Rep. A. Smith's Statement on Opposition to NDAA

House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith released the following statement announcing his opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act:

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the Budget Control Act caps are extremely damaging and as long as Congress fails to enact a solution, a variety of key national priorities will continue to suffer. I understand that finding a compromise to remove the caps has been elusive, but that does not justify the use of gimmicks to protect one part of the budget, and shortchange other portions that are vitally important to the future of our country. Even worse, this short-term work-around does not enable the Department of Defense to undertake long term planning or provide the certainty that they can count on such funding in the future.  I have great respect for Chairman Thornberry, but I cannot vote for this bill under these circumstances.

The National Defense Authorization Act has never been perfect. And it will never be perfect. What matters most is that, on balance, this bill represents a commitment to our national security, and to the individuals who we ask to stand watch and execute the missions necessary to ensure our security.  In today’s dangerous and unpredictable world, we must ensure that our military has the resources and tools that it needs to meet the threats of today as well as tomorrow.

However, that is just one piece of the puzzle. Maintaining our national security requires more than a strong military. If we do not have a strong economy, and build a solid foundation for future generations, then we cannot ensure our national security in the long term. If we stop investing in the American people, then we are undermining our national security and cutting short the promise of America. Unfortunately, the National Defense Authorization Act sends the message that we are only willing to fulfill half of that promise.

The White House has also made it clear that they will veto this bill as well as other appropriations bills that reflect a similar approach. Congress is wasting time with this dead-end approach. In the coming months, it is my hope that the House, Senate and President can come together and strike a compromise to remove the budget caps and move forward with a responsible approaching to budgeting.

Smith Offers 2017 BRAC Amendment

House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith offered an amendment to the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act designed to allow the Department of Defense to find important savings that can be applied to urgent readiness and training requirements yet distinguish it from the previous round in important ways.

“Given that the last BRAC round transformed more than it closed and has cost more and saved less than original estimates, members of Congress have justifiable reservations about giving the Department of Defense authority to conduct another round. But this should be a congressionally led process. We have a stake in the outcome,” said Ranking Member Smith. “With these concerns in mind, this legislation will create a transparent, deliberative, and independent process. In order to protect military readiness and other important programs, Congress should provide authority for the next BRAC round and should adopt these reforms to strengthen the process and avoid the problems that plagued the previous round.”

A New BRAC Process

In light of current budget conditions, DoD cannot afford another “transformation” BRAC similar to the 2005 round. The next BRAC must be focused on generating savings. To ensure this, the proposal requires the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that the primary objective of a new BRAC round would be to eliminate excess infrastructure and reconfigure the remaining infrastructure to maximize efficiency. In addition, any realignments or changes to infrastructure must yield net savings within five years of completing the action, savings that could be applied to other readiness requirements sooner.

To control cost and scope, the proposal would require DoD to submit master plans for each recommendation transmitted to the independent BRAC commission. These master plans would include the costs, scope, and timing of each construction activity. As the commission adjusts recommendations, the master plans would also be adjusted. Once a closure or realignment is approved, the master plan associated with each closure or realignment would be the binding authority for expending funds from the BRAC account. Any proposal to carry out a construction activity not included in the master plan would require a specific authorization from Congress.

The proposal would strengthen the independent commission and improve transparency in the BRAC process. To do this, the commission would be required to certify that it has sufficient staff to review the Secretary of Defense’s recommendations, and additional time to consider public comments, receive testimony, and conduct additional site visits. In addition, the information used by the Secretary of Defense to develop recommendations would be made easily available to the public for review, including the unclassified assessment data on the condition of facilities and infrastructure, the environmental baseline of known contamination and remediation activities, and the standard rules used to calculate annual recurring savings.

“The Department of Defense estimates it has excess infrastructure capacity, and this excess takes money away from training, maintenance, and operations.  In the current budget environment, where important programs are being cut across the board, this is a waste of scare resources,” continued Smith.

Military Appropriations Includes Review of Roads

Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted 416-1 to pass H.R. 4486, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015.

Language originally offered by Rep. Denny Heck (WA-10) was included in the report accompanying the bill. Heck’s language calls for changes to how the Department of Defense allocates funding for road construction near and on military installations.

In the bill now sent to the U.S. Senate for consideration, the DoD is directed to review potential road construction and expansion programs appropriate for the Defense Access Roads program, the only existing DoD program that provides funding for public highway improvements in and around military installations.

The level of congestion around our area is unsustainable for both military readiness and economic activity, said Congressman Denny Heck of Washington’s 10th District. I will continue to work closely with the committee to identify ways to upgrade the transportation infrastructure around bases such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord as soon as possible.

More than 60 years old, the DAR program was created when bases were expected to be located in relatively undeveloped regions, and no changes have been made to the program since 1978. The designated funding process forces highway improvement projects to compete with other construction projects like barracks, mission facilities, and maintenance buildings. Military installations located near urban areas often fail to qualify for DAR funding due to restrictive eligibility criteria.

The Committee on Appropriations states in its report:
                                                                                               
Defense Access Roads project timeline.—The Committee is very concerned about the lack of use of the Defense Access Roads program within the Department of Defense. The Committee has heard of many worthwhile road construction/expansion projects in and around military installations that are in great need of funding. These projects would provide a great benefit to the installations and the surrounding communities. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to review needed projects around military installations as well as a timeline on when those projects will be completed and report back to the Committee not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act. If the Department cannot provide a timeline, they should explain how the program can be changed to meet those requirements.