Conference Report on HR 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to reluctantly oppose the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Conference Report.

While the final version of the Defense Authorization bill makes many key improvements from the House-passed bill earlier this year, it unfortunately continues to fail the test of balance and funds billions of dollars of unnecessary programs within the Defense Department, while disregarding the caps set forth by the Budget Control Act. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, said last year when we passed the BCA, ``Tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results.'' Unfortunately, the bill that is before us violates that bipartisan agreement.

In developing its plan for FY2013, the Defense Department conducted a comprehensive review of force needs, capabilities and obligations. Difficult choices were made about which programs to keep and which to cut in order to maintain a fiscally responsible mission ready capability. However, the Conference Report authorizes funding levels above those requested by the president and above the BCA. The measure authorizes $552 billion in base national defense spending for the current year and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan--$1.7 billion above the funding levels requested by the President in his February budget submission and $6.3 billion above the cap the BCA set last year.

There are many programs contained in this bill that were not requested by the Defense Department. For example, the measure authorizes the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the DoD says threatens funding for the maintenance and construction of other more urgent elements of the country's missile defense. The administration has not identified a requirement for a third U.S.-based missile defense site, and has yet to assess its feasibility or cost.

The bill also includes provisions that block the administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including eighteen RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 drones. As a result, the Defense Department would be forced to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are in excess of national requirements and are not affordable in this budget environment. At the same time, I was disappointed that the Conference Report ended funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS, a $3.4 billion missile defense system. The President asked Congress to restore funding for the system, which is being developed in a partnership with Germany and Italy and is viewed as a symbol of transatlantic cooperation.

I remain concerned about potential arbitrary cuts to the civilian workforce at DoD. In particular, there is a provision in the bill that requires a percentage reduction in the civilian and service contractor employee workforces that is proportional to the reduction in military end strength over a five-year period. While I am encouraged that the Conference Report made some changes that will give the Department of Defense more flexibility than existed in the original bill, the final version could continue to compromise the Department's ability to appropriately size its workforce to meet the mission workload requirements and its readiness and management needs. As the Defense Department stated, ``. ... even during these periods of constrained defense budgets, we must ensure that we have the sufficient number of federal civilian personnel to meet the support needs of our military forces.

I am also disappointed that an amendment was stripped from the Conference Report which would have banned the indefinite military detention without charge or trial of Americans and lawful U.S. residents on domestic soil. Americans and permanent residents of the U.S. who are detained in the United States should be granted the right to be tried in the civilian justice system. We can and must protect our national security without jeopardizing our fundamental rights and freedoms.

I do, however, support several measures included in the final version of the NDAA. I was pleased that nearly $480 million was allocated for U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation, including $211 million for Iron Dome, reaffirming the U.S.-Israel ties on missile defense. I also support the inclusion of an amendment offered by Senator SHAHEEN, which allows Department of Defense funds to be used to allow female service members to choose to terminate a pregnancy in cases of rape.

In addition, I was encouraged that the Conference Report proposed to enhance protections for contractor-employee whistleblowers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts and the contracts of civilian agencies. Furthermore, I support the bill's critical human rights provisions, including new requirements to monitor overseas subcontractors for human trafficking.
Despite the inclusion of these important measures, the fact remains that the FY2013 Defense Authorization Bill departs significantly from the spending levels set forth in the BCA last year. It is in violation of a bipartisan agreement and understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order we have to make tough decisions on defense and non-defense spending alike. For those reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

Source