[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.

                          ____________________