[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    IN OPPOSITION TO THE FY15 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION (NDAA) 
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 16, 2014

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Conference Report for the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
  For the last 53 years, Congress has passed--and the President has 
signed into law--an annual Defense Authorization bill to provide 
critical resources our Armed Forces need to maintain the best military 
in the world. While I recognize that there are many important programs 
that are authorized in this legislation, this NDAA also contains many 
major policy decisions affecting our country and our armed forces. 
Unfortunately, Congress was not allowed to consider a single amendment 
dealing with very consequential policy issues to this 1648-page bill.
  The NDAA Conference Report also authorizes funding to deploy an 
additional 1,500 troops to Iraq. I support the core pillars of the 
President's plan to fight ISIS, including the use of American 
surveillance, intelligence assets and air power against ISIS targets in 
Iraq and Syria and the arming and training of the Iraqi Army and 
Kurdish forces to stop the ISIS advances in Iraq. I also believe we 
should supply weapons to those groups in Syria, such as the Syrian 
Kurds, who have consistently fought ISIS, and whose priority is to 
defeat ISIS. However, I believe the Congress should make it clear that 
American ground troops should not be used in a combat role in Iraq or 
Syria.
  The President has asserted that the 2001 Authorization to Use 
Military Force (Public Law 107-40) provides the Executive with broad 
authority to take all military action necessary in both Iraq and Syria 
to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. While the President has 
indicated that he does not intend to deploy U.S. ground forces into 
combat, there is nothing in current law to prevent him from doing so. 
Congressman McGovern, Congressman Jones, and I asked the House Rules 
Committee to allow us to offer an amendment to ban the use of U.S. 
forces in ground combat in Iraq, with the exception of rescue 
operations for Americans. Unfortunately, this request was denied.
  The NDAA Conference Report also provides a two-year authorization to 
deploy American troops to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' 
Syrian rebels. In September, a majority in Congress voted to 
temporarily authorize preparation for such a mission for a short period 
ending December 11th. This bill extends that authorization for two more 
years and is written so that the four defense committees can 
exclusively decide how much funding should be allocated for this 
mission. Congressman Dent and I led a bipartisan letter to Speaker 
Boehner urging him to give us the opportunity to vote on that 
provision. We also presented an amendment to the House Rules Committee 
which would have presented this authority. Once again, we were not 
provided the opportunity to vote on this measure.
  My primary concern with the proposal to arm the so-called 
``moderate'' Syrian opposition is that it will have unintended negative 
consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal of defeating ISIS.
  First, the primary objective of these Sunni Islamist fighters is the 
defeat of Assad and his Alawite dominated regime--not the defeat of 
ISIS. Since the start of the war there have been shifting alliances 
among these Sunni Islamist forces that include the al-Qaeda affiliate, 
Jabhat al-Nusra, different elements of the Free Syrian Army, the 
Islamist Front, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, among others. Their common 
cause and overriding objective is defeating Assad. Indeed, the 
commander of the Syria Revolutionaries' Front, Jamal Maarouf, one of 
the most militarily proficient commanders of the FSA, recently said 
that, ``It's clear that I'm not fighting against al-Qaeda. This is a 
problem outside of Syria's border, so it's not our problem. I don't 
have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside 
Syria.''
  While there is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, he does not 
pose the same threat to the United States as ISIS, and his forces have 
recently been battling ISIS. At this point, arming fighters whose 
primary purpose is to weaken Assad has one unintended result--
strengthening ISIS. Indeed, I fear that the arms we provide to the so-
called Syrian opposition are more likely to end up in the hands of ISIS 
or al Nusra.
  I also have significant concerns about other measures in the NDAA 
Conference Report. I was disappointed that it includes a provision to 
continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of 
detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo 
detainees. It also removes the prohibition on transfers of Guantanamo 
detainees to Yemen that was included in the SASC-reported bill.
  Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, it does authorize 
many important programs. I was pleased that the Women's Small Business 
Procurement Parity Act, S. 2481, was included in the final Conference 
Report. This language provides much needed guidance to assist federal 
agencies in reaching the goal of awarding 5 percent of federal 
contracts to women-owned small businesses.
  Today's bill also restores more than $818 million in cuts made to 
military readiness accounts. This will allow our military to invest in 
critical repairs and upgrades to many mission-critical facilities such 
as electrical and fire protection system upgrades.
  I am also encouraged that this bill builds on a number of provisions 
passed in last year's NDAA and continues to address the problem of 
sexual assault in the military. In particular, it would eliminate the 
so-called ``good soldier defense'' in court-martial proceedings, 
prohibiting a soldier from using good military character as a defense 
in a sexual assault case. These proceedings should be based on the 
specific evidence presented in the case.
  Finally, I am pleased that the bill contains many long-delayed public 
lands conservation measures to protect more than one million acres of 
public land, including 245,000 of new wilderness.
  While I support each of these measures, the fact remains that without 
the amendments I proposed, the bill could create a very slippery slope 
that would drag American troops even more deeply into Syrian war and 
renewed conflict in Iraq. For those reasons, I regretfully am unable to 
vote in favor of this year's NDAA Conference Report.

                          ____________________