On the recordApril 29, 2015
I just want to say that there has been precedent to use OCO money on similar projects for similar purposes in previous years. Specifically, the Bahrain portion that is going to the U.S. Navy, there is a pier replacement, ship maintenance support facility. We used OCO funds in fiscal years '11, '12, and '13 for similar purposes then. I should also note, too, that if we were to strike the OCO funding from this bill, the missile defense in Poland, the Aegis missile defense complex, would also be affected. Again, we had used OCO money for similar purposes in fiscal year '15. I would argue that there is precedent for using OCO funds for the purposes contained in this bill. It is appropriate. I do not agree with the characterization that it is a scam, but it is used as precedent. I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
