Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

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 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.

Source