Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would simply say that the gentleman from Virginia noted that there is supposition and unknown in the future, and that is certainly correct. What is known is that we are a nation of laws, and our military protects this country so that we can continue to be governed by those laws. I, for one, happen to think that the indefinite detention of any human being without a trial is violative of those laws, and that that is a foundational principle of our Nation, and we ought to conduct ourselves accordingly. I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and would acknowledge the gentleman from Texas' legitimate concern. I would associate myself with the chairman's remark, but make one important addition, and that is the chairman has been adamant that we be very, very careful about our relationship with Pakistan, and the bill recognizes difficulties we face. I would draw the Member's attention to section 9015 that prohibits funds to Pakistan if the government is engaged in activities that present a concern to the government of the United States. I appreciate that the chairman insisted on that language. That is included in the bill.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's motivation in offering this. In a sense, the three of us are agreed given the skepticism that has been expressed here today. I would also add that I do believe this institution needs to have a resolution that defines with some specificity what our projection of force should be as to the disposition of our military personnel and assets. Certainly, I am grievously disappointed for those countries in that region in their lack of clarity and purpose. Also, in using, if you would, a religious theme, I was taught that we should have hope in the future, and my concern is, if we cease this training program for those who want a change in government, for those who want to do the right thing in Syria, they will lose what shred of hope still exists. Principally, for that reason, I join with the chairman in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I do appreciate the gentleman's motivation.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to express my best wishes for the gentleman's mother. It is hard to oppose a gentleman who went to Purdue University. I know he is a very smart individual. I have my other colleague here from Minnesota. I have spoken to our colleagues on the previous amendment. I think people understand my position. I simply would add my voice to the chairman and emphasize, this is a very tough problem, and we ought to maintain as large a degree of flexibility as we can. I appreciate the chairman's remarks and associate myself with them.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's concern relative to Russia and his desire to make sure that they do abide by the existing treaty. Certainly, I would acknowledge that they have invaded the country of Ukraine. They control a quarter of that country's industrial production, and as the gentleman has indicated, are very concerned about their violation potentially of the treaty that exists. My concern is that the gentleman's amendment is premature. He is absolutely correct that the authorizing committee in this body did pass legislation that you are trying to address with your amendment. The other body has not yet acted. Additionally, I would point out--and again, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct--that DOD is considering a range of options. You have enumerated at least three of them, I think, very correctly. Again, I think it is premature, given the fact that we are still, as a country, considering what options should be utilized to deal with this very serious question that the gentleman raises. Given the fact that we don't have direct authorization and we are considering options, while I agree with the intent, I would have to object to the timing of the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.

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. Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest, again, we have a new government. I certainly think their concern for ethics, as well as care in investment, is worth taking that last good chance to give them a last good chance. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan for a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a comment. As the chairman indicated, this is a very complicated situation. Because lives are at stake, it is all the more reason, I think, to support the gentleman's amendment to force this body, if you would, to very carefully define what our purpose is, what our policy is, and how we should go about its implementation. I do support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for yielding time.

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.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I simply would add my voice to his in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It is certainly my belief and understanding that the Defense Logistics Agency is executing an acquisition program that maximizes to every extent possible long-term contracts and multiple award strategies that limit variability to limit each vendor's economic risk. The gentleman mentions small manufacturers. Some of the largest companies in the country are involved at the Department of Defense, which is fine. They do wonderful work for our country. We ought to make sure that we protect the prerogatives of small businesses to make sure that they are on equal footing for these contracts so that you have that limit on economic risk for all vendors, big and small. I appreciate the gentleman's objection, and I would join him in it.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We have a Constitution in this country. It contains language talking about the right to be assisted by counsel, and there are many other provisions relative to the protection of individual human beings from the State. We are a very large country with approximately 2 million people in the military. I think one of the great foundational issues in the United States is to protect any human being from that incredible amount of power so that you avoid abuse. We have seen enough instances of abuse because of allegations of terrorists, many of whom are very real, mean, despicable people; but to now say that no one should have protection to make sure that that incredible power of the state is used justly and wisely is absolutely wrong. We have had any number of Members, our colleagues here yesterday and today on this bill, offering amendments because they believe the Department of Energy made a mistake on uniforms for airmen, the Department of Defense made mistakes as far as whether or not we should move helicopters from one base to another, we have made mistakes as far as how we should have lifesaving rescue missions for various aspects of the Department of Defense positioned throughout our great country. What if, God forbid, all these allegations that the Department of State may make mistakes from time to time would actually have an impact on a human being, whoever they are, and that in the last instance, we don't give them one iota of protection that we give to murderers and rapists and burglar and arsonists in this country? I think it is absolutely wrong for the gentleman to offer this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, while I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, I wouldn't express it, if you would, that I will oppose his amendment, but I do want to express some very serious concerns. The concern I have is that we do need to begin to think about future budgets for the Department of Defense; and as I have mentioned repeatedly tonight, we are going to have to start making some hard decisions, and changes will have to be made and cuts will have to be made. I am very concerned about Congress' continued failure to confront the challenges that we face at the Department of Defense and simply saying no, no, no, and that we shouldn't even consider any possible changes. The Department of Defense has continuously proposed significant initiatives to provide for future flexibility to meet our national security strategy, and Congress has said no, no, no. I simply do not think we should foreclose any options to consider in order to possibly, God forbid, save money in the outyears. A BRAC round is a reasonable approach that provides Congress a chance to say yes or no, and I would make the observation again that we have got to stop saying no to everything that the Department of Defense considers. In this case, I am not even aware there is a proposal for a BRAC, but let's say no anyway. I think we have to stop doing it. 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. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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. 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. Will the gentleman yield?