[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 89 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E952-E953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY2014

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 20, 2013

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
  The NDAA offers Congress an opportunity to provide the resources we 
need for our Armed Forces and a chance to address some of the 
significant challenges that must be confronted--like the mechanisms for 
confronting cases of sexual abuse in the military. While I appreciate 
the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our 
servicemembers and our national defense, this bill contains a number of 
serious flaws. These include providing over $5 billion in OCO funding 
that the Pentagon did not request, imposing funding restrictions that 
would prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility 
in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and establishing an 
unnecessary missile defense site on the East Coast.
  I was particularly disappointed that a bipartisan amendment I 
introduced--which would have ensured that the FY2014 funding for the 
war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences is at the level the 
DoD and military leaders say is necessary for the mission--was not 
adopted. The funding level in the National Defense Authorization bill 
for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for Fiscal Year 2014 is set 
at $85.8--$5 billion more than the $80.7 billion the Defense Department 
says is necessary to achieve the mission. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel 
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey both 
testified before the House Budget Committee that the FY2014 OCO level 
of $80.7 billion requested in the President's budget was sufficient to 
meet our military's needs. At a time of fiscal constraint, we simply 
cannot afford to provide more funding than our military leaders say is 
needed.
  Part of the reason some may have hesitated to support the amendment 
was due to claims that it would have eliminated funding for National 
Guard and Reserve Component Equipment modernization. But, that was 
simply not true.
  As we continue to search for a way to turn off the sequester by 
replacing it with a more rational deficit reduction package, we 
shouldn't allow the OCO designation to be used as a loophole to get 
around spending caps that are written in law as the defense 
authorization bill did. That is not a solution to the sequester. 
Instead, we should find a balanced deficit reduction plan to replace 
sequestration so that we can provide adequate funding to maintain a 
military that is second to none and make the investments in education, 
scientific research, and infrastructure necessary to keep our economy 
strong, which is the foundation of our security. Unfortunately, the 
House Republican budget takes the opposite approach. It cuts even more 
deeply into vital investments in our kids' education and in the 
investments in innovation and technology that help grow our economy. It 
cuts the part of the budget that funds education and vital medical 
research by 19 percent below the sequester. And despite claims to want 
to strengthen our embassy security in the aftermath of tragedies like 
Behnghazi, it slashes State Department operations by over 15 percent.
  Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased to 
see that this bill incorporated initiatives that begin to address the 
problem of sexual assault in the military. Unfortunately, the measures 
adopted were inadequate to meet the challenge. I was especially 
disappointed that Congresswoman Jackie Speier was denied the 
opportunity to offer an important amendment to strengthen 
accountability and improve the process.
  I also share many of the other concerns that were outlined in the 
President's Statement of Administration Policy. This includes a 
misguided provision in the bill which would continue funding 
restrictions that prohibit the construction or modification of a 
detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, 
and would constrain DoD's ability to transfer Guantanamo detainees, 
including those who have already been designated for transfer to other 
countries. In addition, I strongly object to a requirement in this bill 
which would limit the President's ability to implement the New START 
Treaty and to set the country's nuclear policy.
  I am also opposed to sections 232 and 233 in this bill, which 
authorize the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast 
that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. These provisions disregard the 
advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and seek to tie the President's

[[Page E953]]

hands in determining military requirements in other parts of the world. 
Finally, this bill contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations 
and block the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary 
military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options 
are readily available.
  This year's NDAA does authorize much needed funding for vital 
programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, their civilian 
colleagues, and our veterans. 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.

                          ____________________