[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 80 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E938-E939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE FY13 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 31, 2012

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will not be able to 
support this National Defense Authorization Act. I hope that will 
change when it returns from the Senate.
  This is only the second time I have voted against the NDAA. The first 
was last year. That bill contained a number of serious flaws including 
an overly broad provision that allowed the Executive wide latitude to 
commit U.S. forces to military action without congressional approval. 
Similarly, this bill contains provisions that I cannot support in their 
current form. It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has chosen 
to depart from the longstanding tradition of trying to shape bipartisan 
defense authorization bills.
  The recently departed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral 
Mullen, said that ``Our national debt is our biggest national security 
threat.'' He also made clear, ``. . . with the increasing defense 
budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard 
trades. It hasn't forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do 
the analysis.''
  In accordance with that advice, the top civilian and military leaders 
developed a strategy to meet our national security needs more 
efficiently. Recognizing that the Defense Department still has not 
passed a Government Accountability Office audit, they identified 
important savings without compromising our national security. That plan 
was incorporated into the Budget Control Act enacted last August.
  In developing its plan, the Defense Department conducted a 
comprehensive review of force needs, capabilities and obligations. 
Difficult choices were made about which programs to keep and which to 
cut in order to maintain a fiscally responsible mission ready 
capability. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
in February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General

[[Page E939]]

Dempsey, said of the Defense budget, ``This budget will maintain our 
military's decisive edge and help sustain America's global leadership. 
It will preserve our ability to protect our vital national interests 
and to execute our most important missions.''
  Unfortunately, the Republican Budget and the NDAA violate the 
bipartisan agreement reached just 9 months ago by adding billions of 
dollars of unwanted and unnecessary expenditures to the Pentagon. At a 
time when we need to be putting our fiscal house in order, this 
excessive spending cannot be justified.
  These are some of my specific objections to the bill:
  I oppose the provisions that put limits on the end-strength 
reductions put in place by the Administration. According to DoD, the 
limitations set by the bill would limit the Defense Department's 
ability to reduce the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps as 
troops return home from Afghanistan. Since the Administration has set 
these reductions in light of declining commitments in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and in order to implement a new defense strategy which 
emphasizes a smaller and leaner force, maintaining excessively high 
troop levels will unnecessarily drive up costs.
  The bill contains provisions that block the Administration's ability 
to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft including C 27J, C 
23, C 130 and other aircraft and the RQ 4 Global Hawk without including 
necessary funding for the manning, repair, maintenance and 
modernization of these aircraft. Additionally, I oppose the bill's 
insistence on maintaining a minimum of 12 ballistic missile submarines 
in the fleet because it limits the Navy's ability to manage the 
strategic force.
  The bill authorizes the establishment of a missile defense site on 
the East Coast that the DoD says threatens funding for the maintenance 
and construction of other more urgent elements of the country's missile 
defense.
  I also oppose the bill's provisions that limit the reduction of 
nuclear forces that the Administration says are necessary to implement 
the New Start Treaty requirements and to set the country's nuclear 
policy.
  And finally, I oppose sections 1035 1043 of the bill which would 
constrain the flexibility needed by the Nation's armed forces to deal 
with evolving counterterrorism threats. These provisions pertain to the 
treatment by the military of terror suspects captured on American soil 
and elsewhere.

                          ____________________