[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Pages E841-E842] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 ______ speech of HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN of maryland in the house of representatives Tuesday, May 20, 2014 The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes: Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. For the last 53 years, Congress has passed--and the President has signed into law--the annual Defense Authorization bill, allowing us to provide the critical resources the Armed Forces need to maintain the best military in the world. The NDAA has also allowed Congress to have an open dialogue about many of the difficult choices with which we are confronted, including the significant financial constraints that our military is operating under. While I appreciate the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our servicemembers and our national defense, I have serious concerns with a number of misguided provisions in this year's NDAA. This year's authorization bill authorizes $513.4 billion in budget authority, including $495.8 billion for the Department of Defense and $79.4 billion in overseas contingency operations (OCO). Unfortunately, it rejects many cost saving measures recommended by the Pentagon and would eliminate more than $50 billion in potential savings for our military over the next five years. Of particular concern, H.R. 4435 prioritizes unrequested weapons systems and parochial interests over our military readiness. It slashes military readiness by $1.2 billion from the President's FY15 request despite the fact that Secretary Hagel has consistently warned that if cuts to our military readiness persist, and we were confronted with an emerging threat, ``the United States may not have enough ready forces to respond.'' This year's NDAA also includes a provision to continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. I was particularly disappointed that an amendment offered by Ranking Member Smith to provide a framework for closure of Guantanamo by the end of 2016 was rejected. As the President made clear in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, we cannot wait any longer to close down this facility. I also share many of the other concerns that were outlined in the President's Statement of Administration Policy. This includes language that restricts the Pentagon from retiring the A-10 aircraft and a provision that authorizes $20 million in unrequested funding in FY15 for the planning and design of a missile field on the East Coast. I also oppose sections 314, 315, 316, and 317, which would prohibit the Department of Defense from using alternative fuels and would limit the ability of our military from developing alternative energy sources that have the potential to save money and enhance our energy security. Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased that a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Patrick Murphy and Representative Mick Mulvaney to address the migration of base budget funding into the OCO budget was adopted. We have worked together to ensure that the OCO budget is no longer used as a mechanism to circumvent budget caps. I am also encouraged that this bill builds on a number of provisions passed in last year's NDAA and continues to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. In particular, it would eliminate the so-called ``good soldier defense'' in court- martial proceedings, prohibiting a soldier from using good military character as a defense in a sexual assault case. These proceedings should be based on the specific evidence presented in the case. This bill does authorize much needed funding for our men and women in uniform but ultimately it ignores the current budget landscape that our military is facing. We have to budget based on reality, instead of writing a blank check and holding onto as ``much of the stuff and the training as possible'' and hoping that [[Page E842]] ``some miracle happens and we get money next year that we don't have now,'' as Chairman McKeon put it earlier this month. As a result of this line of thinking, this legislation avoids making many tough choices at the expense of our military readiness. It is my hope that many of my objections to this legislation will be resolved in Conference with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage. ____________________