Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and would certainly at the outset compliment the gentleman for his concern about the KC-10 and also for his remarks about the performance of the aircraft as well as the value to our country. That is not in dispute, and that certainly is not the reason I am on my feet now. But the amendment, I believe, would reserve a specific element in the Department of Defense force structure. The practice of the committee and in our bill has been to avoid protection of specific weapons systems or bases and to leave the Department flexibility as far as a path going forward, particularly as far as restructuring units, as well as retirement of programs. This language does not comport with the general concepts of this bill. I would also point out an issue similar to this relative to a transfer of an airlift wing that was in one State of this great country, and the Department proposal that it be transferred to a different State in this country was debated in committee relative to the reporting of this bill, and we had a vote on that issue, and the committee voted against interfering with the decision that the Department had made relative to their military judgment. Therefore, I would urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment with all due respect to the capabilities of the KC-10. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. The fact is the gentlewoman has mentioned this authorization is very dated. The world has changed. It needs to be reconsidered. I deeply appreciate her efforts not just today on the floor, but in committee and over the years to essentially force the issue and to ask this institution to reconsider what the authorities should be going forward. I certainly support her effort.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation as well to Chairman Frelinghuysen and congratulate him on the collegial and transparent manner in which he crafted H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations Act. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Nita Lowey and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee. Also, as I think all of my colleagues know, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, and discerning and thoughtful input by our committee staff and our associate and personal staffs. I want to thank each one of them. I would like to begin by saying a few words about the overseas contingency operations title that the chairman referred to. The committee has been placed in a very difficult position of having to provide $79.4 billion as a placeholder. Recent decisions on the post-2014 troop levels in Afghanistan clear up the major policy issue that held back a detailed budget request. Unfortunately, the clarity gained was quickly muddled by the proposed $5 billion counterterrorism partnerships fund and the $1 billion European reassurance initiative. At a time when many in Congress are rightfully looking to limit what is an eligible expense in OCO and shift activities to the base budget, these new proposals further complicate the issue. Clarity must be brought to the opaque nature of OCO, and I look forward to the debate on this during the consideration of amendments. I support the bill we are marking up today and believe it provides for our national security and the protection of U.S. interests at home and abroad. Put simply, the bill provides stability for our military personnel, maintains readiness, and preserves the industrial base. I am pleased by the subcommittee's continued efforts on sexual assault prevention and response. Specifically, the bill fully funds the budget request for the Special Victims' Counsel, continuing last year's initiative. The bill increases funding relative to the President's budget request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, suicide prevention outreach programs, and several other invaluable medical programs. Further, the bill and report carry strong language aimed at increasing cooperation between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in their ongoing efforts to develop interoperable electronic health records. Specific to readiness, the bill includes an increase of $1 billion to fill gaps in key programs to prepare our troops, including $135 million for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The bill makes investments in programs that are vital to the rebuilding and resetting of the force after 13 years of conflict. In particular, it increases funding by $720 million for facility sustainment and modernization and provides each military service with additional funding for depot maintenance. I especially appreciate the chairman's focus on encouraging DOD to meet the FY 2017 deadline for achieving fully auditable financial statements. The measure provides $8 million above the request for the Comptroller's office to improve business and financial systems throughout the Department. Continuing problems in DOD's strategic forces are also addressed in the bill, and funding is provided to address issues directly impacting intercontinental ballistic missile crews. With regard to the industrial base, I was dismayed that, in its FY 2015 budget request, the administration proposed the elimination of several longstanding general provisions ensuring that contracts followed Buy America requirements and support domestic manufacturing. I am pleased to note that the committee chose to reject the administration's inexplicable proposal to jettison these Buy America proposals. The bill also contains several other provisions and initiatives aimed at securing our industrial base, including $220 million to establish a program for the domestic development of a next-generation liquid-fueled rocket engine. Hopefully, this program will swiftly fill a very troubling void in the U.S. space launch industry. One other area of the bill I would like to highlight is the funding increase for the Humanitarian Mine Action Program. Albeit a small program, I believe its mission is of immense value. All too often, innocent civilians are the victims of explosive remnants of war. It is only right to share our military's expertise with host nations on the detection, clearance, disposal, and demilitarization of explosive ordnance. I thank the chairman in particular for his special efforts in this area. However, I would point out that there are certain aspects of the bill that give me pause. Fundamentally, these concerns have little to do with the detailed work of the subcommittee, which I believe did its very best under the constraints in which it operated; rather, the concerns stem from Congress' continued failure to confront our long- term fiscal challenges. In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Department of Defense proposed some significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, restructuring TRICARE, and the retirement of several weapons system--such as the A-10 and the Kiowa Warrior--in order to stay under the fiscal year 2015 budget cap, provide for future flexibility, and to meet the national security strategy. Having said this, one could easily point out that the administration then undercut its own efforts by planning for higher spending in fiscal years 2016 through 2019 and by submitting the disingenuously named ``Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative,'' and subsequently also submitting unfunded priority lists. Regardless, a number of the proposals the Department put forth for fiscal year 2015 do possess merit. With few exceptions, these proposals have gained no traction within Congress. Most were excluded or had language prohibiting or postponing their support in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act. I do not suggest that the administration is uniformly correct, nor do I dismiss the resultant impacts of many of these initiatives, but the alternative of staying the course and hoping for some relief in fiscal year 2016 is very wishful thinking. The sooner Congress reaches the consensus required to make the difficult decisions that are essential to deal with the reality of finite resources, the better we can provide for our national defense. In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his cooperation, his friendship and diligence. He and his staff have ensured that the Defense Subcommittee continues its tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively. I am pleased to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Again, I would point out to my colleagues that I think $1.356 million is enough, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, given the 5 minutes we were allowed to review it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate that, but the fact is there is no offset in this amendment and the cost to the committee is $600 million that is not in the bill. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the point that the gentleman is raising and certainly would associate myself with his remarks. I do believe it will be acceptable to the committee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding and would also add my comments that the A-10 is a wonderful aircraft. The B-17 Flying Fortress was a wonderful aircraft. It was replaced. The Kiowa Warrior was indispensable during Vietnam. It is being replaced. The A-10 is being replaced over a protracted period of time. In the interim, other aircraft are going to take its place until the F-35 is prepared to do its mission. The second point I would make is that the Chief of Staff for the Air Force flew the A-10. It is their recommendation to phase this plane out. The Air Force has also stated to the committee that, if given another $4.3 billion, they have a whole range of other options they would pursue before continuing the A-10 program. The final observation I would make is that the amendment is somewhat disingenuous, and I don't say that in a pejorative sense because I know that is not the intent of my colleagues, but while it would sound to our colleagues that there is no money involved in this amendment, I would propose that I would like to find $339 million that is not in the bill because you now need crews and you need fuel and you need maintenance that is not in the bill because we agreed with the administration's position. There is another $200 million that would be required over the next year for spares and modifications of this aircraft. Essentially, you are leaving the committee now in a position of $600 million by simply saying no funds shall be used to terminate this program during the coming year that aren't in the bill, and the author of the amendment and those who support it have not shown us where that money is going to come from in this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues, for the reasons stated in my opening remarks, we have to begin to make some tough decisions. There is a finite amount of money in this bill.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If the gentleman from Oklahoma would, again, yield a moment of his time, I would just suggest to the membership that I was not fully aware of the problems that existed and that have now been exacerbated until the gentleman raised it in committee. As a member of the subcommittee, I appreciate that happening, and the fact that you have now raised it on two significant occasions, I think, is going to compel the administration, as well as our colleagues, to find a solution to this very serious problem. So raising the point of order was simply to preserve that right, but I appreciate what the gentleman is doing.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma, the author, if it is the gentleman's intent to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma yielding, and I will withdraw my point of order.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I will suggest that I would find the amendment acceptable. I do believe it is largely duplicative of the general provision of section 8110 that is already found in the bill. Again, I understand the gentleman's intent and would agree with it and do believe it is acceptable to the subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. What he is doing is locking in our strategic force levels, and the fact is that the armed services bill is not yet done as far as authorization, and, essentially, the gentleman is saying that we should have 430 silos. The gentleman may be correct. Maybe we need 425 silos or maybe we need 218 silos. I don't think we should prejudge that final figure until the authorization legislation is completed. I certainly think, again, that it is limiting our options. I think any time we limit our defense options going forward that it is not good policy, and, therefore, I strongly object to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.