[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1169-E1170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 23, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2397) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2014. I 
commend Chairmen Rogers and Young and Ranking Members Lowey and 
Visclosky for crafting a bipartisan bill that both strengthens the 
security of our nation and provides for vital programs that benefit our 
men and women in uniform and their civilian colleagues.
  I am particularly encouraged that the bipartisan amendment I offered 
with Rep. Mulvaney, Rep. Coffman, and Rep. Murphy was adopted and 
included in final passage. Our amendment ensures that the account to 
fund our operations in Afghanistan and overseas contingency operations 
will not become a slush fund for unrequested defense spending. 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, and the underlying bill had originally 
provided $5 billion more than our military leaders say is needed for 
overseas contingency operations (OCO). Our

[[Page E1170]]

amendment eliminates $3.5 billion of the excess funds. It provides 
sufficient funds to fully meet the President's FY 2014 request for the 
war in Afghanistan and other overseas contingences, as well as an 
additional $1.5 billion to address any shortfalls in Guard and Reserve 
Equipment Modernization.
  I am also pleased that this legislation fully funds the Sexual 
Assault and Prevention Office (SAPRO) at $156.5 million and includes a 
new provision establishing dismissal or dishonorable discharge as a 
minimum mandatory sentence for individuals subject to a Uniformed Code 
of Military Justice court-martial. In addition, I strongly support an 
amendment that Rep. Speier introduced--and which was adopted--that 
provides increased funding to train investigators to properly 
investigate sexual assault related offenses.
  I also support Rep. Bonamici's amendment in support of preserving the 
34 C-23 Sherpa aircraft operated by the Army National Guard. These 
aircraft are vital to the Maryland National Guard and I am pleased that 
this amendment was adopted. I also strongly support the provision that 
fully funds the request of $220.3 million for Iron Dome and includes 
$173 million above the request of $95.8 million for the Israeli 
Cooperative Missile Defense Programs.
  Lastly, I support the amendment which would require the Executive 
Branch to receive Congressional approval before taking any military 
action in Syria. This reinforces the role of Congress in making 
decisions that would put our men and women in the Armed Forces at risk.
  With regards to Congressman Amash's amendment, I have submitted a 
separate statement for the record to address that vote.
  While I voted for this defense bill, I do so with reservations. This 
bill deprives deserving employees of the Department of Defense of a 
modest cost-of-living adjustment by denying them of a 1 percent COLA 
proposed by the Administration. It is unreasonable to ask federal 
employees, who have already disproportionately sacrificed for deficit 
reduction, to bear the burden again.
  This legislation also includes a misguided provision 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. Unfortunately, Representative Moran's 
amendment to lift the prohibition on using funds to transfer or release 
any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay was rejected. This 
legislation also contains provisions which ignore DoD recommendations 
and blocks the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary 
military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options 
are readily available.
  While I support the funding level contained in the Defense 
Appropriations bill, I strongly oppose the overall House Republican 
Budget. That budget would dramatically cut our investments in 
education, scientific research, infrastructure, Head Start, Meals on 
Wheels, and programs to provide and supply for the most vulnerable. I 
strongly support President Obama's position that we will not boost 
defense spending at the expense of the other investments needed to 
support economic growth. After all, our national security is directly 
tied to the strength of our economy and putting Americans back to work.
  For these reasons, I support President Obama's threat to veto final 
passage of this legislation unless it ``passes the Congress in the 
context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and 
enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, innovation 
and national security for our economy to compete in the future.'' 
However, it is my hope that these issues will be resolved in conference 
with the Senate and that I will be able to support its final passage.

  Statement of Representative Chris Van Hollen regarding Congressman 
   Amash's amendment H. Amdt. 413 to the FY14 Department of Defense 
                     Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397)

       We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all 
     Americans. While we must ensure that our nation has the 
     necessary and appropriate tools to protect itself, we must 
     also ensure that those tools do not undermine the very 
     liberties we seek to protect. I have always been a staunch 
     defender of the 4th Amendment, and have long opposed the 
     broad language in Section 215 of the so-called PATRIOT Act 
     (along with the similarly broad language in Section 702 of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). In fact, I voted 
     against the reauthorization of Section 215 in 2011 and 
     Section 702 in 2012. I am pleased that others are now joining 
     the conversation in seeking to amend and improve these 
     sections.
       I voted against the Amash amendment because I did not 
     believe that it was the most comprehensive and effective way 
     to address this important issue. I have opposed Section 215 
     because the ``tangible items'' authority and the 
     ``relevance'' standard are overly broad and subject to 
     potential abuse. These definitions need to be narrowed. Also 
     problematic is the fact that recipients of Section 215 orders 
     are required to wait a year before challenging a 
     nondisclosure order. Additionally, I oppose the provision 
     that allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose 
     judicial challenges to a Section 215 order. Finally, when 
     Congress reauthorized this section in 2005, it made permanent 
     the authorization for the use of National Security Letters 
     (NSLs), which are surveillance tools used to obtain certain 
     types of communications and financial records. I opposed this 
     measure, and have advocated for amendments that would 
     reintroduce sunsets (i.e. established dates upon which these 
     authorities expire so we can hold agencies accountable) for 
     NSLs and require Inspector General audits on the use of NSLs 
     and other ``tangible item'' orders. The use of these orders 
     should also be publically reported to increase transparency 
     and oversight.
       I am interested in reforming Section 215 and its 
     legislative language in a manner that addresses all of these 
     issues, creating a workable solution that can serve as a 
     foundation for our national security efforts while upholding 
     the 4th Amendment protections in the Constitution for this 
     and future administrations. Unfortunately, the Amash 
     amendment did not address any of these important issues. 
     Rather, it focused on a narrow issue that has been the 
     subject of much misinformation. I worry that this piecemeal 
     approach to amending this law could both hamper our national 
     security efforts in the near-term while creating inconsistent 
     policies in the long-term because of laws enacted at 
     different periods of time on different legislative vehicles 
     (such as an appropriations bill). I am also concerned about 
     unintended consequences; for example, under the Amash 
     amendment, the FBI would have been unable to obtain an 
     individual order for records from an associate of someone 
     under investigation for terrorism activities. This is an 
     example of the policy implications that can arise when 
     complex issues are addressed in a hasty, non-deliberative 
     process.
       My biggest concern since the disclosure of particular 
     aspects of these programs by Edward Snowden has been with 
     respect to the standards in place that control how and when 
     the government can request access to the content of 
     Americans' communications. I asked pointed questions on this 
     issue at recent intelligence briefings on these programs and 
     I am confident that any access to the content of 
     communications within a program authorized under Section 215 
     does require an individualized warrant from a judge. These 
     warrants are not issued unless the government has shown 
     probable cause that the identified individual is an agent of 
     a foreign power or a potential terrorist.
  I will continue my efforts to improve Section 215 (along with the 
other problematic sections of the PATRIOT Act and FISA). We must 
introduce more accountability, transparency, and checks and balances 
into these laws. That is why I am a co-sponsor of the Ending Secret Law 
Act (H.R. 2475) and the Presidential Appointment of FISA Court Judges 
Act (H.R. 2671). These bills would make important reforms to the FISA 
Court by shining a light on the secretive rulings it issues that 
significantly construct or interpret the law, along with ensuring that 
the judges who sit on that court are appointed by the President and 
subject to a public confirmation process in the Senate (currently, they 
are only chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). There 
should be no institution in our country with the power to create secret 
laws.
       Finally, I am pleased that the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
     Oversight Board finally has a confirmed Chairman (David 
     Medine) and has announced plans to release a report on the 
     legality of the NSA FISA programs and their impact on civil 
     liberties. We pushed for the creation of this Board to serve 
     as a crucial check to the government's authority with respect 
     to these activities. I had been discouraged by the lack of 
     operational progress of this Board since its establishment by 
     Congress in 2004, and it is my hope that this Board will now 
     begin to more forcefully exercise its oversight role (through 
     its access to classified documents and FISA Court opinions).
       As a Member of Congress who opposed the reauthorization of 
     Section 215 of the so-called PATRIOT Act, I will continue to 
     press for comprehensive changes to this and other provisions. 
     However, we must do so in a way that addresses the real 
     problems with these programs, and in a manner that doesn't 
     have unintended consequences that could unnecessarily 
     compromise our abilities to prevent terrorist attacks on 
     Americans.

                          ____________________