The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY2014” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E952-E953 on June 20, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY2014
______
HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
The NDAA offers Congress an opportunity to provide the resources we need for our Armed Forces and a chance to address some of the significant challenges that must be confronted--like the mechanisms for confronting cases of sexual abuse in the military. While I appreciate the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our servicemembers and our national defense, this bill contains a number of serious flaws. These include providing over $5 billion in OCO funding that the Pentagon did not request, imposing funding restrictions that would prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and establishing an unnecessary missile defense site on the East Coast.
I was particularly disappointed that a bipartisan amendment I introduced--which would have ensured that the FY2014 funding for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences is at the level the DoD and military leaders say is necessary for the mission--was not adopted. The funding level in the National Defense Authorization bill for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for Fiscal Year 2014 is set at $85.8--$5 billion more than the $80.7 billion the Defense Department says is necessary to achieve the mission. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey both testified before the House Budget Committee that the FY2014 OCO level of $80.7 billion requested in the President's budget was sufficient to meet our military's needs. At a time of fiscal constraint, we simply cannot afford to provide more funding than our military leaders say is needed.
Part of the reason some may have hesitated to support the amendment was due to claims that it would have eliminated funding for National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment modernization. But, that was simply not true.
As we continue to search for a way to turn off the sequester by replacing it with a more rational deficit reduction package, we shouldn't allow the OCO designation to be used as a loophole to get around spending caps that are written in law as the defense authorization bill did. That is not a solution to the sequester. Instead, we should find a balanced deficit reduction plan to replace sequestration so that we can provide adequate funding to maintain a military that is second to none and make the investments in education, scientific research, and infrastructure necessary to keep our economy strong, which is the foundation of our security. Unfortunately, the House Republican budget takes the opposite approach. It cuts even more deeply into vital investments in our kids' education and in the investments in innovation and technology that help grow our economy. It cuts the part of the budget that funds education and vital medical research by 19 percent below the sequester. And despite claims to want to strengthen our embassy security in the aftermath of tragedies like Behnghazi, it slashes State Department operations by over 15 percent.
Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased to see that this bill incorporated initiatives that begin to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. Unfortunately, the measures adopted were inadequate to meet the challenge. I was especially disappointed that Congresswoman Jackie Speier was denied the opportunity to offer an important amendment to strengthen accountability and improve the process.
I also share many of the other concerns that were outlined in the President's Statement of Administration Policy. This includes a misguided provision in the bill which would continue funding restrictions that prohibit the construction or modification of a detention facility in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees, and would constrain DoD's ability to transfer Guantanamo detainees, including those who have already been designated for transfer to other countries. In addition, I strongly object to a requirement in this bill which would limit the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set the country's nuclear policy.
I am also opposed to sections 232 and 233 in this bill, which authorize the establishment of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. These provisions disregard the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and seek to tie the President's hands in determining military requirements in other parts of the world. Finally, this bill contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations and block the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options are readily available.
This year's NDAA does authorize much needed funding for vital programs that benefit our men and women in uniform, their civilian colleagues, and our veterans. It is my hope that many of my objections to this legislation will be resolved in Conference with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage.
____________________
