National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source