[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 18, 2014

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4870) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 4870, the FY2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  I commend the House Appropriations Committee's continued support for 
our servicemembers and our national defense. However, I have serious 
concerns with a number of misguided funding provisions in this year's 
DoD Appropriations bill. We have to budget based on reality, instead of 
writing a blank check and holding onto as ``much of the stuff and the 
training as possible'' and hoping that ``some miracle happens and we 
get money next year that we don't have now,'' as Chairman McKeon put it 
last month. As a result of this line of thinking, this legislation 
avoids making many tough choices.
  As was the case with last month's Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 
4870 provides billions of dollars in funding that the Department of 
Defense neither requested nor needs. This includes funding for 
additional EA-18G aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 
Vehicles, and unrequested upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank. It also 
blocks the Administration's ability to retire aging and unnecessary 
military aircraft, including the C-130 AMP, when less expensive options 
are readily available.
  I also strongly object to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of the 
bill, which continue funding restrictions on the construction or 
modification of detention facilities in the United States to house 
Guantanamo detainees. I was also disappointed that two amendments were 
adopted on the House floor which would bar the use of funds to transfer 
Guantanamo detainees to Yemen and other foreign countries. As the 
President made clear in his State of the Union Address earlier this 
year, we cannot wait any longer to lift the remaining restrictions on 
detainee transfers and close down this facility once-and-for-all.
  This bill also provides $79 billion for Overseas Contingency 
Operations even though we have not received a detailed OCO budget 
request. There is no justification for this amount. The bill holds back 
85% of the funding from being obligated until the Pentagon submits a 
detailed spending plan. But this is no safeguard because the Pentagon 
still determines virtually all of the details of how the funding is 
spent. Congress has no opportunity to provide input through regular 
order into how much we should spend for war operations and on what. We 
should take notice that $79 billion is larger than every other 
appropriations bill except for two--Defense and Labor, HHS, Education. 
We need to provide at least some minimum level of oversight and control 
over such a large sum of money.
  Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, I was happy that a 
bipartisan amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren was adopted that would 
limit funding for many backdoor programs within Section 702 of the FISA 
Amendments Act. This was a provision that was initially in the USA 
Freedom Act before being stripped in its final passage and would 
prevent the NSA from being able to search government databases for 
foreign communications content of American citizens without a warrant. 
The passage of this amendment will strengthen the privacy and civil 
liberties of all Americans. Today's bill also continues to address the 
problem of sexual assault in the military and fully funds the 
President's request for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Programs.
  I also want to make clear my views with respect to the amendments 
relating to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against 
the al Queda elements responsible for the attacks of 9/11/2001 and the 
2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The President has 
announced his intention to end combat operations in Afghanistan at the 
end of this year, and to keep a residual force in Afghanistan for an 
additional year subject to a Status of Forces Agreement. There is also 
the question of how the existing use of force authorization applies to 
military action outside of Afghanistan, such as in Yemen. Given the 
changing circumstances, it makes sense to end it or to revise the 
current authorization and adapt it to the current situation.
  As for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, it should 
be terminated. We have withdrawn our troops from Iraq, and we should no 
longer provide the Executive Branch with a blank check for future 
military action there. That does not mean that the President could not 
seek Congressional authorization for future military action in Iraq or, 
if the conditions apply, exercise his constitutional authorities as 
Commander in Chief. However, I supported the amendment to prohibit the 
use of funds in this bill for combat operations in Iraq because I don't 
think there is a sound case for putting American troops in combat and, 
in the absence of such a limitation, there is no check on the unlimited 
use of force in Iraq given the current 2002 authorization to use force 
there.
  Finally, I want to say a word about the Gosar Amendment. This 
amendment was a blatant effort to exploit fear and misunderstanding. 
There is no intention to provide Iran, Syria, Hamas, or ISIS with any 
military assistance. I would strongly oppose any such move. However, 
the United States, with the support of the State of Israel, has at 
times provided different forms of assistance to the Palestinian 
Authority to enhance security and fight terrorism. By including the 
Palestinian Authority in the list of entities that should be prohibited 
from receiving assistance, the amendment was an obvious example of what 
is known around here as a ``gotya'' amendment. It is time to stop 
playing those political games.
  It is my hope that many of my objections to the Defense 
Appropriations bill will be resolved in Conference with the Senate and 
that I will be able to support its final passage.

                          ____________________