Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure, on behalf of everybody on the floor, we extend to Mr. Clawson our sympathy and hope that his mother will recover. I am sure if she has the ability to be watching the television tonight, she is already very proud of his courageous remarks on the floor.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment, this is a complicated issue--that is an understatement-- with multifaceted policy ramifications that really can't be fully debated in 5 or 10 minutes. The situation in Syria remains highly complicated and complex and poses imminent threats to the United States and allied interests, particularly Israel, Jordan, and Iraq. Recognizing congressional concerns regarding potential U.S. military involvement in Syria, our bill appropriates funds in the GWOT account, the title IX that I talked about several hours ago to train and equip Syrians. It also further prohibits the introduction of U.S. military forces into hostilities in Syria except in accordance with the War Powers Act. However, this amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, for it attempts to tie the U.S. Government's hands in navigating the complicated situation we--or, more importantly, our allies Israel and Jordan--face related to threats emanating from ISIL in Iraq and Syria every day. We have to be realistic. There are many countries, including our allies, as well as other groups already involved in Syria. This amendment would do nothing to stop the arming of the Syrian opposition. What this amendment would do is remove the possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstances, even if such engagement would be in the best interests of the United States or allies. Even at this rate, the U.S. is paying just a portion of the costs. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for any comments he may wish to make.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, but I certainly understand the sentiments behind it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague, for his advocacy on behalf of the KC-10. Mr. Chairman, none of the good work we have done in the Middle East could have been done without the remarkable history of the men and women who work on those KC-10s and these tankers, allowing so many flights to go without any problems, any issues. That is a remarkable plane. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I congratulate him for introducing it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, currently, U.S. forces are conducting multiple airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Without this authority, these campaigns would stop immediately. Should this Authorization for Use of Military Force be replaced? Perhaps it should. On May 19, Speaker Boehner urged President Obama to start from scratch on a measure to legally authorize the Islamic State conflict, declaring, ``We don't have a strategy.'' I agree with the Speaker, we have no strategy with regard to ISIL. Recently, President Obama stated he still does not have a complete strategy for defeating the Islamic State. A sad commentary--shifting rationale, shifting strategy, no strategy. At a time when sectarian tensions are at their highest levels since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom in December of 2001, the terrorists have once again succeeded in capturing control of major cities in Iraq, killing innocent citizens, causing thousands of families to flee. What kind of message are we sending with this amendment to both the Iraqi people, to our soldiers and marines who have valiantly served and sacrificed, and even now the President suggesting sending another 400 advisers to advise and to train and equip Iraqis to recapture Ramadi? This amendment is not about substance; it is about symbolism. Unfortunately, its effect would be much more than symbolism. Acceptance of this amendment would rob our Nation of one of the key authorities our Commander-in-Chief relies on to keep us safe. I strongly urge rejection of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. In order to prosecute the global war on terrorism, one of our primary current missions, the President, our Commander in Chief, relies on this Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which he is trying and attempting to repeal. This AUMF, better known as the 9/11 AUMF, is necessary for the Department of Defense and U.S. military forces to address conducting campaigns against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-related affiliated forces worldwide by using this authority. It has been used by both this President and his predecessor since 2001. Granted, this amendment was written to sunset on the last day of this calendar year, but without a follow-on authority in place, killing the 9/11 AUMF would tie our Nation's hands and our Commander in Chief's hands with regard to combating worldwide terrorism in 7 short months. This amendment cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations with partner nations and our allies against al Qaeda and their affiliates. Once again, the gentlewoman attempts to put in place a major policy change that does not belong in an appropriations bill, this Defense bill. The terrorist threat today is no less real and, in many ways, far more dangerous than it was when Congress overwhelmingly gave the President that authority in 2001 to protect us against those who want to do us harm. These terrorist organizations pose a real threat to United States persons and interests. It is my judgment this amendment erroneously assumes that al Qaeda and its affiliates ended their terrorist acts once major military operations ceased in Afghanistan. Obviously, they haven't. Recent disastrous events in Yemen and, most recently, frightening developments in Iraq and Syria have shown its affiliates and new terrorist groups are on the rise. This amendment would effectively eliminate the President's ability to address that threat or other emerging threats from al Qaeda and like- minded groups in north Africa, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere and leave our Nation and our allies more vulnerable to attacks. Therefore, I strongly urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are pleased to accept your amendment. May I also say, we are proud of your service to our Nation. Thank you for the time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as I said a few minutes ago, currently U.S. forces are conducting multiple airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Without this authority, those campaigns would stop. And certainly, much has happened since the authority was first given. As a matter of fact, things are getting far worse than they have been in the past. Acceptance of this amendment would rob our country of one of the key authorities our Commander in Chief needs and relies on to keep us safe and to address these types of crises, which seem to occur all over the Middle East. Therefore, I strongly reject and oppose the amendment and urge others to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment. The Marine Corps has an aviation plan calling for the orderly transfer of this capability to other entities. The East Coast mission will be assumed by the Coast Guard, while the West Coast mission will be competitively contracted out, as I understand it, in fiscal year 2017. While we respect the gentleman's concerns, this amendment takes a rifle shot approach against the Department of Defense's force structure plan, and we believe that this is not good policy. Therefore, I urge opposition to the amendment and would appreciate the gentleman making the case for his position. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking member.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Department of Defense excess property program does provide valuable surplus equipment to State and local law enforcement agencies for its use in counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety. It has, on occasion, provided aircraft, including helicopters and small planes, four-wheel-drive vehicles, pickup trucks, ambulances, and mobile command vehicles. It has provided vests and helmets to protect officers, all sorts of important protection equipment, including binoculars, radios, clothing, and information technology. In a time of declining budgets, at the Federal level but also at the State and local level, this program is a good example of a Federal- local partnership that ensures that we get the most out of each tax dollar spent. This amendment would restrict the Department's ability to put equipment they no longer need to use protecting our citizens within our local communities. We think it is a good program. It obviously ought to be monitored, and things ought to be only put in proper hands. On occasion, horrible incidents do occur, but all in all, this program has been a valuable thing to many communities across America. I do rise in opposition to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Arizona on his interest in the safety of our Army aviation personnel. This amendment would prohibit the Army from spending additional funds to purchase the Army aircrew combat uniform. As an alternative, the Army could resume using a previous flight suit, the CWU-27/P that has not been authorized since 2009, except for special operators. I understand this amendment is based on discussions with flight crews during visits with airfields and tactical training sites. The old model is a one-piece design. It is said to cost less and be more durable than the current model Army aircrew combat uniform. The committee is interested in providing our soldiers with the best equipment possible; however, conclusions based on what appear--and I want to say this respectfully--on somewhat anecdotal information and brief discussions rarely lead to wise spending decisions. I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I am pleased to yield to Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.