding structure that the House Armed
Services Committee and this House approved a few weeks ago and shifts
roughly $16 billion from the President's request for OCO operations
into critical investments in our personnel, training, and equipment,
while

[[Page H3787]]

providing a bridge fund for our overseas operations through the end of
April of 2017.
By that time, our new Commander in Chief will be able to assess our
defense posture, reevaluate readiness levels and recapitalization
efforts, and request a targeted supplemental to support our troops.
Congress did a similar maneuver in 2008.
I am confident that Members of this House will work in a bipartisan
way to ensure that this essential supplemental appropriations
legislation is passed when that time comes. Rest assured that we will
never let our troops down.
By providing a bridge fund to next April, our bill is able to make
targeted investments in additional manning for the Army, Marines, and
Air Force, more training, as well as the equipment they rely upon--all
designed to repair the worrisome readiness gaps we see across our Armed
Forces.
We currently have the lowest manning level in the Army since before
World War II, and this legislation boosts Army and Marine Corps end
strength.
Despite the Secretary's assurances that we are on our way to a 300-
ship Navy, we now have 273 in our fleet, which is smaller than at any
time since before World War I. This bill funds a significant increase
in shipbuilding.
Our Air Force is flying the oldest planes in its entire history, and
the bill before you boosts the modernization of our fighters, bombers,
tankers, and other aircraft.
We are also able to increase funding by $9.6 billion for equipment
the service chiefs have requested in their unmet needs list.
Our investments will allow our military services to fully meet
critical training requirements, such as flying hours, steaming days,
depot maintenance, ground training, facilities improvement, and base
operations.
I also want to note that our legislation again includes $500 million
to continue improvements for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance for our combatant commanders. They need it; they will
welcome it.
Mr. Chairman, as I close, I want to make an observation about this
year's debate. The President's spokesman and Secretary of Defense were
quick to criticize the funding structure of the National Defense
Authorization bill and, indeed, this proposal, and issued a veto threat
against our bill this morning.
The White House and Secretary Carter have suggested we are, in their
own words, ``gambling'' with our troops' mission in the Middle East and
that our approach is somehow ``irresponsible'' or, in their own words,
``dangerous.''
But what was really ``gambling,'' ``irresponsible,'' and
``dangerous'' was the administration's decision to pull all of our
troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan--against the advice of our military
leadership--and not anticipate that the resulting vacuum would be
filled by ISIS, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups.

What was ``gambling,'' ``irresponsible,'' and ``dangerous'' was--and
is--the constant changing of the military rules of engagement to meet
political objectives.
What was ``gambling'' and ``irresponsible'' was ousting Qadhafi in
Libya without any plan whatsoever for the aftermath.
Indeed, it is ``gambling,'' ``irresponsible,'' and ``dangerous'' to
believe that Iran would not violate any aspects of the Geneva
Agreement.
And surely it was a ``gamble'' to believe that the American people
would ignore the capture and provocative treatment of 10 American
sailors seized by the Iranian regime last January; and surely it was a
``gamble'' that the American people would not pay attention to
increased military operations in Syria and Iraq and, yes, the tragic
deaths of American service personnel, if the President refused to call
them ``combat operations.''
There is more happening in the Middle East today than the airstrikes
against ISIS, and we need to thank those warfighters on the ground that
are there as we gather here this afternoon. They are risking their
lives right now--every day--and their families are dispirited because
their sons and daughters are in combat and do sustain injuries while
the administration hides behind semantics of ``no boots on the
ground.'' There are boots on the ground.
Further, it was ``gambling'' and ``dangerous'' to establish a poorly
thought-out and poorly executed ``train and equip'' scheme in Syria, or
to conclude that Russia and China would not cease their aggressive
challenges to American superiority around the world.
My friends, one thing we can all agree upon is that the last 2 years
of budget cuts, constant deployments, and new crises have only eroded
our military's readiness and capabilities.
The bill before you does not gamble. It is highly responsible.
Rather, our proposal wisely invests more money for our troops, more
training for our troops, more modern equipment, expanded cybersecurity,
more intelligence-gathering capabilities, and better healthcare
outcomes for our troops and their families.
Mr. Chairman, it deserves your support; it deserves our support.
I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page ERR58*H3788]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.001

[[Page ERR58*H3789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.002

[[Page ERR58*H3790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.003

[[Page ERR58*H3791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.004

[[Page ERR58*H3792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.005

[[Page ERR58*H3793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.006

[[Page ERR58*H3794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.007

[[Page ERR58*H3795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.008

[[Page ERR58*H3796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN16.009

[[Page H3797]]

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to begin by conveying my deep appreciation, as well, for
Chairman Frelinghuysen's steady leadership of the Defense Subcommittee.
His commitment to this subcommittee's tradition of cooperation and
bipartisanship is unwavering, and it is a pleasure to be able to work
with him.
I also would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Lowey, and the other members of the subcommittee for their very
good efforts.
Additionally, as we all know, this bill could not have been written
without the dedication, long hours, and discerning and thoughtful input
of our committee staff and associate staffs.
The chairman has well and clearly articulated the major elements of
the bill and report. Under less than ideal circumstances and unsettled
conditions, he and the subcommittee staff have, again, demonstrated
their talent and acumen in putting together this legislation. There are
many highlights to the bill. However, I will use my time during general
debate to discuss the circumstances and conditions that led to the
proposal to use nearly 27 percent of the overseas contingency
operations, OCO, accounts to fund base Department of Defense programs,
which gives me pause as an appropriator.
It was as an appropriator that I opposed the Budget Control Act of
2011 and its arbitrary spending caps that only address one-sixth of the
Federal budget equation.

{time} 1645

In each session of Congress, we should be making discrete decisions
on how we annually invest our discretionary dollars. Setting inflexible
spending targets for 10 years is, in my opinion, nonsensical. I believe
we need to invest in our roads, ports, drinking water infrastructure,
universities, and our Nation's defense. We need to generate more
resources, and we need to have a fulsome discussion of our entitlement
programs. My assumption is that there are very few people in Congress
who believe that the Federal Government is currently making enough of a
long-term investment in our Nation and its interests.
It was as an appropriator that I voted for the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015, which mitigated the BCA caps on base discretionary funding and
capped OCO spending for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. I, obviously, would
have rather seen the complete repeal of the act. But, nevertheless, I
supported it because it provided some clarity to the appropriations
process for the balance of this Congress. As such, we were able to wrap
up the fiscal year 2016 process, and with a top line number for fiscal
year 2017, I was guardedly optimistic that the House would have
predictability this year.
The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was far along in its 2017
process when the OCO to base strategy--conceived to placate some on
other committees--was settled upon as the strategy for the House
majority. While this bill technically does not violate the caps
established by the BBA for base defense programs and OCO, it is hard to
argue that this bill was assembled under what passes for normalcy in
this Congress. And there is no doubt that the chairman and the
subcommittee members and staff made smart investment decisions in
executing the $15.7 billion in OCO to base funding strategy. However, I
am troubled with the circumstances that compelled the subcommittee's
action.
First and foremost, the fiscal year begins October 1, 2016, not May
1, 2017, and it is the responsibility of us holding office in the
second session of the 114th Congress to execute the 2017 fiscal year
appropriations process. In order to make OCO funding available for base
programs, our bill only provides enough funding to fully support the
warfighter until the end of April 2017, which is 5 months before the
end of the fiscal year. This is intended to force the next
administration and the next Congress to pass a supplemental in calendar
year 2017 to support ongoing combat operations.
It is not the responsibility of the 115th Congress to finish a
predetermined fraction of our work, and we should not be dismissive of
the difficulties created. To assume that there will be smooth sailing
for a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring is very
problematic. We do not know who will be in the White House. We do not
know who will be the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense.
And we do not know the composition in the next Congress. And as we have
clearly seen from the Zika virus debate and, before that, Hurricane
Sandy, supplemental appropriations bills are not without controversy.
Additionally, in making the $15.7 billion in cuts to the OCO budget
request, the committee has had to make some assumptions on the pace of
combat operations between now and May 2017. While Chairman
Frelinghuysen exercised great care and caution, there is not much
wiggle room in the interim. If the OCO spend rate were to increase for
any reason in an uncertain world, Congress and a new administration
would have to act quickly to pass a supplemental in early 2017. If that
supplemental were not timely, the Department would likely be forced to
reprogram or transfer base dollars to OCO, which shortchanges other
priorities, negates the committee's funding levels, and still requires
a supplemental to backfill both base and OCO while not violating the
BCA caps. Will said supplemental be funded by offsets from resources
within the other 11 appropriations bills?
Adding to the uncertainty, the House majority is going it alone with
this strategy. To date, it has been rejected by the administration, the
Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as the full Senate. While
those institutions are not infallible, I fear that if the House
majority insists upon heading down this path, we are looking at an
impossible conference process.
Putting concerns about uncertainty aside, I further believe that the
OCO to base strategy abdicates our discretion--Congress' discretion--to
the Department of Defense in executing the remaining OCO funding. In
order to free $15.7 billion, certain appropriations in OCO were subject
to reductions. These reductions were done at the account level, not at
the program level. For example, Navy O&M in the OCO title was reduced
by $2.9 billion from its requested level. The Department has discretion
on how to apply that $2.9 billion reduction across 10 programs under
that account. I believe that should be our discretion.
A final concern I have--and one expressed in prior years--is that we
should eliminate the reliance on OCO funding in the first instance and
shift activities to the base budget. It is increasingly difficult after
15 years of war to argue that this operational tempo for our military
is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our Nation and our
interests. This subcommittee has correctly begun to limit what is an
eligible expense in OCO, but under the act and this latest proposal, we
could take a step back. For example, this bill proposes to increase end
strength by 52,000 troops above planned reductions for the Army, Marine
Corps, and Air Force. The chairman alluded to it in his opening
remarks. I absolutely agree with him that we need new personnel, but
this additional force structure costs $3 billion in 2017. What remains
unsaid is if you look out for the next 5 years, it will also increase
spending by $30 billion that is not budgeted for.
In closing, I have taken some time describing my concerns with the
circumstances that impact less than 3 percent of the total bill. But
the manufactured uncertainty introduced by these circumstances
diminishes the likelihood that this committee and the Congress will
complete its work on time. It is a mark of the talent of Chairman
Frelinghuysen and our staff, their commitment to our troops and our
Nation's defense, and their seriousness of purpose, that they have done
so much good to ameliorate the problems caused and highlighted in my
remarks. I look forward to working with Chairman Frelinghuysen and the
Members of this House as we advance the process over the next several
days and complete the task before us. I also look forward to the debate
on amendments.
Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by conveying my deep appreciation
for Chairman Frelinghuysen's steady leadership of the Defense
Subcommittee. His commitment to this

[[Page H3798]]

subcommittee's tradition of cooperative bipartisanship is unwavering
and it is a pleasure working with him.
I also would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Lowey, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for their
efforts.
Additionally, this bill could not have been written without the
dedication, long hours, discerning and thoughtful input of our
committee staff and personal staffs. I want to thank Rob Blair, Sherry
Young, Walter Hearne, BG Wright, Brooke Boyer, Adrienne Ramsay, Allison
Deters, Megan Milam, Colin Lee, Cornell Teague, Matthew Bower, Rebecca
Leggieri, Chris Bigelow, Steve Wilson, Joe DeVooght, and Luke Wood.
The Chairman has well and clearly articulated the major elements of
the bill and report. Under less than ideal circumstances and unsettled
conditions, he and the Subcommittee staff have again demonstrated their
talent and acumen in putting together this legislation. There are many
highlights to the bill. However, I will use my time during general
debate to discuss the circumstances and conditions that led to the
proposal to use nearly 27 percent of the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) accounts to fund base Department of Defense programs,
which gives me pause as an Appropriator.
It was as an Appropriator that I opposed the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA) and its arbitrary spending caps that only address one-sixth
of the federal budget equation. In each session of Congress we should
be making discrete decisions on how we annually invest our
discretionary dollars. Setting inflexible spending targets for 10 years
is nonsensical. I believe we need to invest more in our roads, ports,
drinking water infrastructure, universities, and our defense. We need
to generate more resources, and the need to have a fulsome discussion
of our entitlement programs. My assumption is that there are very few
people in Congress who believe that the federal government is currently
making enough of a long-term investment in our nation and its
interests.
And it was as an Appropriator, that I voted for the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (BBA), which mitigated the BCA caps on base discretionary
funding and capped OCO spending for Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 and 2017. I
obviously would have rather seen the complete repeal of the BCA, but
nonetheless, I supported the BBA, because it provided some clarity to
the Appropriations process for the balance of the 114th Congress. As
such, we were able to wrap up the FY 2016 process and, with a number
for FY 2017, I was guardedly optimistic that the House would have
predictability this year.
The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was far along in its FY 2017
process, when the OCO to Base strategy--conceived to placate some on
other Committees--was settled upon as the strategy for the House
Majority. While this bill technically does not violate the caps
established by the BBA for base defense programs and OCO, it is hard to
argue that this bill was assembled under what passes for normalcy in
this Congress. And there is no doubt that the Chairman and Subcommittee
staff made smart investment decisions in executing the $15.7 billion in
OCO to Base funding strategy. However, I am troubled with the
circumstances that compelled the subcommittee's action.
First and foremost, the fiscal year begins on October 1, 2016, not
May 1, 2017, and it is the responsibility of those of us holding office
in the 2nd session of the 114th Congress to execute the FY 2017
appropriations process. In order to make OCO funding available for base
programs, our bill only provides enough funding to fully support the
warfighter until the end of April 2017, which is five months before the
end of the fiscal year. This is intended to force the next
administration and the next Congress to pass a supplemental in calendar
year 2017 to support ongoing combat operations.
It is not the responsibility of the 115th Congress to finish a
predetermined fraction of our work, and we should not be dismissive of
the difficulties we created. To assume there will be smooth sailing for
a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring is problematic. We do
not know who will be in the White House, who will be the civilian
leadership at DoD, nor the composition of the next Congress. And as we
can clearly see from the Zika Virus debate, and before that Hurricane
Sandy, supplemental appropriations bills are not without controversy.
Additionally, in making the $15.7 billion in cuts to the OCO budget
request, the Committee had to make some assumptions on the pace of
combat operations between now and May 2017. While Chairman
Frelinghuysen exercised care and caution, there is not much wiggle room
in the interim. If the OCO spend rate were to increase for any reason,
Congress and a new Administration would have to act quickly to pass a
supplemental early in 2017. If that supplemental were not timely, the
Department would likely be forced to reprogram or transfer base dollars
to OCO, which shortchanges other priorities, negates the committee's
funding levels, and still requires a supplemental to backfill both base
and OCO while not violating the BCA caps. Will said supplemental be
funded by offsets from resources within the other 11 Appropriations
bills?
Adding to the uncertainty, the House Majority is going it alone with
this strategy. To date, it has been rejected by the Administration, the
Senate Appropriations Committee, and the full Senate. While those three
are not infallible, I fear that if the House Majority insists upon
heading down this path, we are looking at an impossible conference
process.
Putting concerns over uncertainty aside, I further believe the OCO to
Base strategy abdicates our discretion to the Department of Defense in
executing the remaining OCO funding. In order to free up $15.7 billion,
certain appropriations in OCO were subject to reductions. These
reductions were done at the account level, not at the program level.
For example, Navy O&M in the OCO Title was reduced by $2.9 billion,
from its requested level of $6.8 billion. The Department has discretion
on how it will apply that $2.9 billion reduction across the tens of
programs under that account.
A final concern I have, and one expressed in prior years, is that we
should eliminate the reliance on OCO funding in the first instance and
shift activities to the base budget. It is increasingly difficult after
fifteen years of war to argue that this operational tempo for our
military is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our
nation and our interests. This Subcommittee had correctly begun to
limit what is an eligible expense in OCO, but under the BBA and this
latest proposal we would take a step back. For example, this bill
proposes to increase end strength by 52,000 above planned reductions
for the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. And I agree that we need
more personnel, but this additional force structure costs $3 billion in
FY 2017 and is paid for with OCO to Base dollars. But, we defer the
tough decisions. This is particularly true when recognizing the fact
that BCA caps are scheduled to lower defense spending by $2 billion in
FY 2018. An increase in end strength creates a tail of spending in
future years. The DoD estimates that the troop levels funded in the
bill will increase spending by $30 billion over five years. That is $30
billion that is not budgeted for, but $30 billion that our Committee
will be expected to pay for.
In closing, I have taken some time describing my concerns with the
circumstances that impact less than three percent of the total bill.
But the manufactured uncertainty introduced by these circumstances
diminishes the likelihood that this Committee and the Congress will
complete its work. It is a mark of the talent of Chairman Frelinghuysen
and our staff, their commitment to our troops and our nation's defense,
and their seriousness of purpose, that they have done so much good to
ameliorate the problems caused by this approach. I look forward to
working with Chairman Frelinghuysen and the members of the House to
advance the process and complete the task before us.
I look forward to the debate on amendments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the full committee
chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding time.

[[Page H3799]]

I rise in support of this fine bill. This bill provides critical
funding to uphold our defense posture, maintain our military readiness,
and protect our Nation from those who would seek to do us harm. The
world, of course, is changing rapidly. We are reminded regularly that
we are still a Nation at war, and new threats arise daily. It is clear
that a strong national defense is of the highest priority.
In total, as has been said, the bill contains $575.8 billion in base
and Overseas Contingency Operations funding for critical national
security needs, and the health and well-being of our troops.
The use of OCO funds in this bill is in line with the National
Defense Authorization Act that the House passed on a bipartisan basis
last month. This funding will provide the resources that our military
needs to be successful in the fight right now, and that will improve
our readiness for the future.
This includes over $209 billion for operations and maintenance, the
programs that help prepare our troops, like flight time and battle
training, as well as base operations. The bill also includes $120.8
billion for equipment and upgrades, providing the weapons and platforms
needed to fight and win in the field.
And to improve this equipment, develop and test new technologies, and
meet future security threats, the bill contains $70.8 billion for
research and development. This will help keep our Nation on the cutting
edge, ensuring that we will remain the most superior military power in
the entire world.
This legislation prioritizes a robust, healthy, and well-cared-for
force. In total, $132.6 billion is provided to support over 1.3 million
Active Duty troops and over 826,000 Guard and Reserve troops. This
wholly rejects the administration's proposed troop reductions by
providing an additional $3 billion to maintain our troop strength and
fully funds the authorized 2.1 percent pay raise for our soldiers.
It is also critically important that we adequately fund the quality-
of-life programs for our troops and military families need and deserve.
The bill contains $34 billion for defense headline programs--targeting
increases to cancer research, facility upgrades, traumatic brain
injury, psychological health research, and sexual assault prevention.
I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his care and consideration
in drafting this big bill. He, as well as the members of his
subcommittee, have put the security of the Nation and the welfare of
our warfighters above all else. I also want to thank the subcommittee
staff for their expert work and dedication on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill fulfills the Congress' most important
responsibility--providing for the common defense. And it does so
responsibly--funding those military needs that must be addressed now,
planning and preparing for the future, and respecting the taxpayer by
making commonsense budgeting decisions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill to continue to
protect our Nation from threats to our freedom, democracy, and way of
life.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, with only the fourth appropriations bill of
the year on the floor, we should not be patting ourselves on the back.
Today's bill blows up last year's budget agreement through a gimmick
that needlessly creates a funding cliff next spring. It forces the new
President, as one of her or his first actions in office, to request
emergency supplemental funding.
The difference here is about more than bookkeeping. Sending our
military men and women into some of the most dangerous places on
Earth--Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria--without ensuring mission support,
including to combat ISIL, or their salaries for a full year, is the
height of irresponsibility.
Here are some of the things that Secretary Carter has said about the
Republican OCO budget gimmick: deeply troubling, flawed, gambling with
warfighting money, creating a hollow force structure, working against
our efforts to restore readiness, a road to nowhere, a high probability
of leading to more gridlock, undercuts stable planning and efficient
use of taxpayer dollars, dispirits troops and their families, baffles
friends, and emboldens foes.
Additionally, President Obama issued a veto threat due to this
harmful gimmick.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the President's Statement of
Administration Policy on H.R. 5293.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5293--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017--Rep. Rogers,
R-KY

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
5293, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year (FY) ending September 30, 2017, and for other
purposes.
While the Administration appreciates the Committee's
support for certain investments in our national defense, H.R.
5293 fails to provide our troops with the resources needed to
keep our Nation safe. At a time when ISIL continues to
threaten the homeland and our allies, the bill does not fully
fund wartime operations such as INHERENT RESOLVE. Instead the
bill would redirect $16 billion of Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funds toward base budget programs that the
Department of Defense (DOD) did not request, shortchanging
funding for ongoing wartime operations midway through the
year. Not only is this approach dangerous but it is also
wasteful. The bill would buy excess force structure without
the money to sustain it, effectively creating a hollow force
structure that would undermine DOD's efforts to restore
readiness. Furthermore, the bill's funding approach attempts
to unravel the dollar-for-dollar balance of defense and non-
defense funding increases provided by the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (BBA), threatening future steps needed to reverse
over $100 billion of future sequestration cuts to DOD. By
gambling with warfighting funds, the bill risks the safety of
our men and women fighting to keep America safe, undercuts
stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars,
dispirits troops and their families, baffles our allies, and
emboldens our enemies.
In addition, H.R. 5293 would impose other unneeded costs,
constraining DOD's ability to balance military capability,
capacity, and readiness. The Administration's defense
strategy depends on investing every dollar where it will have
the greatest effect. The Administration's FY 2017 proposals
would accomplish this by continuing and expanding critical
reforms that divest unneeded force structure, balance growth
in military compensation, modernize military health care, and
reduce wasteful overhead. The bill fails to adopt many of
these reforms, including through measures prohibiting the use
of funds to propose or plan for a new Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) round. The bill also continues unwarranted
restrictions regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay that
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.
In October 2015, the President worked with congressional
leaders from both parties to secure the BBA, which partially
reversed harmful sequestration cuts slated for FY 2017. By
providing fully-paid-for equal dollar increases for defense
and non-defense spending, the BBA allows for investments in
FY 2017 that create jobs, support middle-class families,
contribute to long-term growth, and safeguard national
security. The Administration looks forward to working with
the Congress to enact appropriations that are consistent with
that agreement, and fully support economic growth,
opportunity, and our national security priorities. However,
the bill is inconsistent with the BBA, and the Administration
strongly objects to the inclusion of problematic ideological
provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 5293, the
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the
bill.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Department of Defense (DOD)
Reduction and Misuse of OCO Funds. The Administration
strongly objects to the Committee's proposal to substitute
$16 billion of DOD's OCO request in the FY 2017 Budget with
$16 billion of unsustainable base budget programs that do not
reflect the Department's highest joint priorities. This
approach creates a hollow force structure and risks the loss
of funding for critical overseas contingency operations. This
gimmick is inconsistent with the BBA, which provided equal
increases for defense and non-defense spending as well as the
certainty needed to prosecute the counter-ISIL campaign,
protect readiness recovery, modernize the force for future
conflicts, and keep faith with servicemembers and their
families. Shortchanging wartime operations by $16 billion
would deplete essential funding for ongoing operations by the
middle of the year, introducing a dangerous level of
uncertainty for our men and women in uniform carrying out
missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Our
troops need and deserve guaranteed, predictable support as
they execute their missions year round, particularly in light
of the dangers they face in executing

[[Page H3800]]

the Nation's ongoing overseas contingency operations.
Guantanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration
strongly objects to sections 8097, 8098, 8099, and 8130 of
the bill, which would restrict the Executive Branch's ability
to manage the detainee population at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
detention facility. Section 8098 would prohibit the use of
funds for the construction, acquisition, or modification of
any facility to house Guantanamo detainees in the United
States. Sections 8097 and 8099 would continue prohibitions
and restrictions relating to transfers of detainees abroad.
In addition, section 8130 would restrict the Department's
ability to transfer U.S. Naval Station functions in support
of national security. The President has repeatedly objected
to the inclusion of these and similar provisions in prior
legislation and has called upon the Congress to lift the
restrictions. 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. Sections 8097 and 8099 would, moreover, violate
constitutional separation-of-powers principles in certain
circumstances.
Military End Strength. The Administration strongly objects
to the unnecessary funding for end strength levels above the
FY 2017 Budget request. The bill would force the Department
to take additional risk in the training and readiness of the
current force, as well as investment in and procurement of
future capabilities. Adding unnecessary end strength in the
manner proposed in the bill would increase military personnel
and operation and maintenance support costs by approximately
$30 billion (FY 2017 through FY 2021). This would also invite
a significant, unacceptable risk of creating a future hollow
force, in which force structure exists, but the resources to
make it ready do not follow. The Administration urges support
of the Department's plan, which reflects sound strategy and
responsible choices among capacity, capabilities, and current
and future readiness.
Military Compensation Reform. The Administration is
disappointed that the Committee has rejected the pay raise
proposal and most of the health care reform proposals
included in the FY 2017 Budget request. The FY 2017 Budget
request includes a set of commonsense reforms that would
allow the Department to achieve a proper balance between
DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to
servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops the
finest training and equipment possible. The Administration
strongly encourages the Congress to support these reforms,
which would save $500 million in FY 2017 and $11 billion
through FY 2021.
Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of
Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships. The
Administration strongly objects to section 8124 of the bill,
which would prohibit the Navy from executing its phased
modernization approach for maintaining an effective cruiser
and dock landing ship force structure while balancing scarce
operating and maintenance funding. It also would
significantly reduce planned savings and accelerate the
retirement of all Ticonderoga-Class cruisers. The Navy's
current requirement for active large surface combatants
includes 11 Air Defense Commander ships, one assigned to each
of the active carrier strike groups. This requirement is met
by the modernization plan proposed in the FY 2017 Budget
request. Furthermore, section 8124 would require an
additional $3.2 billion across the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP) to fund manpower, maintenance, modernization,
and operations when compared to the FY 2017 Budget request.
Restoration of Tenth Navy Carrier Air Wing. The
Administration strongly objects to restoration of the Carrier
Air Wing in Title IX of the bill. The tenth Carrier Air Wing
is no longer needed, and results in ineffective use of the
aircraft and pilot inventory in the Navy. The plan proposed
in the FY 2017 Budget request optimizes Carrier Air Wing
force structure to meet the Global Force Management
Allocation Plan demand in a sustainable way. As an additional
benefit, the plan also generates $926 million in FYDP
savings. Furthermore, if forced to retain the tenth Carrier
Air Wing, the bill's current military personnel funding
levels are insufficient. The Navy would require an additional
$48 million in FY 2017 for military personnel above the
levels already in the bill, as well as an end strength
increase of 1,167 above the Navy end strength in the bill.
Restoration of Third Littoral Combat Ship. The
Administration strongly objects to the Committee's proposal
to increase the purchase of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in FY
2017 from two to three. The FY 2017 Budget request reduced
from 52 to 40 the total number of LCS and Frigates (FF) the
Navy would purchase over the life of the program. A combined
program of 40 LCS and FF would allow DOD to invest in
advanced capabilities across the fleet and would provide
sufficient capacity to meet the Department's warfighting
needs and to exceed recent presence levels with a more modern
and capable ship than legacy mine sweepers, frigates, and
coastal patrol craft they would replace. By funding two LCS
in FY 2017, the Budget request ensures that both shipyards
are on equal footing and have robust production leading up to
the competition to select the shipyard that would continue
the program. This competitive environment ensures the best
price for the taxpayer on the remaining ships, while also
achieving savings by down-selecting to one shipyard. The
bill prevents the use of resources for higher priorities
to improve DOD's warfighting capability, such as undersea,
other surface, and aviation investments.
Prohibition on Proposing Planning or Conducting an
Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Round. The
Administration strongly objects to section 8121 of the bill
and the proposed $3.5 million reduction to funds that would
support a 2019 BRAC round. By forcing the Department to
spread its resources more thinly, excess infrastructure is
one of the principal drains on the Department's readiness,
which the Committee recognizes as a major concern. In
addition to addressing every previous congressional objection
to BRAC authorization, the Department recently conducted a
DOD-wide parametric capacity analysis, which demonstrates
that the Department has 22 percent excess capacity. In
addition, the Administration's BRAC legislative proposal
includes several changes that respond to congressional
concerns regarding cost. Specifically, the revised BRAC
legislation requires the Secretary to certify that BRAC would
have the primary objective of eliminating excess capacity and
reducing costs, emphasizes recommendations that yield net
savings within five years (subject to military value), and
limits recommendations that take longer than 20 years to pay
back. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to
provide BRAC authorization as requested so that DOD can make
better use of scarce resources to maintain readiness.
Asia-Pacific Rebalance Infrastructure. The Administration
strongly objects to the exclusion of a general provision
requested in the FY 2017 Budget that would allow for $86.7
million of the amounts appropriated for the Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide account to be available for the
Secretary of Defense to make grants, conclude cooperative
agreements, and supplement other Federal funds. This critical
provision addresses the need to provide assistance for
civilian water and wastewater improvements to support the
military build-up on Guam, as well as critical existing and
enduring military installations and missions on Guam. A key
aspect of the Asia-Pacific rebalance is to create a more
operationally resilient Marine Corps presence in the Pacific
and invest in Guam as a joint strategic hub. This funding
supports the ability and flexibility of the President to
execute our foreign and defense policies in coordination with
our ally, Japan. In addition, it calls into question among
regional states our commitment to implement the realignment
plan and our ability to execute our defense strategy.
Prohibition of Funds to Enforce Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Administration
strongly objects to section 8132 of the bill, which would
prohibit DOD from using FY 2017 funds to enforce section 526
of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section
526 provides an environmentally sound framework for the
development of future alternative fuels.
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. The Administration
objects to the reductions to both the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Infrastructure requested in the FY 2017 Budget. The Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle reduction would eliminate three
launch service procurements, instead of the two procurements
the Committee intended. Further, the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle Infrastructure reduction exceeds the amount
ascribed to these two procurements, and would cause the
Government to default on the current contract and the block
buy, unnecessarily introducing costs and schedule risk for
national security space payloads.
Missile Defense Programs. The Administration objects to the
reduction of $324 million from the FY 2017 Budget request for
U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, including $49
million to homeland defense programs, $91 million to U.S.
regional missile defense programs, $44 million to missile
defense testing efforts, and $140 million to missile defense
advanced technology programs. These programs are required to
improve the reliability of missile defense system and ensure
the United States stays ahead of the future ballistic missile
threat. Furthermore, the Administration opposes the addition
of $455 million above the FY 2017 Budget request for Israeli
missile defense procurement and cooperative development
programs.
Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The Administration objects to
section 9020 of the bill, which would rescind funds available
for CSF by $300 million. Reducing CSF would limit DOD's
ability to reimburse key allies in the fight against ISIL and
other extremist groups in the region. The rescission is
especially harmful because it would reduce funds available
for programs that are already underway and would limit DOD's
flexibility to continue to program these funds for critical
needs. The Administration urges the Congress to retain the
authority to make certain funds available to support
stability activities in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas as provided in section 1212(f) of the FY 2016 National
Defense Authorization Act.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). The
Administration objects to the reduction of $250 million from
the FY 2017 Budget request for CTPF because it would restrict
the

[[Page H3801]]

resources required to empower and enable partners in
responding to shared terrorist threats around the world. The
Administration also objects to the $200 million rescission in
FY 2016 CTPF resources in the bill. Both of these reductions
would preclude DOD from continuing important security
assistance programs begun in FY 2016. The Administration
strongly encourages the Congress to provide the $1 billion
originally requested to continue support for CTPF activities
in FY 2017 and restore the rescinded FY 2016 funding.
Elimination of Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUONF)
Funding. The Administration objects to the elimination of the
$99 million JUONF base funding requested in the FY 2017
Budget. This funding is vital to the Department's ability to
quickly respond to urgent operational needs. Eliminating this
funding may increase life-threatening risks to servicemembers
and contribute to critical mission failures.
Rapid Prototyping, Experimentation and Demonstration. The
Administration objects to the reduction of $42 million from
the FY 2017 Budget request for the Navy's research and
development funding to support the Rapid Prototyping,
Experimentation and Demonstration (RPED) initiative. RPED is
an essential element in the Navy's strategy to employ
successful innovation technologies to help pace the dynamic
threat of our adversaries, more quickly address urgent
capability needs, accelerate our speed of innovation, and
rapidly develop and deliver advanced warfighting capability
to naval forces. This reduction would render the initiative
ineffective in promoting rapid acquisition, hindering the
Navy's ability to determine the technical feasibility and
operational utility of advanced technologies before
committing billions of dollars toward development.
development. This reduction hinders the Department-wide goal
of employing new techniques to make the acquisition process
more agile and efficient.
Innovation and Access to Non-Traditional Suppliers. The
Administration objects to the reduction of $30 million for
programs that seek to broaden DOD's access to innovative
companies and technologies. Specifically, the Administration
is concerned about the elimination of the investment funding
associated with the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental
(DIUx), as well as the reduction in funding for In-Q-Tel's
efforts to explore innovative technologies that enable the
efficient incorporation into weapons systems and operations
capabilities. These investments would enable the development
of leading-edge, primarily asymmetric capabilities and help
spur development of new ways of warfighting to counter
advanced adversaries.
Reduction of Funds for Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction (CWMD) Situational Awareness System. The
Administration objects to the reduction of $27 million from
the FY 2017 Budget request for the development of a CWMD
situational awareness information system, known as
``Constellation.'' The Department is developing and fielding
this system in response to requirements articulated by all
Combatant Commands and validated by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council. This capability is critical to
anticipating WMD threats from both nation-state and non-state
actors and sharing information between DOD and its U.S.
interagency and international partners. Funds were
appropriated in FY 2014-2016 specifically to develop and
field the Constellation system, which would be deployed in
July 2016 as an initial prototype. A reduction of $27 million
would effectively terminate this initiative and prevent DOD
from developing a high priority capability needed to counter
WMD threats.
Navy High Energy Lasers. The Administration objects to the
reduction of $20 million from the FY 2017 Budget request for
the Power Projection Advanced Technology program, which would
delay by one year fielding of the High Energy Laser (HEL)
program laser and demonstration of its technology maturation.
The HEL technology is a means of countering low-cost unmanned
aerial vehicles and small surface vessels.
Limitation on Intelligence Community General Transfer
Authority (GTA). The Administration objects to section 8096
of the bill, which reduces the Intelligence Community's
(IC's) FY 2016 enacted GTA cap from $1.5 billion to $1.0
billion for FY 2017. This proposed cap would place severe
limits on the IC's flexibility to manage resources and could
compromise the ability to meet critical intelligence
priorities at a time of shifting and dynamic worldwide
threats, especially in urgent circumstances. This flexibility
is especially important given the broad applicability of the
GTA constraints to the appropriation accounts that fund IC.
Availability of Funds for Improvement of IC Financial
Management. The Administration objects to section 8066 of the
bill, which places limits on the ability of IC to review and
take action on financial management improvement measures. The
Office of the Director of National Intelligence and DOD are
engaged in a comprehensive review of financial management
practices that may result in recommendations for changes to
financial management or appropriations structures.
Constitutional Concerns
Several other provisions in the bill raise constitutional
concerns. For instance, sections 8055, 8071, 8121, and
provisions under the headings ``Operations and Maintenance--
Defense-wide'' and ``Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Fund''
may interfere with the President's authority as Commander in
Chief
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress as the FY 2017 appropriations process moves forward.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, using OCO for base funds detracts from the
true purpose of OCO, which is to fund wartime efforts. This prevents
our Armed Forces from using these funds to counter ISIL and other
threats.
A great deal of good elsewhere in the bill is overshadowed by this
failure. I thank the chairman for his work to increase cybersecurity
operations by nearly $1 billion; invest in the intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance resources combat commanders clamor
for; provide strong, bipartisan support for our allies in the Middle
East; and finance important health initiatives that help warfighters
and their families.

{time} 1700

All of that could have been done while providing certainty for troops
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, how much time remains on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Granger), the vice chair of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the FY17 Defense
Appropriations bill.
This very important bill provides for our national security by
supporting our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, on whom we rely
to provide that security. During very dangerous times, we must ensure
that the United States remains not only the greatest country in the
world, but also the strongest.
Chairman Frelinghuysen takes the constitutional responsibility of
providing for the common defense very seriously, and he deserves all of
our thanks for drafting such a significant and meaningful bill.
This is not an easy bill to draft. With increased threats and reduced
budgets, the Department of Defense is being forced to make decisions it
should never have to make. It is making decisions to align with the
budget crisis instead of making decisions to protect the homeland and
defeat our enemies. The military readiness accounts are an example of
the shocking consequence of this budget environment. Already stretched
thin by more than a decade of war, Marine aviation squadrons actually
have to salvage aircraft parts from museums in order to keep planes
flying. This is unconscionable. Our national security needs more. Our
troops deserve better.
The bill Chairman Frelinghuysen drafted takes a responsible approach
in addressing these and other pressing issues. Rather than just
throwing money at these crises, he exercises the subcommittee's
oversight responsibilities by reducing funding for programs with
unjustified cost increases or subpar performance. This allows the
chairman to redirect those critical dollars in order to increase the
number of troops, to increase funding for training, and to address many
of the service chiefs' priorities.
The U.S. and our allies continue to face threats from countries such
as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. Radical Islamist terrorists,
such as ISIS, continue to threaten everything we stand for. As the
chair of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, and as vice
chair of Defense Appropriations, I am very proud of what this bill does
to ensure resources are available to counter all of these threats.
The passage of this bill ensures the United States will lead in this
very dangerous world. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Visclosky for the time.
Mr. Chair, I, regretfully, rise in opposition to this defense bill--a
bill I certainly would prefer to support. Surely, this decision is
difficult because of the deep respect I hold for the chairman,
Congressman Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and for Ranking Member
Visclosky of Indiana; but like this year's National Defense
Authorization Act, this bill recklessly endangers our servicemembers by
severely restricting the

[[Page H3802]]

financial stability, certainty, and budgeting predictability that
commanders need to plan beyond next April.
Over and over, our service chiefs and secretaries have requested one
thing from Congress--stability and predictability in the budget so they
can properly train and equip their troops for war. ``Do your job,''
they say, ``so we can do ours.'' This bill does not fulfill our
responsibilities as a Congress nor does it uphold our end of the
bargain with our servicemembers and their families.
Instead, this bill replaces predictability with political posturing,
and it replaces stability with budget shortsightedness. It places our
national defense in a position of uncertainty after April 30 of 2017,
and it proclaims neither strength nor vision. Thus, it shortchanges our
troops who need it most--those engaged in the battlefield. This bill
creates a funding cliff that sends a message of hesitation to both our
allies and our enemies during a time when steadfast resolve is vital to
our success.
Throughout my career, I have always supported our troops and our
national defense. Whether honoring veterans with the World War II
Memorial or pushing for energy independence to increase security at
home and abroad, our commitment to protect and defend the American
people has always been my top priority as a Member of Congress.
However, I can't support a bill that causes a soldier who is deployed
in Afghanistan or in any theater to wonder whether or not he or she is
going to be paid on May 1 of 2017. I urge my colleagues to vote against
this flawed and incomplete bill.
Finally, in closing, let me extend special regards to my brother,
Steve, who is as courageous a fighter as I have ever known.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, almost a year ago today, I stood on
this floor to state my disgust at this administration's plans to slash
the Army by 40,000 troops and make a large, non-proportional cut to
Fort Hood, in my district, which is known as the Great Place and as the
home of the heavy armor of the United States Army.
These cuts would have a disastrous effect on our national security
and would lead to putting our Army, in the words of Chief of Staff
General Mark Milley, at high risk. This is unacceptable. As Members of
Congress, it is our sworn, constitutional duty to raise and support
Armies. This is why I am proud to support the FY 2017 Defense
Appropriations bill, which pays for an increase of 45,000 active,
guard, and reserve soldiers, including their training and equipping for
war.
I thank the committee for its continued support for Operation
Phalanx, which is a proven program that is aimed at protecting our
southern border--of which Texas has a lot--that remains in high demand.
The DOD has received a request to execute the additional FY16 hours,
and I would urge the Department to immediately take action on the FY17
hours.
Mr. Chair, from the years 2011-2014, the United States cut its budget
for defense by 19 percent while Russia and China increased theirs by 31
and 30 percent. Given world events and the Director of National
Intelligence's assessment that he could not recall a more diverse array
of challenges and crises, it is clear that the Obama administration has
failed to adequately address our national security needs.
This bill before us recognizes the military's shortfalls in
modernization and force readiness. It makes targeted investments to
ensure that the military has the tools, training, and manpower that is
necessary to maintain peace and, if necessary, to defeat any potential
enemy.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and his staff for their hard work, and
I urge the adoption of this year's Defense Appropriations bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the purpose of colloquy.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I do, indeed, rise to engage the chairman of the Defense
Subcommittee in a colloquy.
Mr. Chair, I express my profound gratitude to the committee for the
inclusion of report language on the bill, an inclusion which notes the
contributions made to our Nation's defense against digital threats by
National Guard Cyber Protection Teams. The report language also
expressed support for partnerships with Federal agencies, universities,
and the private sector to achieve more effective training for missions
like protecting the industrial control systems of critical
infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, the report language refers specifically to Army National
Guard Cyber Protection Teams, but as the chairman is likely aware, the
Air National Guard is also leading efforts in this area. For example,
the 194th Wing of the Air National Guard, which is based in the 10th
Congressional District of Washington State, at Camp Murray, has several
Cyber Protection Teams with demonstrated expertise in industrial
control system assessment, cybersecurity remediation, and cyber mission
planning.
I ask the chairman whether the language in the report that expresses
support for collaborative training efforts for Army National Guard
Cyber Protection Teams would also apply to the Air National Guard.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, the committee recognizes the important
role of the Reserve, including the Army National Guard, as well as the
Air National Guard, as a flexible and ready force that contributes to
our cyber preparedness.
I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this important
issue, and I look forward to working with him as we move forward with
this bill.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work
with me on this critically important issue as well as for his and the
ranking member's leadership on this legislation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Graves), a vital member of our Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chair, we are considering this critical
legislation in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando,
Florida, during which 49 innocent Americans were killed and 53 were
wounded by a terrorist who pledged loyalty to the Islamic State. Make
no mistake--we are a Nation at war with militant Islamic terrorism, and
that is why this legislation is so important. It provides our brave men
and women in uniform with the resources they need to defeat the enemy.
For example, this bill includes my provision to speed the replacement
of a critical radar system and aircraft known as the JSTARS. The
technology which is stationed at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia
significantly enhances the ability of our warplanes and other military
assets to target enemy combatants while helping, at the same time, to
protect our soldiers on the ground by detecting threats and allowing
for better coordinated and more effective support. This bill also
prevents the retirement of the A-10 Warthog aircraft, which is the most
potent close air support platform in our arsenal and is a key tool in
fighting the Islamic State.
Now, with more than 100,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in
Georgia--the fourth largest military population in the Nation--I am
proud to support our men and women in uniform by supporting this
legislation.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for his great work on this bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I have long supported the Iron Dome weapons
system to defend Israel from short-range missile attacks. I voted to
authorize the United States to assist Israel in procuring the weapons.
I voted for massive increases in funding for the Iron Dome during the
summer of 2014 when Israel was under a daily barrage of missiles, and I
spoke out repeatedly on the House floor in favor of fully funding the
Iron Dome. I have been lucky enough to have visited Israel many times.
Four years ago, I visited an Iron Dome battery in Israel. A single Iron
Dome launcher can protect a medium-sized city. I am pleased that this
bill includes $62 million for the program.
I have offered an amendment to provide an increase in funding of $10
million, which would be sufficient for the

[[Page H3803]]

procurement of an additional 500 interceptors. My amendment is designed
to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself against an
increase in rocket attacks.
As we all know, Israel lives in a dangerous part of the world. Since
Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, terrorists have fired more
than 11,000 rockets into Israel. Over 5 million Israelis currently live
under the threat of rocket attacks, and more than a half a million
Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is
launched from Gaza into Israel.
Therefore, I offer this amendment in defense of the civilian
population of Israel. I am pleased to hear that the amendment will be
accepted. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, today, the Army celebrates its 241st birthday
and a long, proud history of defending our great Nation. The Army and
all of our military branches make up the finest fighting force in the
world because of our extraordinary men and women who serve in them and
because they have the tools that are necessary to carry out their
missions.

{time} 1715

Just days ago, we saw a tragic and horrific reminder in Orlando that
we are a Nation very much at war with radical Islamic extremists. While
there may be differing opinions on what steps our country can and
should do to stop attacks on our homeland, there should be no daylight
between all Members of this body in our commitment to ensuring our
soldiers have the resources necessary to win this war.
I want to thank my friend and chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense, Rodney Frelinghuysen, and all of my
Appropriations Committee colleagues for putting together a good bill
that deserves all our support.
I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill and continue to
support our men and women in uniform as they defend our great Nation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a great member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2017
Defense Appropriations bill.
In a world that is more dangerous and more complex than ever before,
it is critically important that we ensure our military remains the best
trained, the best equipped, and the best supported on the planet. This
bill takes the next step toward fulfilling these necessary goals.
After years of budget cuts and sequestration, we are at a point now
where we can no longer ask our military to keep meeting the needs of
our Nation without providing the right amount of resources.
Mr. Chairman, if we are unable to provide our troops with proper
funding, I fear that very soon we will find ourselves at risk of
sending our men and women in uniform into conflict without the
training, equipment, or support that they need. Our brave solders,
sailors, airmen, and marines deserve better. And this Defense bill does
better by helping our military return to full spectrum readiness in
order to properly meet the challenges our Nation is facing on all
fronts and across the globe.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right
by America by doing what is right for the men and women who sacrifice
so much to ensure the freedoms that we enjoy today.
Vote ``yes'' on the bill. Vote ``yes'' for a strong American
military. Vote ``yes'' to send a message to all our enemies that the
American military is as strong as ever and that the United States
remains steadfast and capable of defending herself and her allies
against those who wish to do us harm.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their
tireless work on behalf of our Congress and on behalf of the American
public.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a key member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, since I first was elected to Congress,
one of the things that I talked most directly about was the fact that
if there is one thing that is so important in the Federal Government to
do, it is the duty to provide for national security. The legislation
that we have before us now may be the most important document that we
will take up this entire year.
My colleague on the Republican side, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and my
colleague on the Democratic side, Mr. Visclosky, both take their job
very seriously. As they work on this bill, they work with great
dedication and care, and it is a privilege to work with both of them,
along with the committee staff, as they work forward to move this bill.
Our men and women in uniform carry out a broad spectrum of missions.
Some missions are directly combat related. Some are related to rescue.
And some are humanitarian missions. Health research to help our
soldiers also benefits civilians of all ages and all backgrounds. This
bill specifies both the base funding and also overseas contingency
operations funding in a way that meets the needs to carry out all of
those missions.
So I would encourage my colleagues, as we vote on this bill and as we
move forward on this, to vote ``yes'' on it. We owe it to our men and
women in uniform and our dedicated civil servant workforce to provide
that stability and continuity and also to continue making sure that we
stay the greatest and the strongest nation on the Earth.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to join with Ranking Member Visclosky in taking a moment
to thank the hardworking and effective staff of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense. These are truly professional men and women who
work on behalf of our national security and do remarkable things for
our military that serve around the world and look after the needs of
our intelligence community throughout the country and throughout the
world.
Led by our clerk, Rob Blair, and our minority staff member, Becky
Leggieri, the House owes both of these individuals a deep debt of
gratitude for their hard work.
Along with Mr. Visclosky, I also want to recognize, the work of
others on the staff: Walter Hearne; Brooke Boyer; B.G. Wright; Adrienne
Ramsay; Megan Milam; Allison Deters; Collin Lee; Cornell Teague; Matt
Bower; the indispensable Sherry Young, who has been upstairs and
downstairs at various points doing some incredible work on behalf of
the committee; and Chris Bigelow.
I recognize my own staff: Nancy Fox, Steve Wilson, and Katie Hazlett.
And I know that we give a shout-out to Joe DeVooght, who is dedicated
to the whole process and works very closely with the ranking member.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman's remarks and
would also recognize Lucas Wood, who is on our staff as a fellow from
the Department of Defense this year. Also, the chairman and I express
our gratitude to the associate members of our subcommittee for each of
the members of the subcommittee.

I do join with the chairman. I appreciate him enumerating the names
of all of the staff.
I would suggest, given the difficult circumstances I alluded to in my
opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, they legislated this year with elegance,
under very difficult circumstances and the country owes them a debt of
gratitude. I appreciate the chairman recognizing them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a key member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the FY17
Defense Appropriations bill. I would start, by the way, by thanking and
commending the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, not
only for putting together a great bill

[[Page H3804]]

that recognizes the dangers that exist in this world, whether it is
China and their expanding aggression around that part of the world,
whether it is ISIS in the Middle East, or whether it is Russia with
their aggressive nature. Wherever you look, Mr. Chairman, the world has
gotten a lot more dangerous in the last number of years.
So I want to thank the chairman for putting together a bill which
will increase readiness, increase the number of the Armed Forces of the
United States.
I will close with this: All of those things are hugely important, and
it is about time that we address them in an aggressive way like this
bill does.
To the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, Mr. Frelinghuysen, we
all owe a great bit of gratitude for the way that he is treating and
continues to treat the men and women in uniform, the men and women of
the Armed Forces. This bill is a reflection of his passion for them.
Again, this is a great bill. We can all be very proud of what this
bill does. It is about time, and I thank the chairman for his
leadership.
I would ask for your favorable consideration of this bill.
The CHAIR. It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from
Indiana has yielded back the balance of his time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Rooney), a member of the authorizing committee, the
Armed Services Committee. We thank him for joining us this evening.
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
2017 Defense Appropriations bill, which is another example of the
Appropriations Committee's hard work to provide the funding needed to
keep our country safe and to take care of our soldiers and their
families.
As a veteran, as my wife is a veteran, and as somebody who has a lot
of friends who are still wearing the uniform and serving, we need to
take care of our soldiers, our troops, our sailors, our airmen, and
marines. And this bill makes sure that we do just that. It gives them
the equipment that they need to complete their mission while also
providing them the peace of mind that their families will have the
support that they need; that when they are also veterans, they will be
taken care of.
As the Islamic State continues to grow, the constant threat of global
terrorism, the nuclear-ambitious Iran, the dangers our Nation faces
continues to grow, and we must stand ready to defeat them.
This bill meets our defense needs for the next year. We do need a
long-term plan to ensure that the men and women in our Armed Forces
have the capability to protect our Nation in this increasingly
dangerous world, and this bill goes very far and is the first step in
doing that.
I thank the committee and I especially thank the chairman for
allowing me to speak in its favor.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, H.R. 5293 is key to funding our country's
national security programs and provides for the essential needs of our
military.
Just as our military service members answer the call to defend the
United States, so too should Americans always prioritize the funding
they need to be successful in whatever mission they are tasked with. I
am proud to support this bill and the important funding it provides for
our Nation's military, security, and our courageous men and women in
uniform.
This bill makes difficult budgetary choices but includes funding for
safety, security, and the ongoing success of our service members and
their families. Our armed forces will stay prepared, safe and trained
to fight.
The legislation addresses not only current threats but instability in
the Middle East, Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Baltic, and
changing relationships in the Pacific.
Specifically, the bill provides $517.1 billion, an increase of $3
billion above last year's level, and $58.6 billion in Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) funding--the
level allowed under current law.
$219 billion is included for operations and maintenance, which
provides for readiness programs that prepare our troops for combat and
peacetime missions.
An effective military, one that is well equipped and well trained, is
indispensable to the common defense of our country and is in the best
interest of all Americans.
I thank the Chairman for his outstanding leadership, appreciate the
Ranking member's common commitment to work in a bipartisan manner and
fund our military and intelligence community as they remain engaged in
responding to instability abroad.
I has perhaps never been more urgent to invest in the future of our
military and renew our ability to project power.
The funding levels in this bill will ensure our military remains the
most capable, prepared, and exceptional armed force anywhere in the
world.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Moolenaar) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.

____________________