Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's statement before the floor and for his bringing the issue to the Members' attention. As you frankly point out, not only for the constituency you represent but whether it was in any of our districts, as you also rightfully point out, this is a national problem. It tends to be forgotten because it is not seen visually by the average constituent. It is a very serious health and environmental problem, and I do appreciate your raising it during this particular debate.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask how much time remains for both sides, please.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join in opposition to the amendment in the strongest possible terms. I certainly respect the position of my colleagues on the other side of this argument, but I do remind my colleagues that the CBO estimates that this program is going to cost somewhere between $102 and $107 billion. You are absolutely correct. This is a very expensive program, and we ought to be very, very careful. Given the tremendous financial resources that we will be required to modernize or replace the U.S. nuclear delivery systems and weapons over the next two decades, it is imperative that Congress begin to make tough decisions now and not set up segregated funds. Unfortunately, this fund is a means to avoid those tough decisions. Firstly, the fund in no way solves the problem of where are we going to get the money. It is not going to make the next generation of ballistic missile submarines any cheaper. It simply shifts the burden for paying for their construction from the Department of the Navy to the entire Department of Defense. I categorically disagree with the amendment's sponsor relative to this replacement program and the suggestion that it should exist outside the existing Navy shipbuilding account. The sponsors are correct that the funding for that shipbuilding account has been relatively flat in recent years. However, if the Ohio class replacement and the 300-ship Navy are priorities of this Nation and consistent with our national defense strategy, then we ought to pay for both in a transparent manner by increasing the resources in the shipbuilding account and not resort to setting up independent funds. Further, the sponsors indicate that this is a national priority, and I would not argue that point. These systems play a very important role in our nuclear deterrence, so do our long-range bombers and the weapons that they carry.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I would just point out to all of my colleagues that we are on page 9 of a 163-page bill. This bill deals with the national security of this country. It contains $578,656,000,000, and we have already received two amendments that have been offered on the floor that were not made available to us. I would hope that this does not continue to be a practice during the coming debate on the remainder of the bill given the gravity of the bill, the subject matter, and the amendments, themselves. I would ask all of the Members to have the courtesy to make sure both the majority and the minority have their amendments in a timely fashion and, certainly, before we begin 5 minutes of debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. I would ask for that civility on behalf of all of the Members. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sablan

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise to ask which of the three amendments I have before me is the one that we are now considering in the House of Representatives.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's deep concern over the tax dollars that have been, if you would, wasted--is probably the most polite term I can think of--in some of the infrastructure investment in Afghanistan and would not in any way argue that point. The gentleman mentions the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. He and his office have been in mine, the chairman's, the committee, and there is no question that the gentleman makes a very, very important point about making sure that those funds we are spending, despite the best of intentions, be spent carefully. I would note to my colleagues that we do have within somewhat recent time, the last year or so since August, a new government in place in Afghanistan. The administration has made a decision to maintain troop levels at their current position given that change of government and, if you would, after all of the loss of life, the suffering, and loss of treasury for the last 14 years, to give that nation one last good chance. I rise in opposition, essentially, to do that for Afghanistan and to give them that last good chance for these few remaining significant projects.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, to close the debate.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. That is my understanding as well.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentlewoman from California for bringing this to our attention and, particularly, given the fact that my father is a Naval veteran and 99 years old. So I understand the circumstances of what you speak, and we do look forward to working with you on this issue as we move forward with the legislation. Thank you very much.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I believe the committee would be delighted to accept your amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would associate myself again with his remarks and objection to the bill. We go to great pains on the subcommittee to protect the privacy of the American people, and I would agree with the assertions the chairman has made. I appreciate him yielding to me.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I do recognize the very tough and dangerous job that local enforcement officers have, every last one of them, and what an important job they do. I certainly have been active over my career in Congress working with the Department of Defense to transfer necessary equipment to law enforcement agencies. But I would agree with the assertion of the gentleman that we do have to make a distinction with some of these types of materials between civil law enforcement and military action.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for the committee in suggesting that we accept the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the fact that he wants to exercise care, as we do on the committee, to make sure whoever is trained is someone who is, if you would, a person of good intent, as opposed to someone who is not. I appreciate the gentleman's concern and for his offering the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I join in support of her amendment. As she indicated, more than 14 years have passed. The United States withdrew their large troop presence and marked the end of combat operations in Iraq since then. Security operations for Afghanistan were transferred to the Afghan National Security Forces in June of 2013. The basic mission of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has been to train those forces, including the Afghan Army. I think the gentlewoman made a very good point. She and I may not agree on what that resolution and authority should look like in the end, all the more reason for all of us collectively, both parties, to have a fulsome debate on that issue.