[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E805-E806]
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. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

                                of guam

                    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:

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4435, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The bill provides 
critical authorities to support our men and women in uniform.
  In particular, I appreciate the leadership of Readiness Chairman, Mr. 
Rob Wittman of Virginia, and the way we have worked together to address 
the readiness of our United States military. Our hearings this session 
have highlighted some serious challenges to readiness in the coming 
years if we do not solve the broader issue of sequestration, which I 
believe is achievable if we put everything on the table for discussion.
  The Readiness title of the bill recommends additional funds to 
address particular readiness shortfalls, such as Pacific Command's 
prepositioned munitions; corrosion control, prevention, and mitigation; 
Air Force training range improvements; depot-level maintenance; 
operational tempo; aviation readiness; and National Guard training, 
among other readiness priorities.
  Additionally, the bill addresses policy issues such as prepositioned 
stocks, crisis response elements, regionally aligned forces, ship 
homeport designations and overseas maintenance, readiness metrics, and 
the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, including airlift and tanker 
capabilities in the Pacific.
  But as much as we do to enhance readiness by authorizing increased 
funding by some $1.6 billion in the areas mentioned earlier, I believe 
this bill goes too far in cutting the operation and maintenance 
accounts in order to find funding for items not requested in the 
President's Budget in other titles of the bill.
  The bill authorizes $164.3 billion in operations and maintenance 
funding, which is $1.4 billion below what the President's Budget 
requested. I am particularly concerned about the $2.5 billion in cuts 
from four areas: unobligated balances, civilian personnel, and 
contracts for facilities maintenance and for Other Services. The cuts 
in these areas far outstrip the $455 million targeted reductions 
adjudicated by the committee staff on a bipartisan basis after careful 
consideration of the services' operations and maintenance budgets.
  I am not a fan of using expensive contractors for functions that 
could, and should, have been performed by civilian personnel, 
contracting is a fact of life and we are nearing the end of 13 years of 
two wars where we were heavily dependent on contractor support for 
execution of those wars.
  The budget request had already reduced facility maintenance to 60-70% 
of the stated requirement in fiscal year 2015. A further reduction of 
$419 million in this bill means the military services would forego 
repairs and upgrades to airfield runways, taxiways, and aprons; and to 
mission-critical facilities and infrastructure such as electrical 
systems, heating and air conditioning systems, and roofs. It would mean 
delays in renovations, consolidations, conversions, and demolitions to 
more efficiently use space and reduce operations and maintenance costs; 
deferral of repairs and upgrades to alleviate life, health, and safety 
deficiencies, including fire protection systems upgrades. And it would 
mean postponement of repairs, replacements, or reconfigurations of 
gates and other installation security components.
  The $399 million cut to the Other Services account could impact the 
quality of life for servicemembers by reducing or eliminating food 
service, tuition assistance, general training, family support programs, 
library support, physical fitness services, laundry services, testing, 
general and employee training, professional credentialing for health 
professionals, and ROTC scholarships instructor pay and textbooks.
  Unlike the $1.4 billion in cuts to unobligated balances which are 
taken in an undistributed manner at the military service level, the 
cuts in facility maintenance and Other Services are levied in every 
budget sub-activity group. This means we have hit almost every 
readiness account in operations and maintenance, including maneuver 
units, force readiness operations, depot maintenance, base operations, 
combatant commander mission support, strategic mobility, prepositioned 
stocks, industrial preparedness, ROTC, specialized skill training, 
professional development education, training support, logistic support, 
ammunition management, service-wide communications, manpower 
management, and classified programs.
  Further, I would note that contracts for Other Services includes 
professional services the Pentagon purchases to research, compile, and 
publish the reports that this committee and others require each year, 
including the hundreds of new reports required in this bill alone!
  Because of hiring freezes, sequestration, furloughs, pay freezes, and 
legislative mandates, most Department of Defense components and defense 
agencies have been functioning at 80 percent of their authorized 
manpower for the past 2 to 3 years and were only starting to recover in 
this fiscal year. Along with the services contracts cuts, a $315 
million cut to civilian personnel funding in fiscal year 2015 makes a 
mockery of the Total Force Management concepts this committee adopted 
and endorsed just three years ago, as defense components have told me 
they could not shed people fast enough and would have to undertake 
arbitrary reductions in force without consideration of mission 
requirements.
  Compounding these cuts is the $2 billion military personnel-related 
funding hole the Department will have to fill resulting from other 
actions this committee is considering today. Those funds, most likely, 
will come out of the operations and maintenance accounts when the 
Department of Defense executes the fiscal year 2015 budget.
  At a time when only 50% of Air Force pilots have returned to 
appropriate training levels; when the Navy has been forced to propose 
Phased Modernization of cruisers and amphibious warships to extend 
their service life, when the Marine Corps is establishing crisis 
response task forces without programming the full funding needed to 
resource them, and when the Army has identified $1.7 billion in 
unfunded training needs, I believe it is unwise and extraordinarily 
risky to fund the readiness accounts at $1.4 billion below the 
President's budget request. These cuts essentially impose another level 
of sequestration on the operation and maintenance accounts.
  As noted in a Readiness hearing this year, our top priority should be 
to ensure that no soldier, sailor, airman, or marine ever enters a fair 
fight. Our subcommittee has highlighted and documented the operations 
and maintenance shortfalls for the past three years and it is our duty 
and responsibility to ensure our men and women who serve have the 
necessary resources to dominate in any operational environment.
  I am concerned that our bill does not address an issue that I and a 
number of other Members in the House of Representatives have concerns 
about regarding the transition of the Global Privately Owned Vehicle 
Contract (GPC) to a new contractor. The prior contractor performed well 
for the US government on the prior GPC contract. But a decision was 
made to change contractors to save some money, despite concerns being 
raised about the new contractor's ability to perform and questions 
about whether there were any real cost savings. I raised some of those 
concerns during a recent Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing, and 
my colleagues have also made inquiries regarding the contractor change.
  Guam receives a significant shipment of privately owned vehicles, and 
our servicemembers rely on efficient and timely privately owned vehicle 
delivery to help integrate into their new units and to help their 
families cope with the difficulties associated with Permanent Change in 
Station assignments. I ask that you work with me, along with others on 
the Committee who have expressed similar concerns, to closely monitor 
and provide greater oversight on the transition to the new contractor. 
The new contractor assumed responsibility on May 1, and I understand 
some facilities were still not fully operational at that time and the 
contractor's logistics IT network was not fully deployed. 
Unfortunately, it appears that many of our concerns regarding the new 
contractor's ability to perform may be coming into fruition.
  Going forward, I hope the Committee will monitor the transition and 
ensure that the best value decision was made with respect to this 
important contract and in support of our service members and their 
families.

[[Page E806]]

  Finally, this bill continues a tradition of supporting the Department 
of Defense's efforts to support the Obama Administration's Asia-Pacific 
rebalance strategy. The bill fully funds military construction related 
to the realignment of Marines from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. The 
realignment is the most tangible aspect of the rebalance strategy and 
showing our commitment has a profoundly positive impact on the 
rebalance. Further, like the last several years, the bill eliminates 
restrictions on use of Government of Japan funds to support the 
realignment. Given the current budget constraints at the Department of 
Defense it is prudent that we free up Government of Japan direct 
contributions to support this endeavor.
  I am concerned that this bill cuts over $80 million requested in the 
President's Budget to support critical upgrades to civilian water and 
wastewater systems on Guam. I believe that these upgrades are needed to 
support a robust military presence on island and are needed now. 
However, I appreciate that the bill does include language authorizing a 
$13 million civilian infrastructure project that was appropriated in 
Fiscal Year 2012. Specifically, the project is for the development of a 
cultural repository which is needed to meet federal standards for the 
preservation of artifacts that are discovered during military 
construction activities. This project was agreed to in the Programmatic 
Agreement signed several years ago by Governor Calvo and various 
federal entities. Authorizing funds for this project keeps the U.S. 
Government's commitment to the people of Guam.
  The bill also included an amendment adopted during full committee 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015 that requires the Department of Defense and Department of State, 
working in coordination with other relevant federal agencies, to 
develop a clear strategy for the Asia-Pacific rebalance. I offered this 
amendment with Mr. Forbes of Virginia and Ms. Hanabusa of Hawaii. The 
provision outlines what the strategy should contain and is mirrored off 
Department of Defense East Asia Strategy Reviews from the 1990s. It is 
important that our allies clearly understand what the Asia-Pacific 
rebalance strategy is so that there are assurances about the United 
States' presence in this critical region of the world.
  Moreover, this provision would also require the National Security 
Council, working with the Office of Management and Budget, to use the 
strategy to develop an implementation plan for budget development. 
Another concern that has been articulated by a number of think tanks as 
well as allies in the region is about the commitment of the United 
States in putting real resources towards this rebalance strategy. It is 
important that the implementation plan give clear guidance to relevant 
agencies in what programs and projects they should fund to support the 
Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. The rebalance to the Asia-Pacific is 
an important and wise strategic goal and the implementation plan should 
help to ensure that this effort lasts past any one Administration.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4435.

                          ____________________