[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 80 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 17, 2016

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4909) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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. 4909, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, because it 
fails to support our troops serving overseas. The House Armed Services 
Committee reported a bill that uses a budget gimmick to circumvent 
funding caps Congress passed into law on a bipartisan basis, and by 
doing so it not only undermines the budget process, it puts our troops 
at risk. The bill cuts $18 billion from what our military commanders 
say is needed to support our troops overseas, and shifts those funds 
into the base defense budget to purchase billions of dollars of weapon 
systems the Defense Department did not even request. Consequently, the 
bill provides only enough funding for the troops deployed in 
Afghanistan and Iraq through April, 2017. This would then force 
Congress to pass an emergency supplemental to ensure that troops who 
are serving in harm's way have the resources they need for the 
remainder of the year. We shouldn't gamble with the troops we send off 
to battle. They deserve predictable support for the entire year as they 
execute their missions, particularly in view of the dangers they face.
  Representative Ellison offered an amendment to undo part of this 
gimmick. His amendment cuts $9.4 billion of Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO) funds the bill shifted to procurement for weapons DoD 
didn't ask for and puts it back into operations and maintenance, where 
DoD requested it for overseas operations. I supported the amendment 
because it puts the troops first. It gives them the certainty they need 
while they carry out their missions. It is also what our military 
commanders say they need. Unfortunately, that amendment did not pass.
  As the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, I also have 
worked hard to defend the integrity of the budget process and to end 
the abuse of the OCO designation to circumvent budget caps. I offered a 
bipartisan amendment with Representative Mulvaney that attempts to help 
reduce this abuse in the future. The amendment codifies criteria 
developed by OMB to clarify when military spending should be designated 
as contingency operations. To provide the necessary resources for a 
strong military and vital domestic investments, it is imperative our 
budget process be transparent and deliberative. Using budget gimmicks 
perpetuates bad decisions, increases debt by obfuscating spending, and 
in this case, puts the troops at risk.
  This NDAA once again abdicates Congressional responsibility to revise 
and update the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The 
2001 AUMF has been used to conduct a broad range of military operations 
across the world for the past fifteen years. Rather than act to 
narrowly target that authority to meet our current operational and 
national security requirements, Congress has continued to provide the 
Executive with a blank check to deploy American ground troops in many 
places in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. 
Representative Lee offered an amendment to force Congress to meet its 
constitutional obligations regarding its war powers. While I do not 
believe we should totally eliminate all authorities under the 2001 
AUMF, I do believe we need to dramatically reduce its scope and end the 
grant of blank check authority to the Executive.
  The NDAA should focus only on soldiers and their needs. However, 
Republicans have used it as a vehicle to insert inflammatory and non-
germane amendments. It includes an amendment that reverses the 
President's Executive Order that prevents federal contractors from 
discriminating against LGBT employees. It removes environmental 
protections, impedes development of alternative fuel sources to 
decrease our dependence on foreign fuel, and it prevents the closure of 
the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
  I applaud certain measures such as the 2.1 percent pay raise for 
armed services, research to combat the opioid epidemic that is 
impacting our veterans, increased funding to combat veteran 
homelessness, and expanding the parental leave policy for active duty 
service members. I remain committed to fighting for these important 
issues but I cannot support the unacceptable budget gimmicks and policy 
riders in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I vote nay.

                          ____________________