[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1318-E1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 18, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5856) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
5856, the FY2013 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  Last summer, Congress and the President enacted the bipartisan Budget 
Control Act, BCA, a difficult compromise by both Democrats and 
Republicans. As a result, caps on both discretionary and defense 
spending were significantly tightened for Fiscal Year 2013 
appropriations. Because this bill fails the test of balance and funds 
billions of dollars of unnecessary programs within the Defense 
Department, while disregarding the caps set forth by the BCA, I cannot 
support it in its current form. I hope to support this bill when it 
returns from the Senate.
  I would refer my colleagues to the Budget Control Act and to Section 
302, enforcement of budget goals. It's right there in plain English 
what the defense appropriation number will be. That was the Budget 
Control Act that was supported and voted on by the Chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  In fact, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, 
said last year when we passed it, and I quote: ``Tough choices will 
have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national 
security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results.'' 
He went on to say, ``The Appropriations Committee has already started 
making tough decisions on spending and will continue under the spending 
limits and guidelines provided in this bill,'' meaning the Budget 
Control Act. That was August 1st of last year.
  The Chairman of the full Committee was right last year but the bill 
that's before us violates that bipartisan agreement. As a result of 
that violation, the Defense Appropriation Bill exceeds significantly 
what was requested by

[[Page E1319]]

the Defense Department. The reality is the other bills that are coming 
through the Appropriations Committee are taking much deeper cuts--cuts 
to education, cuts to affordable health care, cuts to public safety--
because of the funding increases in this defense bill. In other words, 
our investment in jobs, and the economy, and our kids future is being 
slashed as a direct result of the fact this defense bill exceeds the 
spending level set in the Budget Control Act agreement
  Mr. Chairman, I would refer our colleagues to the statements made by 
Admiral Mullen, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. Admiral Mullen pointed out that our military strength depends on 
our economic strength and our economic strength depends on our long-
term fiscal health. Admiral Mullen said, ``Our national debt is our 
biggest national security threat.'' He went on to say, ``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.'' We can no longer go along with business 
as usual if we are going to get our fiscal house in order.
  That is why this House agreed to the Budget Control Act last summer, 
and it's unfortunate that this bill comes to the floor in violation of 
the agreement, in violation of an understanding that in order to get 
our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough decisions on defense 
and non-defense alike. And by violating the agreement in this regard, 
what the Committee is saying is they are not willing to make really 
tough decisions. In fact, they're making irresponsible decisions with 
respect to the nondefense domestic spending.
  I agree with Admiral Mullen who said we all need to share in this 
responsibility. I agree with what my Republican Colleagues said last 
year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an agreement 
and let the American people know that when this body comes to an 
understanding after a hard fought compromise, we stick with it for the 
public good.
  The Defense Appropriations bill provides $606 billion in defense 
spending in FY13. It includes $518.1 billion in funding for non-war 
related expenses. It also provides an additional $13.7 billion for 
Military Personnel Programs and $63.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance Programs. I am also pleased that the bill provides a 
requested pay raise for military personnel and supports critical 
funding for the DoD Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program and 
the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program.
  However, the bill provides billions of dollars in funding that the 
Department of Defense says it neither requested nor needs. For example, 
it continues to fund unnecessary aircraft programs that the Defense 
Department did not allot for in its budget this year, and spends $138 
million to resurrect C-27J contracts that the Air Force decided not to 
renew. Many other wasteful items that are unnecessary to our national 
defense are included at the expense of national funding priorities that 
directly impact our country's future economic growth, including 
investments in education, seniors, and research and infrastructure.
  During this difficult fiscal period we have to be much smarter and 
more efficient about how we shape our defense budget. Throughout this 
debate, I have made clear that we must take a balanced approach to 
cutting the budget including eliminating unnecessary spending. There is 
no doubt that Congress has a responsibility to pass a Defense 
Appropriations bill which reflects a commitment to the millions of 
dedicated men and women and their families who sacrifice to keep our 
country safe. However, as testimony before the Budget Committee and 
House Armed Services Committee has made clear, we can reduce defense 
spending even as we continue to provide for our men and women in 
uniform, for our veterans and for their families, without compromising 
national security.
  Unfortunately, the FY13 Defense Appropriations bill upends the 
balance painstakingly designed by the BCA and appropriates funds 
unnecessarily to some programs at the expense of other high-priority 
programs. The unrequested funding provided in this legislation will 
result in direct cuts to such national priorities as education, health 
care, research and development, and vital job training. I am also 
concerned that this bill deprives deserving employees of the Department 
of Defense of a modest cost-of-living adjustment by not providing for a 
civilian pay raise of .5 percent, as proposed by the Administration.
  Mr. Chair, there is no higher priority than providing for the 
security of our country. However, during these difficult economic 
times, we have to be smarter and more efficient in how we shape our 
defense budget. In the end, the strength of our military depends on the 
strength of our economy. If we don't reduce our long-term deficit and 
get our fiscal house in order, we will weaken our capacity to fund a 
strong military. At the end of the day, this bill falls short of 
accomplishing that objective.

                          ____________________