Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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. 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. 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 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 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. 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. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that while we are at the beginning, so to speak, of the production of the F-35, it has always inured to the benefit of this country to look to the future, to look at the next generation. And when it comes to an examination of technology and how it can be used in the defense of this Nation in the future, I don't think we should close that door. We have a resurgence in China. We have a resurgence in Russia. We have problems in the Middle East. We ought not to be taking our oar, if you would, out of the water. And so we ought to continue down this road. We are not, by doing this initial research, instituting a billion or multibillion-dollar procurement program. So I am opposed and would be happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

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. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would also point out that the committee has raised significant questions regarding duplication with service-related facilities and services by the Special Forces. More importantly--and I think this is key--we must be careful not to create or give the perception that we are treating Special Forces differently than anyone else who serves this country in uniform. Anyone who puts the uniform of the United States military on, they are all special. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to recognize Laborers' Local 81 upon the dedication of their new Union Hall in Valparaiso. Union members and leaders commemorated the event with a building dedication ceremony that was held on Saturday, May 17, 2014, at Laborers' Local 81 Union Hall in Valparaiso. In 1918, Laborers' Local 81 was chartered by what is now known as Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA). Local 81 was located in Gary until 1977, at which time it was relocated to Valparaiso. The skilled members of Local 81 have for many years excelled in their work on heavy highway, utilities, commercial building construction, tunnel construction, hazardous materials handling, asbestos removal, and much more. They place concrete for highways and install and repair sewer, water, and natural gas lines within Lake, Porter, LaPorte, and Starke counties. These outstanding laborers have played a major role in the development of communities throughout Northwest Indiana for more than 95 years and are fine examples the region's rich history of excellence in its craftsmanship and loyalty by its tradesmen. Local 81 members and leaders have demonstrated their loyalty to both the union and the community through their hard work and self-sacrifice. Due to the steadfast determination and extraordinary efforts of Business Manager and Delegate to the District Council, Mike Campbell, Local 81 is able to open its new Union Hall, which will house administrative offices, meeting areas, and a training center in Valparaiso. Mr. Campbell's enthusiasm and constant support to Local 81 and to the community of Northwest Indiana is truly outstanding, and for this, he is worthy of the utmost praise. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Laborers' Local 81 members and leaders as they celebrate the opening of their new Union Hall in Valparaiso. I want to congratulate these dedicated union members, as well as all of the hardworking union men and women throughout America for committing themselves to making a significant contribution to the growth and development in Northwest Indiana and beyond.