Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would again point out, as I did in my opening remarks, that the current organization and command structure of the U.S. Pacific Fleet works well. It provides us with the necessary ability to oversight. Despite the gentleman's representations, and I would not suggest he is misrepresenting the facts, I am not aware that our committee was approached by the Chief of Naval Operations for a reorganization of the Pacific Fleet command structure. I am not suggesting they are the fount of all wisdom, but they have not brought that to this committee's attention. I would, therefore, respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I don't know how much more scientific evidence we are going to need before we understand the reality that there is a change in our climate and that we are going to have to accommodate that change. Today, I am not talking about coal or carbon. I am talking about accommodating the change that is taking place today on the planet Earth. We have one individual who is running for President of the United States who claims that this is hogwash and let's bury our heads in the sand. Nevertheless, one of the properties he owns has asked for money to build barriers that are justified because of climate change. In setting aside the raw politics of this position, I would also point out that we have had the Chief of the Pacific Command, Admiral Locklear, come in. I wouldn't suggest his being an ideologue in any way shape or form but someone who was charged with the command of the Pacific Fleet, which we had a conversation about earlier today, and greatly concerned about the adverse consequences these changes have on the United States Navy. We have had a hearing with the Director of National Intelligence, who is charged with the supervision of the 17 intelligence agencies of the United States of America. He testified that extreme weather, climate change, and environmental degradation exacerbate and spark political instability and humanitarian crises. It is imperative that we do not hamstring our military, which is defending our interests in a changing global environment, by adopting this gentleman's amendment. I strongly oppose it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated that his amendment differs from the previous one just offered and debated. I would suggest it is a difference without a distinction. I would suggest that the solution to the concern that the gentleman has is, if we did not starve and cut and slash and pillage and burn the budget of Health and Human Services every year, maybe they would have the financial resources to house these minor children. We are in a position where the bill that is being debated on the floor has about one-half of all discretionary domestic spending in this country. Obviously, that is where the gentleman has gone. But the fact is if he, in fact, believes that it is Health and Human Services that ought to be addressing a greater amount of the shelter needs, if they had the adequate resources, perhaps they could reach out and do it. In the meantime, again, I continue to live in a humane nation that provides humanitarian relief worldwide. I think we can do the same in the United States for minor unaccompanied children. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do rise in support of his amendment. The fact is, the Congress of the United States today excels at one thing. We excel better than anybody else at one thing: doing nothing. We do nothing better than anybody else. We should do something, and I do believe we ought to look ahead. The Department is asking us to take a longer view, and let's take a look at this. The Department has indicated that they believe they have 22 percent excess capacity. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe it is much less than that. But I think we ought to have a serious examination of it and find moneys in a constrained environment for readiness, for training, for necessary procurement. So I appreciate the gentleman offering his amendment, and I do support it.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, there is no question, I think, from anyone in this Chamber that the Members of the United States military and the Department of Defense are the finest human beings on planet Earth. Their primary charge is to keep our country safe and secure. But I also think that we take great pride when they go above and beyond that particular charge that we have given them under the Constitution. And when there is a disaster in the country of Haiti, who do people call on for help but members of the Department of Defense and the United States military. When there is flooding in Bangladesh, who is called upon? Members of the United States Armed Forces to help in a humanitarian crisis. When you have problems and earthquakes in Japan, who do they reach out to? Members of the United States military for humanitarian assistance. We have concerns in Pakistan and tragedies; who reaches out to members in the Armed Forces of the United States for humanitarian assistance but the Government of Pakistan. You have a typhoon in the Philippines, and who is called into action, not militarily, but from a humanitarian and relief standpoint? Members of the United States military repeatedly because we are a humane Nation. What we are talking about with this gentleman's amendment that I strongly oppose is temporarily housing unaccompanied minor children who find themselves in a tragic circumstance in the United States of America. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement is required by law to provide shelter, care, and placement. Because the number of unaccompanied children has spiked in recent years, it is difficult for HHS to find temporary housing for all of them. As long as there is no impact on DOD military activities, the Department should be allowed to identify facilities in the United States to provide the same type of humanitarian assistance to minor children that we do in the Philippines, Pakistan, Japan, Bangladesh, and Haiti. I live in a humane country that reaches out to help people who can't help themselves, and I think we should allow the United States military to do that in the United States of America when it does not impact their military operations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, following up on part of the discussion, we have had 443 people convicted of terrorist-related charges held in U.S. prisons, and as has already been indicated, they are very secure because no one has escaped. I don't think it is necessarily wrong, even if a person is evil, that they have some modicum of legal rights under the United States of America. And you have 63 people being held in Guantanamo today for over 10 years with no trial. I just don't think that is according to the constitutional principles of this country. But what I find upsetting is the prohibition on surveys, assessment, and reviews, the search for knowledge. There may be no better way to deal with the detention issue than keeping Guantanamo open. I would acknowledge that to the gentleman. There may not be a better way. But if we don't search for knowledge and information and the truth, we will never know. What is the harm in asking? I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sorrow and great respect that I rise to remember United States Military Academy (USMA) Cadet Mitchell Alexander Winey for his patriotism and dedication to serving his country. His untimely death occurred on June 2, 2016, at Fort Hood, Texas, while participating in Cadet Troop Leader Training. Cadet Winey was a member of the USMA Class of 2018, B Company, First Regiment. Mitchell Winey, born in Valparaiso, Indiana, graduated from Chesterton High School in 2014, where he served as class president for four years. Mitchell excelled in his studies and was an honor roll student who belonged to the National Honor Society. In addition, he was nominated by his peers to participate in the Natural Helpers Program during his high school tenure, which was a testament to his helpfulness and kind-hearted spirit when it came to serving others in his community. An accomplished athlete, Mitchell was also the captain of his high school soccer team and enjoyed skiing and hiking. Later, at West Point, Cadet Winey went on to become a founding member of the newly-formed freestyle ski team. On July 2, 2014, Mitchell reported to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He was a rising leader in his class and had an exemplary academic record as an engineering management major. Cadet Winey's outstanding academic performance earned him recognition on the Dean's List for four semesters, and he also earned the Army Physical Fitness Badge three times while participating on his company's soccer and ultimate Frisbee teams. Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen Jr., Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, depicted Winey as immensely proud to be a cadet and one who exemplified the ideals and values of West Point in all he set out to do. For his service, Cadet Winey received the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal. Friends and teachers describe Mitchell as a gracious and enthusiastic young man who excelled as a student leader. His friends will remember him as talented, intelligent, hardworking, and adventurous. Residents in the community are remembering Cadet Winey as a dedicated American hero. Mitchell leaves behind a beloved host of family and friends. He is survived by his loving mother, Margo, and proud father, Tim. Mitchell also leaves to cherish his memory his dear sister, Paige. He will be greatly missed by his grandparents, Shirley Winey and Ronald Groff, and by many other friends and family members, as well as an appreciative, yet profoundly saddened, community. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring a fallen hero, USMA Cadet Mitchell Winey. Cadet Winey sacrificed his life during training for service to his country, and his death comes as a great tragedy to our nation. Cadet Mitchell Alexander Winey will forever endure as a hero in the eyes of his family, his community, and his country. Thus, let us never forget the ultimate sacrifice he made to preserve the ideals of our country as a free and democratic society.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the purpose of colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman's remarks and would also recognize Lucas Wood, who is on our staff as a fellow from the Department of Defense this year. Also, the chairman and I express our gratitude to the associate members of our subcommittee for each of the members of the subcommittee. I do join with the chairman. I appreciate him enumerating the names of all of the staff. I would suggest, given the difficult circumstances I alluded to in my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, they legislated this year with elegance, under very difficult circumstances and the country owes them a debt of gratitude. I appreciate the chairman recognizing them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by conveying my deep appreciation, as well, for Chairman Frelinghuysen's steady leadership of the Defense Subcommittee. His commitment to this subcommittee's tradition of cooperation and bipartisanship is unwavering, and it is a pleasure to be able to work with him. I also would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and the other members of the subcommittee for their very good efforts. Additionally, as we all know, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, and discerning and thoughtful input of our committee staff and associate staffs. The chairman has well and clearly articulated the major elements of the bill and report. Under less than ideal circumstances and unsettled conditions, he and the subcommittee staff have, again, demonstrated their talent and acumen in putting together this legislation. There are many highlights to the bill. However, I will use my time during general debate to discuss the circumstances and conditions that led to the proposal to use nearly 27 percent of the overseas contingency operations, OCO, accounts to fund base Department of Defense programs, which gives me pause as an appropriator. It was as an appropriator that I opposed the Budget Control Act of 2011 and its arbitrary spending caps that only address one-sixth of the Federal budget equation. In each session of Congress, we should be making discrete decisions on how we annually invest our discretionary dollars. Setting inflexible spending targets for 10 years is, in my opinion, nonsensical. I believe we need to invest in our roads, ports, drinking water infrastructure, universities, and our Nation's defense. We need to generate more resources, and we need to have a fulsome discussion of our entitlement programs. My assumption is that there are very few people in Congress who believe that the Federal Government is currently making enough of a long-term investment in our Nation and its interests. It was as an appropriator that I voted for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which mitigated the BCA caps on base discretionary funding and capped OCO spending for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. I, obviously, would have rather seen the complete repeal of the act. But, nevertheless, I supported it because it provided some clarity to the appropriations process for the balance of this Congress. As such, we were able to wrap up the fiscal year 2016 process, and with a top line number for fiscal year 2017, I was guardedly optimistic that the House would have predictability this year. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was far along in its 2017 process when the OCO to base strategy--conceived to placate some on other committees--was settled upon as the strategy for the House majority. While this bill technically does not violate the caps established by the BBA for base defense programs and OCO, it is hard to argue that this bill was assembled under what passes for normalcy in this Congress. And there is no doubt that the chairman and the subcommittee members and staff made smart investment decisions in executing the $15.7 billion in OCO to base funding strategy. However, I am troubled with the circumstances that compelled the subcommittee's action. First and foremost, the fiscal year begins October 1, 2016, not May 1, 2017, and it is the responsibility of us holding office in the second session of the 114th Congress to execute the 2017 fiscal year appropriations process. In order to make OCO funding available for base programs, our bill only provides enough funding to fully support the warfighter until the end of April 2017, which is 5 months before the end of the fiscal year. This is intended to force the next administration and the next Congress to pass a supplemental in calendar year 2017 to support ongoing combat operations. It is not the responsibility of the 115th Congress to finish a predetermined fraction of our work, and we should not be dismissive of the difficulties created. To assume that there will be smooth sailing for a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring is very problematic. We do not know who will be in the White House. We do not know who will be the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense. And we do not know the composition in the next Congress. And as we have clearly seen from the Zika virus debate and, before that, Hurricane Sandy, supplemental appropriations bills are not without controversy. Additionally, in making the $15.7 billion in cuts to the OCO budget request, the committee has had to make some assumptions on the pace of combat operations between now and May 2017. While Chairman Frelinghuysen exercised great care and caution, there is not much wiggle room in the interim. If the OCO spend rate were to increase for any reason in an uncertain world, Congress and a new administration would have to act quickly to pass a supplemental in early 2017. If that supplemental were not timely, the Department would likely be forced to reprogram or transfer base dollars to OCO, which shortchanges other priorities, negates the committee's funding levels, and still requires a supplemental to backfill both base and OCO while not violating the BCA caps. Will said supplemental be funded by offsets from resources within the other 11 appropriations bills? Adding to the uncertainty, the House majority is going it alone with this strategy. To date, it has been rejected by the administration, the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as the full Senate. While those institutions are not infallible, I fear that if the House majority insists upon heading down this path, we are looking at an impossible conference process. Putting concerns about uncertainty aside, I further believe that the OCO to base strategy abdicates our discretion--Congress' discretion--to the Department of Defense in executing the remaining OCO funding. In order to free $15.7 billion, certain appropriations in OCO were subject to reductions. These reductions were done at the account level, not at the program level. For example, Navy O&M in the OCO title was reduced by $2.9 billion from its requested level. The Department has discretion on how to apply that $2.9 billion reduction across 10 programs under that account. I believe that should be our discretion. A final concern I have--and one expressed in prior years--is that we should eliminate the reliance on OCO funding in the first instance and shift activities to the base budget. It is increasingly difficult after 15 years of war to argue that this operational tempo for our military is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our Nation and our interests. This subcommittee has correctly begun to limit what is an eligible expense in OCO, but under the act and this latest proposal, we could take a step back. For example, this bill proposes to increase end strength by 52,000 troops above planned reductions for the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. The chairman alluded to it in his opening remarks. I absolutely agree with him that we need new personnel, but this additional force structure costs $3 billion in 2017. What remains unsaid is if you look out for the next 5 years, it will also increase spending by $30 billion that is not budgeted for. In closing, I have taken some time describing my concerns with the circumstances that impact less than 3 percent of the total bill. But the manufactured uncertainty introduced by these circumstances diminishes the likelihood that this committee and the Congress will complete its work on time. It is a mark of the talent of Chairman Frelinghuysen and our staff, their commitment to our troops and our Nation's defense, and their seriousness of purpose, that they have done so much good to ameliorate the problems caused and highlighted in my remarks. I look forward to working with Chairman Frelinghuysen and the Members of this House as we advance the process over the next several days and complete the task before us. I also look forward to the debate on amendments. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by conveying my deep appreciation for Chairman Frelinghuysen's steady leadership of the Defense Subcommittee. His commitment to this subcommittee's tradition of cooperative bipartisanship is unwavering and it is a pleasure working with him. I also would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and the other Members of the Subcommittee for their efforts. Additionally, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, discerning and thoughtful input of our committee staff and personal staffs. I want to thank Rob Blair, Sherry Young, Walter Hearne, BG Wright, Brooke Boyer, Adrienne Ramsay, Allison Deters, Megan Milam, Colin Lee, Cornell Teague, Matthew Bower, Rebecca Leggieri, Chris Bigelow, Steve Wilson, Joe DeVooght, and Luke Wood. The Chairman has well and clearly articulated the major elements of the bill and report. Under less than ideal circumstances and unsettled conditions, he and the Subcommittee staff have again demonstrated their talent and acumen in putting together this legislation. There are many highlights to the bill. However, I will use my time during general debate to discuss the circumstances and conditions that led to the proposal to use nearly 27 percent of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts to fund base Department of Defense programs, which gives me pause as an Appropriator. It was as an Appropriator that I opposed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and its arbitrary spending caps that only address one-sixth of the federal budget equation. In each session of Congress we should be making discrete decisions on how we annually invest our discretionary dollars. Setting inflexible spending targets for 10 years is nonsensical. I believe we need to invest more in our roads, ports, drinking water infrastructure, universities, and our defense. We need to generate more resources, and the need to have a fulsome discussion of our entitlement programs. My assumption is that there are very few people in Congress who believe that the federal government is currently making enough of a long-term investment in our nation and its interests. And it was as an Appropriator, that I voted for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), which mitigated the BCA caps on base discretionary funding and capped OCO spending for Fiscal Years (FY) 2016 and 2017. I obviously would have rather seen the complete repeal of the BCA, but nonetheless, I supported the BBA, because it provided some clarity to the Appropriations process for the balance of the 114th Congress. As such, we were able to wrap up the FY 2016 process and, with a number for FY 2017, I was guardedly optimistic that the House would have predictability this year. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was far along in its FY 2017 process, when the OCO to Base strategy--conceived to placate some on other Committees--was settled upon as the strategy for the House Majority. While this bill technically does not violate the caps established by the BBA for base defense programs and OCO, it is hard to argue that this bill was assembled under what passes for normalcy in this Congress. And there is no doubt that the Chairman and Subcommittee staff made smart investment decisions in executing the $15.7 billion in OCO to Base funding strategy. However, I am troubled with the circumstances that compelled the subcommittee's action. First and foremost, the fiscal year begins on October 1, 2016, not May 1, 2017, and it is the responsibility of those of us holding office in the 2nd session of the 114th Congress to execute the FY 2017 appropriations process. In order to make OCO funding available for base programs, our bill only provides enough funding to fully support the warfighter until the end of April 2017, which is five months before the end of the fiscal year. This is intended to force the next administration and the next Congress to pass a supplemental in calendar year 2017 to support ongoing combat operations. It is not the responsibility of the 115th Congress to finish a predetermined fraction of our work, and we should not be dismissive of the difficulties we created. To assume there will be smooth sailing for a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring is problematic. We do not know who will be in the White House, who will be the civilian leadership at DoD, nor the composition of the next Congress. And as we can clearly see from the Zika Virus debate, and before that Hurricane Sandy, supplemental appropriations bills are not without controversy. Additionally, in making the $15.7 billion in cuts to the OCO budget request, the Committee had to make some assumptions on the pace of combat operations between now and May 2017. While Chairman Frelinghuysen exercised care and caution, there is not much wiggle room in the interim. If the OCO spend rate were to increase for any reason, Congress and a new Administration would have to act quickly to pass a supplemental early in 2017. If that supplemental were not timely, the Department would likely be forced to reprogram or transfer base dollars to OCO, which shortchanges other priorities, negates the committee's funding levels, and still requires a supplemental to backfill both base and OCO while not violating the BCA caps. Will said supplemental be funded by offsets from resources within the other 11 Appropriations bills? Adding to the uncertainty, the House Majority is going it alone with this strategy. To date, it has been rejected by the Administration, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the full Senate. While those three are not infallible, I fear that if the House Majority insists upon heading down this path, we are looking at an impossible conference process. Putting concerns over uncertainty aside, I further believe the OCO to Base strategy abdicates our discretion to the Department of Defense in executing the remaining OCO funding. In order to free up $15.7 billion, certain appropriations in OCO were subject to reductions. These reductions were done at the account level, not at the program level. For example, Navy O&M in the OCO Title was reduced by $2.9 billion, from its requested level of $6.8 billion. The Department has discretion on how it will apply that $2.9 billion reduction across the tens of programs under that account. A final concern I have, and one expressed in prior years, is that we should eliminate the reliance on OCO funding in the first instance and shift activities to the base budget. It is increasingly difficult after fifteen years of war to argue that this operational tempo for our military is a contingency and not the new normal in defending our nation and our interests. This Subcommittee had correctly begun to limit what is an eligible expense in OCO, but under the BBA and this latest proposal we would take a step back. For example, this bill proposes to increase end strength by 52,000 above planned reductions for the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. And I agree that we need more personnel, but this additional force structure costs $3 billion in FY 2017 and is paid for with OCO to Base dollars. But, we defer the tough decisions. This is particularly true when recognizing the fact that BCA caps are scheduled to lower defense spending by $2 billion in FY 2018. An increase in end strength creates a tail of spending in future years. The DoD estimates that the troop levels funded in the bill will increase spending by $30 billion over five years. That is $30 billion that is not budgeted for, but $30 billion that our Committee will be expected to pay for. In closing, I have taken some time describing my concerns with the circumstances that impact less than three percent of the total bill. But the manufactured uncertainty introduced by these circumstances diminishes the likelihood that this Committee and the Congress will complete its work. It is a mark of the talent of Chairman Frelinghuysen and our staff, their commitment to our troops and our nation's defense, and their seriousness of purpose, that they have done so much good to ameliorate the problems caused by this approach. I look forward to working with Chairman Frelinghuysen and the members of the House to advance the process and complete the task before us. I look forward to the debate on amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.