Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment would create a new office that would require the Department of Defense to make subjective determinations concerning a contractor's or a grant provider's workplace policies. The amendment would delay and disrupt an already complicated Federal procurement system and would harm a potentially large civilian contracting workforce that is essential to the missions and the operations of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative of the many efforts that are already underway by the Department. The best way to ensure that government contracts or provides grants to the best employers is to enforce the existing suspension and debarment system. Finally, the amendment reprograms funds away from the Department's operations and maintenance accounts--accounts which are critical to supporting our warfighters--and restores readiness to the services and to, may I say, our committee's top priority. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for his advocacy on behalf of some remarkable installations in the State of New York. May I say we have a very close working relationship through Picatinny Arsenal. Firepower is important, considering what our adversaries are utilizing today and may be using in the future. I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but do so reluctantly because the three previous speakers I have a very high regard for.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would restore a funding reduction and increase funding above the President's budget request for the Navy power projection advanced technology line. While the Navy's high-energy laser program has its merits, it is one of the many examples of defense programs that has had, quite honestly, significant increases in funding for fiscal year 2017, in fact, 250 percent greater than the enacted level. So it hasn't been impoverished. Our funding reduction still allows for a level that is more than 160 percent of the enacted level, a significant growth that allows for additional testing but puts the program on a path to actually be able to obligate funding in a manageable timeframe. Our committee has a responsibility to conduct appropriate budget oversight, reducing funding to programs that aren't justified and adding funding to programs that aren't fully funded. Appropriate budget oversight, reducing a program that is funded above its needs is an example of what I think we see, to some extent, here with this amendment. We see no justifiable reason to add funding to this line, but it may be a matter of disagreement, but I think we have taken a close look at it. This technology has great potential, but it also has significant development challenges that may be difficult to overcome. The weapons require very substantial power sources, cooling platforms, and corrosion protection. The program should be continued in a fiscally responsible manner, which includes slowing funding to an appropriate level. I think we have reached that level. While we may have some disagreement here, we are certainly supportive of the program, but I do reluctantly oppose the amendment put forward by these three great gentlemen. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, again, reluctantly.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly knowing that the gentleman is extremely knowledgeable and is a strong advocate for some very important things that relate to our missile defense. However, I do believe in responsible budgeting, which is a prerogative of our subcommittee. As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we prioritize funding programs at appropriate levels, levels that the Department can obligate responsibly in a timely manner. As such, when projects such as the weapons technology directed energy line are continually slow to develop and lag significantly behind other similar technology developments, reductions are warranted. The funding provided in this bill provides $9 million for each of three projects to continue. This is an opportunity for these laboratories--and they are remarkable laboratories--to prove that their demonstrations will be effective and deserve to continue to be funded in the future. A more advanced directed energy line, technology maturation initiatives, was supported in our bill at an increase of 275 percent over the enacted level. The minor reduction in this program is due to the fact that funding will not be obligated in fiscal year 2017 to purchase long lead items, making the request early to need. Let me reiterate, we are highly supportive of the program. However, funding should be appropriately timed to the schedule. As for the request to restore $72 million in funding to a special program line, which, due to its classification we cannot discuss in an open forum, the funding is not tied to any requirement. We are concerned, and it is reflected in our bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I will say that I understand the gentleman's concerns. We respect them. We certainly respect his position and knowledge and commitment of the members of his subcommittee. They are experts. We also take a look at the bottom line as well. We understand the gentleman's concerns that we properly fund homeland defense initiatives of the Missile Defense Agency. That is why our bill includes $130 million above the request for important Homeland Security defense priorities, including the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System and the Aegis Weapons System, two systems that have demonstrated their capacity to perform, that should be, quite honestly, robustly funded. I have no further comments and would ask that the amendment be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to stand with the chairman of the committee that has oversight of this important, critical program. The bottom line is that this amendment would unilaterally disarm our country by undermining the development of this new cruise missile, which would, in turn, weaken the airborne leg of our nuclear triad, which we depend on for a deterrent. You can be darn sure that the Russians and Chinese are not sitting back. For the record, our committee has taken fiscally prudent minor reductions in the Standoff Weapon program when justified. This cut, which is nearly 80 percent of the funds requested, would be crippling, which, of course, is the apparent intention of this amendment. We don't support that. The Air Force remains on track to issue a request for a proposal to industry for the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of the program before the end of the fiscal year, with a contract award to be made in fiscal year 2017. This amendment, if adopted, would radically slash funding and bring this effort to a halt. Therefore, I join with the chairman in urging strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, let me say I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it makes good sense. I understand his rationale and strong feelings as to why it needs to take effect.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, respectfully, again, while the administration has argued that additional base realignment and closure rounds may be necessary to reduce infrastructure costs and overall costs, the 2000 BRAC one-time implementation costs were billions more than were assumed by the BRAC Commission. Let's be honest. Even today, many States and regions are suffering from the effects of the last BRAC. I have seen little evidence that it saved us money, and we have taken a close look at it. Furthermore, the authorization bill which we passed several weeks ago rejects BRAC for fiscal year 2017, and our bill provides none of the requested funding for a BRAC analysis and planning. I think the majority in Congress have made their views clear, and I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's passion on the issue and his consistent passion. For the record, Mr. Chairman, the Coalition Support Fund allows the Secretary of Defense, as was true of his predecessor, to reimburse any key cooperating nation for logistical and military support, including access, specialized training to personnel, procurement, and provision of supplies and equipment provided by that nation in connection with a United States military operation, and Pakistan is one of those. Receipts for reimbursements are submitted by cooperating nations and are fully vetted by the Pentagon and follow strict--and I say strict-- criteria to meet standards for reimbursement. It is all about reimbursement. All payments are made in arrears and following notification to Members of Congress on appropriate committees. Regarding Pakistan, the Coalition Support Fund remains a critical tool to enable Pakistan to effectively deal with future challenges from the emerging U.S. drawdown--and we are drawing down. It also remains a cost-effective tool for the U.S. to remain engaged in the region and with Pakistan. We shouldn't be abandoning Pakistan, because we might actually have something even worse than what the gentleman describes if we turn our back on Pakistan. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly this amendment ought to be opposed. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that these reimbursements are made to maintain some 186,000 Pakistani forces along 1,600 miles of border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to deter border conflict, movement, counterterrorism-counterinsurgency operations. The Pakistanis have paid quite a price in their military for deaths related to their work to protect Afghanistan, and, may I say, the bad guys have paid a price. Nearly 28,000 militants were killed, injured, and arrested due to these operations. It is better that the Pakistanis are doing it than the United States military. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, for years, the production and trafficking of heroin in Afghanistan has provided an important source of revenue to the Taliban and other antigovernment forces in the region. It is estimated the Taliban receives between $70 million and $100 million per year from the illicit drug trade. Regional heroin trafficking is also fueling corruption and impeding legitimate economic activity critical for Afghans' continued development and stability. $140.8 million was requested to provide direct counternarcotic support for Afghanistan. It is badly needed. These activities directly support the activities of the Department of Defense Operation Freedom's Sentinel by building their capacity and neighboring countries' capacities, their counternarcotics force, to disrupt illicit trafficking and deny proceeds from being used to fund terrorists' insurgent activities. Funds support the training and equipping of special Afghan units, including their counternarcotics police as well as their national interdiction unit. It is important. Allowing more illicit narcotics cultivation and trade to continue, without any methods or action to counter or interdict it, would be a total disaster, a total mistake. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for any comments he may wish to make.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, there has been progress in Afghanistan. As long as we have nearly 10,000 troops over there, this is one of the things we need to focus on because it has a lot to do with protecting those that are there fighting on our behalf doing the work of freedom. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.