[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 2685, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 23, 2015

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2685, 
the FY16 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
  While I commend the House Appropriations Committee's support for our 
servicemembers and our national defense, I have serious concerns about 
the way this bill funds our military operations. As was the case with 
last month's National Defense Authorization Act, this appropriations 
bill uses the Overseas Contingency Operations budget as a backdoor 
loophole to get around sequestration by funding $38 billion of the 
Pentagon's regular base budget activities with war funds--a blatant 
abuse of the budget process. Just last year, House Republicans 
criticized the abuse of the OCO loophole in their budget report, 
stating that it ``undermines the integrity of the budget process'' and 
that the Budget Committee would ``oppose increases above the levels the 
Administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out 
operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are 
war-related.''
  Moreover, in following the strategy of the Republican budget, this 
legislation begins the process of locking in sequestration for 
nondefense programs, which will have a devastating impact on 
investments critical to the nation. We need to get back to the table to 
have an honest debate about our budget and renegotiate the funding caps 
for both defense and nondefense. Only then will we be able to provide 
the necessary resources for our national security needs and to ensure 
we keep the nation's commitments to education, research, 
infrastructure, and other crucial drivers of economic prosperity.
  I also have serious concerns with a number of other provisions 
contained in this legislation. I strongly object to a measure which 
provides $600 million to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' 
Syrian rebels. As I have urged repeatedly, this initiative could have 
unintended negative consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal 
of defeating ISIS. Unfortunately, an amendment offered to strip this 
funding was not adopted.
  I strongly oppose sections 8100, 8101, and 8102 of this bill, which 
prohibit funding for the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to both 
the United States and abroad. While we must pursue and prosecute 
terrorists that seek to do us harm, this facility--and the conduct 
within its walls--have only served to hurt our nation in the eyes of 
the world. It is simply un-American to hold individuals without 
charging them for a crime. I was disappointed that amendments offered 
by Congressman Nadler to strike these sections from the legislation 
were defeated. I also object to the inclusion of unrequested funding 
for many weapons systems, including $1 billion for additional Army 
vehicles and weapons systems that the Pentagon said was not necessary.
  I appreciate that this bill contains a Sense of Congress stating that 
this body has a Constitutional duty to debate and decide when to 
authorize the use of military force in the fight against ISIL. I 
support many aspects of the military operations the President is 
currently conducting against ISIL, including the use of American air 
power against ISIL targets and in support of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, 
as well as the deployment of limited numbers of American troops to help 
train and equip those forces. However, it has now been ten months since 
the President sent troops into Iraq and Syria and four months since the 
President sent Congress a proposed AUMF to combat ISIL. The President 
himself said he wanted to revise and ultimately repeal both the 2001 
AUMF and 2002 AUMF yet we continue to rely on them as justification for 
our ongoing military operations. We owe it to our troops and the 
American people to pass a narrowly tailored AUMF that provides the 
authority necessary to degrade and defeat ISIL without dragging the 
United States into another unnecessary ground war in the Middle East.
  For those reasons, I was disappointed that two amendments offered by 
Congresswoman Lee to sunset the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
Force Against and Al-Qaeda and associated forces and the 2002 
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq were not adopted. 
In addition, an amendment offered by Congressman Schiff to prohibit the 
use of funds for Operation Inherent Resolve in the absence of an AUMF 
to combat ISIL after March 31, 2016 was defeated.
  Despite my opposition to the overall legislation, I was pleased that 
a bipartisan amendment introduced by Rep. Massie and Rep. Lofgren to 
limit funding for many backdoor programs within Section 702 of the FISA 
Amendments Act passed. I also support the increased 2.3 percent pay 
raise for our troops and their families. Finally, I support the 
inclusion of full funding of the President's request for U.S.-Israel 
Iron Dome missile defense program.
  While this bill does provide much needed funding for programs that 
benefit our men and women in uniform, ultimately, it falls short in too 
many areas. It is my hope that many of my objections will be resolved 
in Conference with the Senate but I can't support it in its current 
form.

                          ____________________