[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 13, 2015

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1735) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 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 opposition to H.R. 1735, 
the FY16 National Defense Authorization Act.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation that this body votes on each year. While this 
bill does authorize much needed funding for our men and women in 
uniform, ultimately it ignores the current budget landscape that our 
military is facing.
  Consistent with the Republican budget, this year's defense 
authorization bill uses the Overseas Contingency Operations budget as a 
backdoor loophole to get around sequestration by funding $38 billion of 
the Pentagon's regular base budget activities with war funds--a blatant 
abuse of the budget process. Just one year ago, House Republicans 
criticized the abuse of the OCO loophole in their budget report, 
stating that it ``undermines the integrity of the budget process'' and 
that the Budget Committee would ``oppose increases above the levels the 
Administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out 
operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are 
war-related.''
  Moreover, in following the strategy of the Republican budget, the 
NDAA begins the process of locking in sequestration for nondefense 
programs, which will have a devastating impact on investments critical 
to the nation. We need to get back to the table to have an honest 
debate about our budget and renegotiate the funding caps for both 
defense and nondefense. Only then will we be able to provide the 
necessary resources for our national security needs and to ensure we 
keep the nation's commitments to education, research, infrastructure, 
and other crucial drivers of economic prosperity.
  I also have many problems with a number of misguided provisions in 
this year's NDAA. Once again, this year's NDAA includes a provision to 
continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of 
detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo 
detainees. I strongly opposed Rep. Walorski's amendment to keep 
Guantanamo open for at least two more years beyond FY16 and was 
disappointed that an amendment offered by Ranking Member Smith to 
provide a framework for closure of Guantanamo by the end of 2016 was 
rejected.
  I also oppose efforts by Republicans to strike an important provision 
in this bill which would have stated that it was the sense of the House 
that our military should review whether ``DREAMers'' should be allowed 
to enlist and serve in the Armed Forces. In addition, I object to 
provisions that prohibit the Pentagon from entering into contracts to 
construct alternative fuel refineries and prevent our military from 
developing alternative energy sources that have the potential to save 
money and enhance our energy security. Finally, I object to the 
inclusion of unrequested funding for many weapons systems, including an 
extra $1.15 billion for extra F/A-18 aircraft and $128 million for 
extra UH-60 helicopters.
  Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased that 
a bipartisan amendment I introduced with Congressman Mulvaney was 
adopted and will require Congress to report on how funds authorized for 
overseas contingency operations were ultimately used. I also support 
the increased 2.3 percent pay raise for our troops and their families.
  While this legislation does authorize much needed funding for 
programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, ultimately, this 
bill falls short in too many areas. It is my hope that many of my 
objections to the NDAA will be resolved in Conference with the Senate 
but I can't support it in its current form.

                          ____________________