[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9960-9974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2219.

                              {time}  1752


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Westmoreland in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page 9961]]

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I first would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), the former chairman of the subcommittee, for the complete 
cooperation that we had with each other in preparing this very 
nonpartisan, nonpolitical Defense appropriations bill for 2012.
  The base budget of this bill is $530 billion, which is $9 billion 
below the President's budget request. It was not easy to find the 
savings, but we were determined to find those savings without having 
any adverse effect on the warfighter or the readiness of our Nation.
  The base bill is $530 billion. In addition to that, rather than 
having a supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, we included a section 
that is referred to as OCO, the Overseas Contingency Operation, which 
is $119 billion. The bill includes no earmarks for Members' districts. 
The bill contains no money for Libya because none was requested. The 
administration did not request money for Libya. We asked numerous times 
what their plans were, how long it might take, what the cost might be. 
We did not get an answer until just very recently. And they said, No, 
they did not request any funding, and they were basically going to make 
up the balances by a reprogramming. They would not ask for a 
supplemental, but they would reprogram some of the existing funds.
  It's a good bill. I wish it had more money in it for certain areas. I 
would like to have seen a much larger pay raise. We provided the 
necessary funding for the 1.6 percent pay raise for the military, which 
was the authorized level and the requested level, but we just had to 
find that $9 billion. The staff had to work extremely hard to make sure 
that we did not have an adverse effect on any of our soldiers or our 
overall readiness.
  The bill provides $32 billion for the Defense Health Program. We 
understand the needs of our soldiers that are wounded. There are, 
unfortunately, too many of them. We have provided what we think is 
adequate money to care for whatever their medical requirements, their 
medical needs are. And it includes considerable research into medical 
issues. The research is important because a lot of the injuries that 
came out of Iraq and we are seeing come out of Afghanistan are such 
that in previous wars, the troop would probably not have survived. But 
because of advancements in medical care, because of the research, 
because of advancements in medicines, because of the ability to remove 
the casualty from the battlefield quickly and get to a hospital 
quickly, we're saving the lives of many of our troops that would 
probably not have survived in previous wars.
  We include funding for the construction of 10 Navy ships. We include 
money for 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. We include $3.3 billion for 
28 F-18 Super Hornets and 12 EA-18 Growlers, $2.8 billion for 116 H-60 
Blackhawk helicopters, and $699 million for the Reaper UAV, which is an 
advancement of the Predator. I'm trying not to go into too much detail 
because it is a very lengthy bill.
  The reductions that we made in order to achieve the $9 billion in 
savings, we took favorable contract pricing adjustments, contract and 
schedule delays resulting in fiscal year 2012 savings, unjustified cost 
increases, or funding requested ahead of the anticipated or historical 
underexecution of contracts, rescissions of unneeded prior year funds, 
and reductions that were authorized in the House-passed 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Act under the chairmanship of Chairman McKeon. 
Specific reductions include $435 million in savings from those contract 
and production delays in the AMRAAM system. We will provide for the 
Record the details of all of the areas where we took the savings.
  All in all, it is a good bill for the money that we had available. 
There are things that we would have added. We would have increased the 
military pay raise. We just didn't have the money. So we went to the 
authorized level. There's much more to be said that will be said as we 
read this bill for amendments, which will probably not happen now until 
we come back after next week's recess.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize.
  It has, once again, been an honor to work with my friend from 
Florida, Chairman Bill Young, to prepare the Defense appropriations 
bill for FY 2012. In the longstanding tradition of this committee, the 
bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis, and I support the bill. I 
know that Chairman Rogers will be glad to hear that.
  I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to 
support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the 
investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully 
equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge.

                              {time}  1800

  Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee 
exercised its constitutional responsibility to allocate resources to 
those programs that best support the requirements of our military 
forces.
  In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The 
allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request. 
While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level, 
much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and 
maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts.
  The bill also provides the funds needed to support U.S. service 
personnel. Examples of this include the military pay accounts fund at a 
1.6 percent raise, consistent with the budget request and the level 
included in the House-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services 
authorization bill.
  The bill also provides $32.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, 
including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's 
longstanding efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic 
brain injury and psychological health conditions. The bill also 
includes funding increases for several research efforts including peer-
reviewed breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung 
cancer research.
  The bill fully funds $2.3 billion requested for family programs and 
adds funding for several initiatives including $250 million to replace 
schools owned by local education authorities and $40 million for Impact 
Aid.
  The bill addresses many of DOD's most pressing investment needs. It 
funds 10 ships, as requested in the budget, and 32 Joint Strike Fighter 
aircraft. I would like to have seen more Strike Fighter aircraft 
because I believe they're doing a much better job on this program. Last 
year it was in some trouble. This year Admiral Venlet has said 
repeatedly that they're, in fact, ahead of the training schedule. So I 
think this is very good news.
  The bill also adds funding to fill gaps in DOD capabilities. Some 
examples include the M1A2 System Enhancement Package: $272 million is 
included to prevent a break in production of tanks. And this is 
something that our committee agreed with on an overwhelming basis, that 
shutting down the tank line in Ohio would be a terrible mistake because 
we'd lose the skilled workers and then we're going to reopen this tank 
line in 2 or 3 years, and it would just be a waste of money. So we 
bridged that gap.
  HMMWV Force Protection: $50 million is added to develop and test and 
improve armor and other blast protection technologies on the HMMWV.
  Long Range Strike: $100 million is added to reduce technical risk and 
schedule risks for this program. We're moving ahead on a replacement 
for the Trident submarine. The C-17 replacement is included to replace 
the operational loss of a C-17 aircraft. The committee has steadfastly 
replaced--when

[[Page 9962]]

there have been operational losses, we've replaced the equipment. This 
is another example.
  Special Operation Command shortfalls: this is one thing we had in our 
bill in 2011, and this year an increase of $250 million is added to 
address unfunded requirements identified by the Special Operations 
Command.
  National Guard and Reserve equipment: $1.5 billion is included to 
fund equipment shortfalls in National Guard and Reserve equipment.
  Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance: $50 million is included 
above the request to continue to fill gaps in DOD ISR equipment.
  Israeli missile defense programs: $130 million is added to enhance 
Israeli missile defense programs including the Arrow missile defense 
system.
  Small business innovative research: $50 million is included to 
continue the committee's efforts for SBIR Phase III transition.
  Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $20 million is added to 
continue defense research at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities.
  Energy efficiency improvements: the bill includes $82 million above 
the request to field equipment that will reduce the energy footprint of 
deployed Marine Corps units. The bill also includes $10 million above 
the request for pilot programs to improve DOD energy efficiency.
  The bill provides $118.7 billion for operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and for continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The 
bill ensures that troops have essential force protection and provides 
the means for the Afghans to provide their own security. The bill 
includes $12.8 billion to train Afghanistan's National Security Forces.
  While the bill provides essential support for our troops, I remain 
concerned about our Nation's direction in Pakistan and ongoing 
operations in Afghanistan. There is cause to question the reliability 
of our partnership with both countries. In the light of recent events, 
we must reassess the extent of U.S. military involvement and the 
objectives of U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world, 
reexamining whether U.S. national security requires a continued 
deployment of over 100,000 U.S. service personnel.
  I welcome President Obama's decision to start the withdrawals, and I 
also urge a ceasefire and a political settlement. After a careful 
review of the security situation, I believe it is time to significantly 
accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
  To accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. By 
necessity, a political solution in Afghanistan will involve 
negotiations with Taliban representatives. It will also demand taking 
into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those 
neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal 
divides within Afghanistan.
  Finally, we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one 
that occurred at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Even with 
these cautions in mind, I believe it is time to begin the process of 
bringing the level of deployed U.S. troops in line with a new 
assessment of our security interests in the region.
  I look forward to hearing from General Petraeus and General Odierno. 
We worked with them on the surge in Iraq, which turned out to be very 
successful. The military has done a very good job in Helmand and 
Kandahar and has dominated the Taliban in recent times, which is very 
positive.
  We still have a problem on the eastern front between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, and we need to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, though 
the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was something that all the 
troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in, 
the person who led the effort against the United States in one of the 
most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that 
has ever occurred to our country.
  While I have concerns about our Nation's policies in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan, I strongly support this bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and it 
provides the resources needed by our troops. I urge your support for 
the bill.
  I also want to thank the staff. I know Chairman Young will join me in 
this. We have a tremendous staff that works together. They worked 
together when I was chairman. They're working together now that 
Chairman Young has--he had been chairman before and has now regained 
his chairmanship. And the staff has done an extraordinary job. It's a 
major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all 
these programs, and I commend them for their good work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to 
the very distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank Chairman Young for yielding me this 
time.
  And thank you and your other partner, this dynamic duo that we have 
here between Chairman Young and Chairman Dicks. Thank you for your good 
work.
  The nearly $649 billion in total funding within this bill will 
provide our Armed Forces with the resources they need for the Nation's 
missions abroad and the protection of our people here at home.
  This bill sustains our military readiness, facilitating the continued 
modernization of our national defense systems and preserving the 
American Armed Forces as the greatest military in the world.
  As our soldiers and marines continue to put their lives on the line 
to eliminate terrorism and protect freedom around the globe, Congress 
must provide the necessary support and funding to keep them safe and 
well equipped, and we must do so in a timely manner.
  These efforts include adequate funding for equipment procurement, 
base operations, and military pay. To improve our defense capabilities 
and prepare for future challenges, we've provided funding for research 
and development into new technology.

                              {time}  1810

  This legislation also provides essential funding for health and 
quality-of-life programs for the men and women of the armed services 
and their families.
  But, as in all of our appropriations bills, this year especially, 
this legislation reflects hard decisions to cut lower-priority 
programs, reduce spending in programs that can be scaled back, and 
target funds where they're needed most so that our Nation can continue 
on the path to fiscal recovery.
  No bill, no Department, including the Pentagon, should be immune from 
scrutiny during these precarious financial times. This legislation 
identifies fiscally responsible savings, savings that will in no way 
impair the safety or effectiveness of our troops, the success of our 
military operations, or our military readiness.
  The bill also increases oversight of Defense programs and funds to 
ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently. We've 
taken a critical eye and increased scrutiny on some programs to ensure 
American taxpayers are receiving the proper benefits for their defense 
investments.
  I want to thank, again, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for 
their tireless work. In fact, it's a very bipartisan spirit and 
commitment, and that's the rule of this subcommittee over the decades 
of time, and their commitment to crafting a very responsible Defense 
bill. And of course the staff has worked tirelessly to make this day 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill. It's 
a good one.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is a former member of the Defense 
Subcommittee and now is the ranking Democrat on the Military 
Construction-VA Subcommittee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support 
of the committee's recommended FY12 Defense appropriations bill.
  I'd first like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Young, Ranking Member 
Dicks, Chairman Rogers, the subcommittee members and staff on both 
sides of the aisle for continuing

[[Page 9963]]

the fine tradition of bipartisan cooperation and teamwork in producing 
this bill.
  Of note, the bill provides $530.5 billion in total for the DOD in 
fiscal year 2012, $17 billion more than the current level. In addition, 
the bill provides $118.7 billion for contingency funding for the 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  It continues our longstanding commitment to our troops and their 
families by including a pay raise for the troops, strengthening health 
care services for servicemembers and their families, and providing $2.3 
billion for family support and advocacy programs.
  The bill protects our troops in harm's way by providing $3.2 billion 
for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, $2.8 billion for 
combating IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a total of $453 million for 
the modernization of the M1 Abrams tanks.
  The bill also includes an additional $1.5 billion for the National 
Guard and Reserve equipment, $633 million for military medical 
research, including $233 million for cancer research, $125 million for 
psychological health and traumatic brain injury research.
  I'm pleased that the committee included $141 million for University 
and Industry Research Centers, of which $20 million was included for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities for research.
  As a former member of the subcommittee, I'm reminded of my dear 
friend and colleague, former Chairman Jack Murtha, who followed one 
central creed and principle in developing an annual House Defense 
appropriations bill, and that was to create a bill which provided our 
servicemen and -women all the resources and tools they need to do their 
job as effectively and efficiently as possible. I believe this bill 
does just that. And I do earnestly believe that Chairman Murtha would 
be very proud of this bill. And I'm pleased to support its passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of this 
subcommittee and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much Mr. Young of 
Florida and Mr. Dicks of Washington for the fabulous work they've done 
working together and developing this measure, which is something over 
$500 billion. And the public certainly will know that that's no small 
amount of money. But certainly, also they'll know it is the reason for 
us to have a Federal Government--funding available to preserve our 
Nation.
  And as we leave this weekend to celebrate the 4th of July and the 
history of our country and the history of freedom, not just here but 
also available around the world, we know it's the work of this 
subcommittee and people like these leaders that have allowed us to 
continue to be on the point of the spear for freedom around the world.
  Indeed, if there's a reason for us to have a Federal Government, it 
is to be able to preserve our freedom and to provide opportunities for 
others elsewhere in the world.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it's also very, very important for me 
to point out that we are about serious and difficult challenges, 
especially in the Middle East at this moment.
  A while ago, my friend Norm Dicks mentioned 1989 and Afghanistan and 
the challenges there. At that point in time, the Soviet Union was 
attempting to take over all of Afghanistan as a way of taking over the 
Middle East and to extend their desire to take over the world. A stop 
to that came by way of this committee's work and leadership from this 
committee.
  If you have not taken the time to read about Charlie Wilson's war, 
you should, and recognize that that war led to the chants for freedom 
in Afghanistan.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If one would recognize, as of Charlie 
Wilson's war's time, we were successful at stopping the Soviet Union. 
But as we had that success, America did what it often does overseas: We 
walked away and left a vacuum in Afghanistan. And it was that vacuum 
that allowed the terrorists, al Qaeda and others, to extend themselves 
and train themselves and put us in the pressure box that we are in 
today in the country.
  America must constantly be aware that we are the force for freedom 
and, working together, we will continue to help freedom in the world.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my deepest 
congratulations to these two gentlemen, these two leaders of this 
committee, Bill Young and Norm Dicks, extremely talented people who are 
bringing our committee and the Congress back to regular order so that 
we can work with one another and make changes in bills like this with 
free debate on the floor. Indeed, that is the strength of our Congress.
  If the people will be patient with us, we'll actually accomplish some 
things. Indeed, freedom will continue to be a force in the world 
because of the work of these gentlemen. And our congratulations, as 
well as our best wishes, go out to their continued work and success.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and 
someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that I enjoy 
working with.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank our ranking member, Mr. 
Dicks, for your leadership for this time, but also for your patriotism 
and for your commitment to our country and to our troops. And it is an 
exciting committee, and it's a very important committee. And I want to 
thank Chairman Rogers for your leadership, and for also his service and 
for the attempts to bring this committee together in the spirit of 
bipartisanship.
  While I think everyone knows that I respect and support the President 
and I applaud him for his tremendous leadership on so many issues, like 
many of my colleagues, I was tremendously disappointed to hear the 
President's announcement last night.

                              {time}  1820

  Almost three out of four Americans want to bring our troops home from 
Afghanistan, and this was far from the significant reduction that the 
American people were expecting. A token troop reduction of 10,000 by 
the end of this year and waiting another year to remove another 23,000, 
which in total would merely reverse the 2009 troop escalation, is 
really, for me, unacceptable; and quite frankly, it flies in the face 
of the growing bipartisan calls across our war-weary Nation to exit 
Afghanistan and to refocus on our priorities here at home.
  Now, I voted against this original authorization in 2001, which was a 
very difficult vote for me to cast because I ended up being the only 
one to cast a ``no'' vote. But I knew then that that authorization was 
an authorization that was a blank check to wage war for any reason, 
against any nation, for any length of time. And this has now become the 
longest war in American history.
  As we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war, critical 
programs--like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, 
food stamps and Medicare--are on the chopping block. So enough is 
enough.
  There is no military solution in Afghanistan. And in a world where 
terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of Yemen or a hotel room 
in Germany, we cannot adequately address these challenges through a 
military-first, boots-on-the-ground strategy. It is clear that 
occupying states and nation-building does not make for effective 
counterterrorism, and the financial and human costs of continuing this 
war are indefensible.
  With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously 
wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount each and 
every day. So we need to bring our troops home and use the savings for 
our economic challenges here at home, especially for job creation. 
That's why I'm going to offer some amendments to this bill to end 
funding for combat operations in Afghanistan and to provide, though, 
funding for the protection and the safe and

[[Page 9964]]

orderly withdrawal of our young men and women as quickly as possible. I 
urge Members to support this amendment.
  I will also be offering an amendment to transfer the $5 billion 
Pentagon war slush fund to a deficit reduction.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.
  Ms. LEE. I want to explain these amendments today during general 
debate, so I appreciate the time because I think this is important for 
the public to know that there is a $5 billion Pentagon war slush fund 
just sitting over there. So I want to offer an amendment to take that 
war slush fund, $5 billion, and apply it to deficit reduction.
  Especially in this time of deficits and a struggling economy, I hope 
we can all agree that we should not be handing the Pentagon a $5 
billion blank check for a war slush fund that has little accountability 
and runs counter to our constitutional duty to control the purse 
strings through this Congress.
  We also cannot forget about the 45,000 troops in Iraq. I will be 
offering an amendment to ensure that all of them are brought home at 
the end of the year as agreed to in our Status of Forces Agreement. My 
friend and colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and 
myself will offer an amendment to simply require the Department of 
Defense to provide audit-ready financial statements. That's a pretty 
simple request, I would think. Now, this $648 billion budget is $17 
billion above last year's budget. It could be cut at least by $75 
billion to $100 billion without, mind you, jeopardizing our troops or 
our national security.
  As the daughter of a military veteran, let me just say that I support 
each and every dollar in this budget for our troops because they 
deserve our support for their safety and their protection and their 
economic security; but we should be cutting waste, fraud and abuse out 
of the Pentagon. And we should begin to cut these Cold War-era weapon 
systems that have no mission, no reason to be developed in this new 
world of terrorism when we see ourselves faced with asymmetrical 
warfare. It just doesn't make any sense. So $648 billion is too much; 
it's much too much. We can ensure our national security, protect our 
troops, and reinvest some of these dollars to create jobs at home with 
a rational defense budget.
  We will never pay down our debt as long as the military budget 
continues to soar.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to a very 
distinguished senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee and 
also chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself 
with your remarks and those of the ranking member. This is a good 
bipartisan bill carved out of an allocation that I would have preferred 
be higher; but we, too, on this subcommittee must do our part to lower 
the Federal deficit.
  This bill deserves our strong support because, as the chairman said, 
and others, it has an important pay raise in there for all of our 
troops who are volunteering. It also provides more first-class medical 
care for those that are injured. It provides more money for ships, 10 
new ships--two of them being Virginia class submarines--additional 
money for fighter aircraft, which are badly needed, and as was 
mentioned earlier, $1.5 billion for the National Guard equipment for 
both overseas and home State missions. Remarkably, this money was not 
requested by the administration.
  I also want to take a minute to reflect on the collective bipartisan 
frustration many are feeling with the administration's handling of the 
Libyan operation, another of what we might call ``overseas contingency 
operations.'' We will debate the nature of our national interest on 
Libya tomorrow as we consider measures that go to the heart of 
Congress' constitutional role to declare war.
  But here this evening this committee is in the process of developing 
an incredible spending program for fiscal year beginning in October. I 
understand there are no funds designated for Libyan operations in this 
bill. However, in reality, this Libyan mission, whether NATO-led or 
not, is heavily dependent on U.S. assets, and these assets must be 
accounted for by our committee.
  We are all aware that our chairman, Mr. Young--and he referred to it 
in his remarks--since April 1 sought information from the 
administration about, first, the nature of the mission in Libya; two, 
the cost of the mission; three, the length of the mission; and, four, 
any anticipated changes to the mission. We are also aware that the 
President finally responded with his June 15 letter to Congress in 
which he reports that the Department of Defense has spent over $750 
million over the last 3 months, $10 million a day in Libya. Mr. 
Chairman, the President errs when he fails to provide this committee 
with accurate, timely, and precise information about any mission.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I support this mark, I support this bill, 
and I thank the chairman and the ranking member and the committee staff 
for the great work they've done.
  Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very 
important member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of this 
fiscal year 2012 Defense appropriation bill. I want to particularly 
thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks and their staffs for a 
fantastic job. Thank you very much for your hard work and a great bill.
  This bill is a great example, when it comes to our national defense, 
that we work together as Americans, not as Democrats, not as 
Republicans, but as Americans. At a time that we're in a number of 
conflicts around the world, it's important that we show that we stand 
united in support of our troops and against our enemies.
  There was a point made about what's the longest war. I would say the 
longest war in American history is the Cold War. We were in that war 
for well over 40 years, and we're at war today against terrorism and 
radical elements out there that are trying to kill us and to maim us 
and to harm our national interests.
  This is a long-term commitment, and I certainly congratulate this 
committee for doing the job that's necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2012 
Defense Appropriations bill. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks and 
the staff on both sides have worked together to produce a very good 
bill that supports our warfighters, plans for the future, and funds 
current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also taking into 
account the fiscal restraints of the current economy.
  I think every Member would agree that our troops deserve the absolute 
best we can give and this bill reflects that they are our top priority 
by providing a 1.6 percent pay increase. The bill also provides for 
important health research--from traumatic brain injury to psychological 
treatment--in order to help troops transition from battle to home.
  The defense funding bill also ensures our military has the necessary 
equipment to succeed not only in the present, but in the future as 
well. The bill replaces the C-17 that went down in Alaska last summer, 
provides for the procurement of 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, funds 
the building of 10 Navy ships, and provides for the purchase of 48 
Reaper UAVs.
  Finally the bill accounts for the current operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, ending the bad habit of ``emergency'' funding bills that 
were rarely subjected to regular order and often loaded up with non-
emergency items. The bill is $9 billion less than the President's 
request--a reflection of our times and the realization that no 
department in the Federal Government is exempt from budget cuts.
  Again, I rise in strong support of the FY12 Defense Appropriations 
bill. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for their hard 
work and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another very 
important member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

[[Page 9965]]



                              {time}  1830

  Mr. COLE. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal 2012 Defense 
Appropriations Act and urge all Members to extend their support as 
well. This is a fine bill that the committee worked on in an open 
fashion, and it includes input from both sides of the aisle. Thanks to 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, it is a strong, bipartisan 
bill that will do much good for the defense of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, we will have many spirited debates on amendments during 
the course of the consideration of this legislation, and that is a good 
thing. But, rest assured, at the end of the day this legislation is and 
will remain a very good product.
  The spending levels in the bill do not exceed the 302(b) allocations 
adopted by the Appropriations Committee, which are within the overall 
spending level approved by the House budget resolution.
  The bill itself includes $530 billion for the normal operations of 
the Department and $118.7 billion for the conduct of the global war on 
terror. It includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for the troops. It has $453 
million for the procurement of additional updated Abrams tanks, and it 
has $2.7 billion for the continued development of the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter, a weapons system that is critical to maintaining air 
superiority for the United States Air Force.
  Additionally, the bill will withhold 75 percent of the funding for 
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund until the Secretary of 
Defense provides lawmakers with a report detailing the strategy and 
metrics for the use of those funds. The committee also adopted an 
amendment that would provide $1 million for the creation of a 
bipartisan commission to make policy recommendations on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a strong piece of legislation, one that I fully 
believe we should support, and I would ask all Members to do so.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to advise the Chair that I have no 
further speakers. I do have a brief closing statement after Mr. Dicks, 
when he is prepared to close.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to again thank 
the chairman for his great work and the work of the staff.
  The President did lay out the rationale for why we got involved in 
Libya. He said that we were there to help protect the Libyan people. 
There were two resolutions adopted by the United Nations. And it wasn't 
just the United Nations. You had the Arab League and NATO involved in 
this. And, yes, I think the President would have been better advised to 
have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the Libyan 
people were going to be slaughtered and the President felt that he had 
to act.
  Some of us just got back from a trip. We saw the men and women who 
handle the equipment, who fly in there, do the jamming, all the 
different things that are done. They have done a phenomenal job. And 
now the President has turned the leadership of this over to NATO and 
they are taking the lead, though the gentleman from New Jersey is quite 
correct; they cannot do all these things without tankers, without other 
things, some of the special intelligence and reconnaissance that we 
have that just isn't out there for anybody else.
  So I hope that tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. Let's look at 
this thing; let's talk about it. I think this will be a worthwhile 
discussion. But remember, there was going to be a no-fly zone, an 
embargo. We were going to protect the people. I think the President 
laid out exactly what this was about.
  We have to look at this in terms of Egypt and the other countries in 
the area. Thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from Libya, and 
this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround 
Libya.
  Ronald Reagan attacked Libya. I think he called Qadhafi a ``mad 
dog,'' and I don't remember him coming to Congress before he let the 
bombers go in there and attack him.
  So I am one who is very restrained at the use of force, but in this 
case I think the President had to act, and he had the United Nations, 
the Arab League, NATO, he had the French and the British demanding 
action.
  I think we have to look at the result here, too. I think right now 
the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding, and I hope they can 
do it in a timely way. We would all like to see this over as quickly as 
possible. But remember Kosovo. That took a significant amount of time 
before that worked out. There were a lot of critics, a lot of critics 
of President Clinton when he did that, but in the end it turned out 
very well for everyone. In Libya, I think Qadhafi should be replaced. I 
wish we were more candid about that, and the President has said that.
  So I hope we look at this fairly and realize the damage that would be 
done to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the United States all 
of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. They would not be 
able to continue. This would be a worldwide embarrassment to the United 
States of America, to our great country and to our military.
  I think we have to look at all of the ramifications of this issue. 
This is a serious matter and should not be politicized. Senator Jackson 
from my State used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best 
politics is no politics. Call it on the merits and do it in the best 
interests of our country and in the best interests of people serving 
our military.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Dicks for being such a good partner and 
working in a bipartisan way to guarantee that we did the best we could 
with the money we had available to provide for the national defense. I 
would say again, we have not had any impact adversely on any of our 
troops and we have not adversely affected the readiness of our country, 
while we have taken some of those slush funds and some of those 
wasteful funds, we did take some of those, in order to achieve the $9 
billion in savings that we were required to achieve.
  The bill is lengthy. As you can hear from the various speakers, there 
are many, many, many parts of this bill. The specific details of the 
bill have been available for over 2 weeks so that Members have had 
every opportunity to study the bill.
  In order to get where we are, it took a lot of work, because, number 
one, we had to finish last year's bill. That was no fault of Mr. Dicks. 
He worked hard as chairman last year to produce another very good 
bipartisan bill, cooperating totally with us on the minority side, the 
minority at that time. But we didn't get that bill to the floor. I wish 
that we had, but it didn't quite make it.
  So this year we finished the work for FY 2011, and now this is the 
bill for FY 2012. Again, it is a strong, bipartisan, no-politics good 
defense bill. But in order to get to this point, to get where we are, 
required tremendous dedication on the part of all of the members of the 
subcommittee, as well and very specifically as well as the staff. The 
professional staff of our Defense Subcommittee is very, very special 
and works extremely hard. I would like to call attention to that staff.
  On the minority side, Paul Juola, who also worked on the majority 
side at one point, and Becky Leggieri. On the majority staff, Brooke 
Boyer, Walter Hearne, Jennifer Miller, Tim Prince, Adrienne Ramsay, Ann 
Reese, Megan Rosenbusch, Paul Terry, B.G. Wright, Sherry Young, and the 
chief of staff, Tom McLemore.
  They have done a tremendous job. I know that oftentimes when the 
House finished its business and Members would retire to their 
respective homes, staff stayed and they did the analysis that had to be 
done to achieve the savings that we achieved, but also to make sure 
that we accomplished what had to be accomplished to provide for our 
troops, to provide for their welfare, to provide for the readiness of 
the Nation.

[[Page 9966]]



                              {time}  1840

  I said in my opening remarks there were other items, other things, 
other parts of this bill that I would like to have increased. I would 
like to have been able to increase the pay raise that goes to our 
military. The money just wasn't there. But we did insist on funding the 
full 1.6 percent, which doesn't sound like a lot. At least it's not a 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We're not going to vote on this 
bill tonight. We will read this bill--it's my understanding now from 
leadership--for amendment under the 5-minute rule the week after next 
and we'll be prepared to, again, in a bipartisan way, deal with any 
issues that might come up at that time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 
Defense Appropriations bill. Ensuring that our military receives 
funding for the coming fiscal year is an essential duty of this 
Congress and key to maintaining the capabilities of our Armed Forces. I 
applaud the work of the subcommittee and full committee for considering 
this legislation in regular order. I also give credit to my colleagues 
on the Rules Committee for ensuring that the House has once again 
returned to the days of open rules on appropriations bills, so every 
Member's voice can be heard.
  Furthermore, it is with the utmost appreciation that I commend the 
Appropriations Committee for working in partnership with the Armed 
Services Committee on matters relating to our military. As Chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, I remain fully committed to providing our 
troops with the resources needed to fulfill their missions. To that 
end, I am pleased to see that this bill provides the full amount of 
funding requested by the President for fiscal year 2012 to fund 
Overseas Contingency Operations, which is essential to achieving 
victory in ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  However, I do have reservations about the cut to the defense base 
budget during a time when we are engaged in several overseas conflicts 
and facing an abundance of emerging threats to our security. Despite 
the fact that our nation's heroes got Osama bin Laden, we are still a 
nation at war--a war that we did not start. Al Qaeda has named bin 
Laden's successor and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that their 
primary goal is to kill Americans.
  I recognize that on a percentage basis, an $8.9 billion cut may not 
seem significant--less than two percent. But two percent is the same 
amount Secretary Gates has been trying desperately to find through 
efficiencies to reinvest in our force structure and modernization 
accounts. We have applauded his efforts and supported his goal. Now, 
unfortunately, this bill would take those dollars away.
  Nevertheless, it is clear that we are experiencing a fiscal crisis 
due to excessive government spending. I fully support ongoing efforts 
to responsibly cut excess spending to put our nation on the path to 
economic recovery and lasting prosperity. There are larger battles 
looming in the days ahead, in which we must tackle monumental issues 
such as the nation's debt ceiling. This is where our focus must be. I 
urge my colleagues to stand united as we move forward to ensure that we 
do not lower military spending to a level which threatens the safety of 
American citizens. To do so would be an investment in the decline of 
our national security.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues for bringing this bill to the 
floor. I believe this bill strikes a reasonable balance of fiscal 
responsibility and providing for our armed services, and will therefore 
oppose amendments that would further reduce the resources available for 
our men and women in uniform and their families. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the passage of this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair, I submit the following table on H.R. 
2219, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.

[[Page 9967]]





[[Page 9968]]



[[Page 9969]]



[[Page 9970]]



[[Page 9971]]



[[Page 9972]]



[[Page 9973]]

  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to address an important issue 
affecting the domestic renewable energy industry. As the House 
continues consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
of 2012, it is important to carefully examine the Department's 
investment in renewable energy products, and what effect their 
investments have on the U.S. economy.
  The U.S. Department of Defense is required to abide by the Buy 
American Act when purchasing goods and equipment, including solar 
panels. However, the Department is utilizing alternative financing 
vehicles, such as Power Purchase Agreements, PPA's, to fund renewable 
energy technology installations on its bases and buildings. Under such 
agreements, a private developer finances, installs, and maintains the 
solar installation for the life of the technology and leases the power 
to the military facility. This financing structure is beneficial to the 
Department, as it allows the Department to meet its renewable energy 
goals, requires no upfront capital costs, and allows a private entity 
to take advantage of tax incentives not available to government 
purchasers, all with little risk to the taxpayer.
  However, PPA's allow the private entity to purchase the solar 
technology and the Buy American Act does not apply. This is a loophole 
in the Buy American Act that foreign manufacturers, in particular 
highly subsidized Chinese solar panel manufacturers, have quickly 
exploited to deploy foreign-made solar technology on U.S. government 
property.
  For this reason, DOD should review their procurement and payment for 
power policies. These decisions impact the U.S. solar industry, and our 
nation's energy security. Installing highly subsidized foreign solar 
technology on DOD property or a facility owned by the Department had 
the unintended consequence of pushing domestic solar manufacturing 
technology offshore and puts our nation in the position of remaining 
dependent on foreign energy resources. We must ensure our military does 
not unintentionally transition our country from one dependent on Middle 
East oil to one heavily reliant on Chinese renewable energy. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the FY2012 Defense 
Appropriations bill. I want to also thank Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Dicks for working together to craft this important bipartisan 
legislation.
  As our men and women in uniform and their families sacrifice to keep 
our country safe, Congress must provide them with the support and 
equipment necessary to accomplish their mission. In this bill we have 
appropriated funding for equipment procurement, base operations, 
military healthcare and pay in order to address current defense needs 
and future challenges; to continue funding research and development; 
and to improve the essential health and quality of life programs for 
the men and women of the Armed Services and their families.
  In total, the bill allocates $530 billion for Defense Department 
operations and support. This funding cuts $9 billion from the 
President's request while increasing overall base funding for the 
Department of Defense by $17 billion. While I support this legislation, 
I believe we can meet all our national security needs with fewer 
resources. The testimony before the Budget Committee on July 8, 2011 
made clear that we can reduce defense spending without compromising our 
national security. That is why I voted for the Frank Amendment that 
would have reduced the amount of this increase by half. I also 
supported an amendment offered by Representative Mulvaney that would 
have held funding in the bill to FY2011 levels. Unfortunately, both 
amendments failed.
  The bill provides $32.3 billion for defense health programs, which is 
$119 million above the President's request and $935 million above what 
was enacted in the FY2011 bill. This figure includes a $125 million 
increase over the president's request for improved treatment and 
research of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions, 
$30 million for orthopedic research and $15 million for restorative 
transplant research, and $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy 
programs.
  To help financially struggling military families cope in this 
challenging economy, the bill also includes military pay funding of 
$5.4 billion above last year's level and includes a pay raise of 1.6% 
and a comparable increase for housing and subsistence funding.
  To ensure that all the funds allocated are used properly and for 
their intended purpose, the bill also contains enhanced oversight and 
accountability measures.
  Mr. Chair, our troops deserve our support for the daily sacrifices 
they make for the security of the Nation. They depend on us to ensure 
that they have the resources they need to do their jobs.
  They also count on us to see to it that the health and welfare of 
their families are assured so they can focus on the mission at hand. 
That is what this bill is about and I encourage my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I thank the majority for allowing the House to work its will in a 
completely open fashion on this bill. It was a refreshing change. I 
only wish the outcome had been a bill that reflected better the 
international security and economic realities we are facing today.
  To be sure, there are many things in this bill that I strongly 
support. The 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops is important and 
necessary. The additional $1.5 billion for Guard and Reserve equipment 
modernization is badly needed. The $2.3 billion for family support and 
advocacy programs will help military families cope while their loved 
ones are away and help our troops reintegrate when they come home. And 
the bill also includes a critical suicide prevention amendment I 
offered.
  My amendment would give the Defense Department $20 million to 
initiate suicide prevention and counseling calls to help prevent these 
reservists from taking their own lives, as Coleman Bean, my 
constituent, tragically did in September 2008. For reservists like 
Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey--those in the IRR, 
Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Inactive National Guard 
members--there remains no dedicated suicide prevention programs to help 
them cope with the war-time experiences. These reservists need our 
help, and I'm pleased my amendment was accepted.
  Unfortunately, the good provisions in this bill are vastly outweighed 
by the absolute failure of the majority to make the Pentagon subject to 
the same kind of budget reductions they are so eagerly imposing on 
every other federal agency.
  Since the year began, we've heard constantly from the majority that 
our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If they 
really believed that, they would have supported the $70 billion in cuts 
to the budget that I voted for during the debate on this bill. Instead, 
the only true cut they supported to this bloated, $650 billion defense 
budget is a $125 million reduction in funding for military bands.
  The majority's message is clear: we will continue down the path of 
trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, 
school children, and seniors. The Pentagon budget--which now funds a 
weakly justified war in Libya, a continued occupation of Iraq, and a 
military quagmire in Afghanistan--remains as the great sacred cow in 
the federal budget. There is no greater example today of our upside-
down priorities than this budget.
  This bill will provide nearly $13 billion for an Afghan security 
force that is riddled with corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and drug 
traffickers. The bill continues to fund our presence in Iraq--tens of 
thousands of American troops remain in that country, and as we've seen 
they remain targets, with still more killed and wounded this year.
  So much of this bill continues to be devoted to spending tens of 
billions of dollars on weapons systems that were designed to meet a 
Soviet threat that vanished 20 years ago. This week, a colleague from 
Vermont, Mr. Welch, offered an amendment to this bill that would have 
eliminated funding for a next-generation nuclear bomber, a bomber to 
replace the B-2. Why in the world do we need such a platform in the 
first place? It was not a B-2 bomber that killed Osama bin Laden, but a 
U.S. Special Operations Forces team working with our intelligence 
community that eliminated the al Qaeda leader. Buying new nuclear 
bombers would simply be a form of defense-sector corporate welfare to 
protect against a threat that does not exist. Yet Mr. Welch's amendment 
was defeated, and so we will continue to fund the development of an 
airplane we don't need.
  I offered an amendment with several of my colleagues that would have 
simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of 
allowing a $17 billion increase over last year's Pentagon budget, it 
would cap the increase at $8.5 billion without impacting military pay 
or benefits. That amendment was also defeated--and its defeat only 
proved what I suspected: the majority is not serious about reigning in 
government spending.
  Most of the attention this week was directed toward spending more for 
the military than we even have, spending more that the rest of the 
world--all together--and more than we can afford, even as so many 
people are calling for austerity measures to cut college aid, bridges 
and trains, environmental protection, and even Medicare. Yet the 
majority did not hesitate to deny training to military chaplains for 
implementing the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'',

[[Page 9974]]

or to prevent the Defense Department from buying more fuel efficient 
vehicles, or to prevent taxpayers from finding out about political 
contributions by defense contractors. For all of these reasons, I am 
voting against this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________