STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 2685 – Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016
(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)
The
Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2685, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense (DOD) for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016,
and for other purposes. The Administration supports investments
essential to execute the President's national security and defense
strategies, and appreciates the Committee's recognition that the
President's Budget level is needed for DOD, as well as its support of
the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, which is a vital
partnership-focused approach to counterterrorism. However, the bill
drastically underfunds critical investments in DOD's base budget and
instead uses Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding in ways that
leaders in both parties have made clear are inappropriate. Base budget
sequestration levels will damage our ability to restore readiness,
advance badly-needed technological modernization, and keep faith with
our troops and their families. Meanwhile, shifting base budget
resources into OCO risks undermining a mechanism meant to fund
incremental costs of overseas conflicts and fails to provide a stable,
multi-year budget on which defense planning and fiscal policy are
based. The use of OCO funding to circumvent budget caps in defense
spending also ignores the long-term connection between national security
and economic security and fails to account for vital national security
functions carried out at non-defense agencies.
In
addition, the bill fails to support many of the needed force structure
and weapons system reforms included in the President's Budget, and
undermines a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round that would
allow DOD to properly align the military's infrastructure with the needs
of its evolving force. The President's defense strategy depends on
investing every dollar where it will have the greatest effect, which the
Administration's FY 2016 proposals will accomplish through critical
reforms that divest unneeded force structure, slow growth in
compensation, and reduce wasteful overhead. The Committee's changes
would constrain the ability of DOD to align military capability and
force structure with the President's defense strategy, and would require
the Department to retain unnecessary force structure and weapons
systems that cannot be adequately resourced in today's fiscal
environment, contributing to a military that will be less capable of
responding effectively to future challenges. The bill also continues
unwarranted restrictions regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay. If the President were presented with H.R. 2685, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Enacting
H.R. 2685 and adhering to the congressional Republican budget's overall
spending limits for FY 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange
investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was never
intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to threaten such
drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense funding that policymakers
would be motivated to come to the table and reduce the deficit through
smart, balanced reforms. The Republican framework would bring base
discretionary funding for both non-defense and defense for FY 2016 to
the lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's Budget,
the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the Nation's most
vulnerable children losing access to Head Start, more than two million
fewer workers receiving job training and employment services, and
thousands fewer scientific and medical research awards and grants, along
with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, and
Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
Sequestration
funding levels would also put our national security at unnecessary
risk, not only through pressures on defense spending, but also through
pressures on State, USAID, Homeland Security, and other non-defense
programs that help keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our
economy and the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the
President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration
going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing
non-defense.
The
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto H.R. 2685 and
any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget
framework, which blocks the investments needed for our economy to
compete in the future.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to
reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense priorities and offset
the cost with commonsense spending and tax expenditure cuts, as Members
of Congress from both parties have urged.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill.
Department of Defense
Sequestration and Misuse of OCO Funds. The
Administration strongly objects to the sequestration level
appropriations in the bill for items that were requested in and belong
in the base budget, as well as the use of OCO—a funding mechanism
intended to pay for wars and not subject to the budget caps—to pay for
$37.5 billion in base requirements. Sequestration adds risk to our
national security by threatening the size, readiness, presence, and
capability of our military, and threatens the economic security on which
our national security depends. The Committee clearly recognizes that
the President's Budget level for defense is needed, but proposes to fund
it by circumventing instead of increasing the budget caps. This
approach fails to provide the stable, multi-year budget on which defense
planning is based; undermines a mechanism meant to fund incremental
costs of overseas conflicts; locks in unacceptable funding cuts for
national security activities at non-defense agencies like the
Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; and also
undermines national security by undermining the Nation's economic
security.
Guantanamo Detainee Restrictions.
The Administration strongly objects to sections 8100, 8101, and 8102 of
the bill, which would restrict the Executive Branch's ability to manage
the detainee population at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention
facility. Sections 8100 and 8101 would
prohibit the use of funds for the transfer of detainees to the United
States and for the construction, acquisition, or modification of any
facility to house Guantanamo detainees in the United States. Section
8102 would continue restrictions relating to transfers of detainees
abroad. 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 8100 and 8102 would, moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers principles in certain circumstances.
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). The
Administration looks forward to working with the Congress and MCRMC to
improve our military compensation and retirement systems, and encourages
the Congress to support the additional recommendations for which the
Administration has transmitted legislation. The Administration
continues to evaluate how the more complex recommendations of a Blended
Retirement System would affect the All-Volunteer Force, and expects to
provide the Committee with further views on this proposal in the near
future. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with the
Congress and MCRMC on other provisions, to meet our solemn
responsibility to ensure that any changes protect the long-term
viability of the All-Volunteer Force, improve quality-of-life for
service members and their families, and safeguard the fiscal
sustainability of the military compensation and retirement systems.
Compensation Reform.
The FY 2016 Budget request provides the funding and common-sense
reforms that will ensure that service members receive competitive pay
and benefits and critical training and equipment. The Administration
believes it is imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing
allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how commissaries
operate, and strongly encourages members of the Congress to support
these reforms, which would save $1.7 billion in FY 2016 and $18 billion
through FY 2020.
Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round.
The Administration strongly objects to the proposed $10.5 million
reduction to funds that would support a 2017 BRAC round. This impairs
the ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or make
other needed adjustments that would improve military effectiveness and
efficiency. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to provide
the BRAC authorization as requested, which would allow DOD to right-size
its infrastructure while providing important assistance to affected
communities, freeing resources currently consumed by maintaining
unneeded facilities. In the absence of authorization of a new round of
BRAC, the Administration will pursue alternative options to reduce this
wasteful spending and ensure that DOD's limited resources are available
for the highest priorities of the warfighter and national security.
A-10 Aircraft. The
Administration strongly objects to section 8120 of the bill, which is
inconsistent with DOD's fiscal constraints and current priorities.
Section 8120 would restrict DOD from obligating or expending funds to
retire A-10 aircraft. This restriction would eliminate about $350
million in savings for FY 2016 and $4.7 billion in savings through
FY 2019. Further, it puts at risk needed recapitalization efforts
adversely impacting the acquisition and manning of the Air Force fighter
enterprise. DOD needs to focus its resources on the Joint Strike
Fighter and other multi-mission aircraft, which will replace the A-10's
singular mission of close air support while also providing other
critical capabilities.
Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI). The
Administration strongly objects to section 8116 of the bill, which does
not allow the transfer of any AH-64 Apache helicopters in FY 2016 and
will negatively affect the Army's readiness and ability to prepare and
deploy forces to meet ongoing operations. The FY 2015 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) established limitations on the ARI, but
provided for the transfer of certain numbers of aircraft in time for
congressional review of the report of the Commission on the Future of
the Army before transfer of additional aircraft. Delaying the transfer
until the passage of the FY 2016 NDAA will damage the readiness of Army
units in the 1st Infantry Division whose 24 AH-64s must transfer in
October 2015, the 25th Infantry Division whose 24 AH-64s must transfer
in February 2016, and the 10th Mountain Division whose 24 AH-64s must
transfer in June 2016. The National Guard Bureau has concurred with the
transfers and has plans in place with the States involved for the first
48 Apache aircraft. DOD's plan for the transfer of select numbers of
aircraft between the components in FY 2016 is in compliance with the
FY 2015 NDAA and is the same as the number of Apache aircraft (72) that
the National Guard Bureau agreed to transfer in its aviation proposal.
The Administration urges the Congress to remain consistent with the FY
2015 NDAA and permit the transfer of 72 Apache aircraft in FY 2016.
Missile Defense Programs.
The Administration strongly objects to funding reductions to several
ballistic missile defense programs, specifically, the proposed reduction
of $61.4 million to Improved Homeland Defense Interceptors (also known
as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program), which is needed to improve the
reliability, producibility, and sustainability of the Ground-Based
Interceptor. This reduction will delay the program beyond the required
2020 timeline to protect the United States. In addition, the
Administration opposes the $25 million reduction to the Command,
Control, Battle Management and Communications program and the $13
million reduction to the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor program. Funding
for both efforts is critical to meet the President's European Phased
Adaptive Approach Phase III. Finally, the Administration objects to the
Committee-proposed reductions of $38.2 million to Technology Maturation
Initiatives and $26.2 million to Special Programs. These efforts are
critical to ensuring the United States stays ahead of future ballistic
missile threats.
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.
The Administration strongly objects to the elimination of all funding
for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)-20 and its
launch. By 2017, only one DMSP satellite will be within its design
life. DOD has certified that this fully-built and recently-refurbished
satellite is a cost-effective solution to the expected shortfall in
polar-orbiting weather satellites, which the Government Accountability
Office has chronicled in its High Risk List. Because weather satellite
data are shared among defense, intelligence, civil, and international
users, eliminating this satellite would have broad implications,
including reduced accuracy of weather prediction models and degraded
efficiency of surveillance and reconnaissance platforms. Launching
DMSP-20 also provides a competitive launch opportunity, which is a
cornerstone of the Department's strategy to maintain assured access to
space.
Funding Restriction on the Enforcement of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The Administration strongly objects to the prohibition of funding for
the enforcement of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007. This provision undercuts a law that provides an
environmentally sound framework for the development of future
alternative fuels, which contribute to a diverse, cost-competitive
energy supply that enhances American energy security.
Unrequested Funding. In
this fiscally constrained environment, the Administration strongly
objects to the billions of dollars provided for items that were not in
the FY 2016 Budget request, offset by equal reductions to higher
priority items that the military needs. Unrequested items include $1 billion for extra Joint Strike Fighters, $1 billion for additional F-18 aircraft,
$1.1 billion to reverse planned savings associated with compensation
reform proposals, $1.5 billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment,
$1 billion for additional Army vehicles and weapons systems, $635
million to fund an Afloat Forward Staging Base, and $65 million for an
additional CV-22 Osprey aircraft. The Administration has made extensive
efforts to assess, prioritize, and balance force capacity, capability,
and readiness in developing the FY 2016 Budget. The Administration also objects to section 8006 of the bill, which places spending on unrequested items into statute.
DDG-51 Destroyers.
The Administration strongly objects to the reduction of $136.8 million
in DDG-51 shipbuilding funds. This reduction would make the DDG-51
program unexecutable, and preclude award of the second FY 2016 DDG as
the initial Flight III ship. This reduction would prevent the Navy from
fielding the Flight III variant as planned, resulting in a delay of
critically needed Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability to the
Fleet.
Defense Health Program.
The Administration strongly objects to the bill's $1.4 billion
reduction to the Defense Health Program within Operation and
Maintenance. Military medicine has had dramatic cost increases in
FY 2015, and these costs are projected to continue to rise. DOD has
taken aggressive action to address increases in costs where possible and
has strategies in place to continue these efforts. However, we must
ensure the health of the force and their families, along with upholding
the promise to our retirees. This will be increasingly difficult to
achieve absent sufficient funding at the level established in the
President's Budget request. Without funding at the level requested, the
Department will be forced to eliminate needed medical support programs
and initiatives.
Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program.
The Administration objects to the bill's $74.7 million reduction to the
Department of the Navy's Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program, ship
construction account. This funding reduction impacts five systems
critical to the ship's required capability, presenting unacceptable risk
to CVN 79 being delivered as a fully usable military warfighting
asset. The Department of the Navy, in conjunction with industry, has
implemented oversight and funding proposals that will yield cost
reductions in CVN 79 as compared to CVN 78. Any further reduction would
place additional risk to delivering integral warfighting systems and
would likely inhibit the Aircraft Carrier Replacement Program's ability
to meet the FY 2014 NDAA cost limitations for CVN 79 procurement.
Space Modernization Initiative (SMI).
The Administration objects to the $191 million reduction in SMI funding
for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and Advanced Extremely High
Frequency (AEHF) System. The Department's 2014 Space Strategic
Portfolio review recommended significant changes to our space-based
capabilities in the face of dramatically increasing threats. The SMI is
the critical resource to enable the evolution of the current SBIRS and
AEHF systems to assured architectures, consistent with the DOD
analyses. Full funding of SMI allows the Department to dramatically
reduce the technical, programmatic, and operational risks of these
required architecture changes in advance of the major acquisition
contract award, and assure that we will not suffer a capability gap in
our most important mission areas. Failing to invest in SMI technology
maturation now will limit these systems to 1995 sensor technology and
the associated obsolescence in our next satellite acquisition.
Limitation on Authorization for Certain FY 2016 Projects. The
Administration objects to section 8111 of the bill, which would limit
expending funds associated with the construction of the Joint
Intelligence Analysis Complex Consolidation (JIAC), Phase 2, at Royal
Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom, and would limit action to realign
forces at Lajes Field, Azores, until the Department conveys specific
information to the Committee. The Administration looks forward to
working with the Congress on this issue in order to avoid the potential
for significant financial costs during a period of constrained
resources, uncertainty among our allies that share equities in the JIAC,
and disruption in intelligence support to the warfighter.
Operation and Maintenance, Procurement, and Military Personnel Reductions.
The Administration objects to the billions of dollars of undistributed
reductions in the bill across the Operation and Maintenance,
Procurement, and Military Personnel accounts. The Operation and
Maintenance reductions would be applied to specific programs, which
include facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization line
items. These reductions will delay the Department's full-spectrum
readiness recovery efforts.
Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).
The Administration appreciates the support the Committee provided for
the DATA Act by fully funding the FY 2016 Budget request for the
Department of Defense to implement the Act.
Classified Programs.
The Administration looks forward to providing its views on the
adjustments contained in the Classified Annex to the bill once it
becomes available.
Additional Constitutional Concerns. Several
other provisions in the bill raise constitutional concerns. For
instance, section 8117 may interfere with the President's authority as
Commander in Chief and section 8009 could interfere with the President's
authority with regard to sensitive national security information.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.
