[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8715-8734]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 8716]]

  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 8717]]





[[Page 8718]]



[[Page 8719]]



[[Page 8720]]



[[Page 8721]]



[[Page 8722]]



[[Page 8723]]



[[Page 8724]]



[[Page 8725]]



[[Page 8726]]


  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

[[Page 8727]]

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 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.
  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

[[Page 8728]]

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 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.

[[Page 8729]]

     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.

[[Page 8730]]

       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 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. 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

[[Page 8731]]

(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 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.

[[Page 8732]]


  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 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.

[[Page 8733]]

  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 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.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5293, 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, because it fails to 
support our troops serving overseas. Like the defense authorization 
bill the House passed last month, the bill uses a budget gimmick to 
circumvent funding caps passed into law on a bipartisan basis, and by 
doing so it not only undermines the budget process, it puts our troops 
at risk. The bill diverts $16 billion from what our military says is 
needed to fund our military forces engaged in operations around the 
globe to purchase ships, planes, end strength, and other items our 
military didn't request. Consequently, troops serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will run out of funds half way through the year and would 
then rely on Congress passing an emergency supplemental to fill the 
funding gap. We shouldn't gamble with the troops we send off to battle. 
It is irresponsible and reckless. They deserve predictable support for 
the entire year as they execute their missions, particularly in view of 
the dangers they face. Going forward, I am committed to work with my 
colleagues to eliminate this funding gimmick to ensure our troops are 
supported for the full year. We count on these selfless men and women 
who volunteer to serve in uniform to keep us safe each and every day. 
They only count on us to provide them the resources they need to do 
their jobs. That is the least we can do.
  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.

[[Page 8734]]



                          ____________________