Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. If supplied with a copy of his amendment, I would appreciate it very much.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that we do not have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. I would also point out to the Chair, if I would be given permission to, that this is the second time in the first hour of debate we have not been supplied with an amendment offered on the floor. I would certainly appreciate the courtesy of making sure that we are noticed as far as the content of these very important amendments, so we can give them the appropriate consideration that they are due. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern, but would make three points to our colleagues. The first is that the committee is absolutely aware of the problem that is taking place along the borders of our country. Both relative to the problem that the gentleman has highlighted, as well as for this Nation's defense, I would point out to my colleagues that, in the underlying bill, we provide $1.356,227 billion for the procurement of 87 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, which is an increase of $119.226 million and eight aircraft above the President's request, so there is a recognition by the committee and in the bill that there is a need, and we filled that bill. I would also point out that, relative to drug interdiction, the committee recommendation is for $944.687 million to deal with this problem; and I would, again, point out the gentleman's concern, that that is an increase of $124 million above the administration's request. The last point is that the gentleman is taking it out of operation and maintenance, departmentwide. I spoke in my opening remarks about the increases we have tried to provide to make sure our troops are prepared, maintained, trained, and ready. It is a mistake to take over $35 million away from our troops, who need that money for training.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank both gentlemen for raising this issue and offering the amendment. I strongly support it.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would echo the sentiments about the importance of public-private partnerships and including teaching and clinical hospitals in finding ways to provide the best care possible to our servicemembers. Mental health disorders are a growing trend in our military, and we must use all resources at our disposal to address the demand for treatment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and for the colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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. 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. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would reluctantly add my voice to the chair. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern for wounded warriors, his sensitivity, and the fact that he is asking for, if you would, a fresh set of eyes. The chairman talked about his concerns about the offset. I would simply inform my colleagues that we have had a number of studies. The Office of Inspector General has completed seven different studies, but perhaps more importantly, to the gentleman's point about an independent study, is that the Government Accountability Office has also done two. I would remind our colleagues that the GAO is a creature of the legislative branch and is not captive to the Department of Defense. Perhaps the emphasis here--and, again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and what he is trying to get at--is to implement some of the findings in these nine studies, particularly the findings from the Government Accountability Office on behalf of the legislative branch and see that they are implemented.

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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I believe that we need to set conditions to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. This includes retaining the option to transfer detainees from this facility elsewhere. It is in the United States' national security interest to do so. Guantanamo has become a rallying cry. It serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increases the will of our enemies to fight while decreasing the will of others to work with America. Part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced idea that the facility would be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, the continued operation of this facility creates an impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law. There is no reason that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo after more than one decade. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has escaped custody. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would add my voice to the chairman's, and what I found most heartening is the hope that there is going to be success. Because often we want to see the success, but you certainly have made me hopeful that if we made the proper investment and have the appropriate levels of funding for the grants, we can see improvement, and for that I thank you very much.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of laws. Again, I reiterate my objection and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am always cautious about people who have suggested in the past that we would balance the budget if we eliminated waste, fraud, and abuse. But the gentleman is correct; there are occurrences of waste, fraud, abuse, or inefficiencies. The investment the gentleman is talking about I think is a wise one, to make sure that we do protect the taxpayer's dollar, ferret out those monies that are ill spent to make sure it doesn't happen again, and to make sure that those who are doing the right thing are protected in the performance of their duty on behalf of the Government of the United States. So I appreciate the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I also want to join the chairman and thank you for offering the amendment. You raise a number of good points, and it is a very good program. I appreciate your attention to it. Thank you so much.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?