Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

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.

Source