Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would note to the gentleman from California that, with the recent concerns regarding security clearance processes for the Department of Defense and intelligence communities, I appreciate his bringing to our attention that the Department can increase the timeliness and quality of investigations and reinvestigations by using the Defense Personnel Security Research Center tools.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again, I would not be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment but would want to make the observation, given the observation I made in my opening comments, that I do wish she had chosen a different account for the offset.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would begin my remarks by suggesting that I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's concern and her commitment to make sure everyone who has taken that oath of office and put on the uniform of the United States of America receives the health care benefits they deserve and that they have earned. But I would point out, as I have on a number of occasions this evening, that we have got to start looking ahead and begin to make some very difficult decisions. I would quote again from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that has noted that over the last decade, rather than getting larger and more expensive, the military has just grown more expensive. This reality makes our future choices even more difficult, and it is imperative that Congress joins with the Department in working through these decisions in an arm's length relationship, but also as a partner. The Department has made recommendations, one of which we are debating at this moment, that are very difficult decisions to have to make. On the other hand, we have to begin to not reflectively reject these recommendations out of hand. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do with her amendment, but she does rightfully describe it as saying that no funds shall be used to implement an enrollment fee. Is that enrollment fee 25 cents? Is that enrollment fee $1? Is that enrollment fee $2? Is that enrollment fee $250 for an individual and $500 for a family? We are going to have to consider the pressure that the budget is under. The gentlewoman has indicated that the Department has reprogrammed money, and that means that, in fact, costs have not gone up. The fact is I do believe that the Department has, if you would, underexecuted and overrequested moneys in past years. The subcommittee mark in the bill we are debating tonight cut $400 million from the request of $15.8 billion based on the execution history. We would not have done that if we thought we had endangered anyone's health. And in fact, these costs are going up. The cost of military medical care has risen almost by triple in the past 12 years, rising from $19- to $56 billion. If the increase continues at this rate for another decade, coupled with sequestration, military health care could consume close to 20 percent of all defense spending. According to a report published by the Congressional Budget Office entitled ``Long-Term Implications of the 2013 Future Years Defense Program,'' the annual cost to the Department's health care program could grow from $51 billion in fiscal year '13 to $65 billion in 2017 and $90 billion by 2030. If we continue to block enrollment fees for TRICARE For Life, defense funding for this program will place other programs at risk. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that pay and benefits for each Active Duty servicemember grew by 57 percent in real terms between 2001 and 2012, or 4.2 percent annually. I am not suggesting our servicemembers do not deserve adequate compensation for the risks they take in the defense of this country, but we have to understand what the growth of those costs means for the overall budget and the future implications. Operation and maintenance costs per Active Duty employee grew by 34 percent. I oppose the amendment respectfully because I am worried that if we don't address the rising cost of health care now there will be even a smaller pool of resources to make our military ready in the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this is the first instance that my friend and colleague from Indiana and I are participating in a debate on an amendment on the House floor, which is why I respectfully and regretfully have to oppose her amendment, as well-intentioned as it is. I do not believe that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. 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 ever escaped custody. But we're told we cannot bring these detainees to the United States for trial or custody. And we are told in three other instances in the bill that we cannot close Guantanamo. But I think the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first instance was a misplaced idea that the facility could be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law. With this amendment, now we would have a fourth restriction within this bill, and I think that is not the best policy for this country to pursue. For that reason, respectfully, I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment, and would reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would agree with his assertion that we do have civilian command of the Department of Defense and the United States Navy; and, God bless the United States Navy, they follow orders. But also having dealt with the Navy for some number of years as a member of this subcommittee, I would suggest to my colleagues, if the Navy had reservations or had some concerns, we would have had a whiff of that objection and concern wafting from the Potomac to this particular building, and I have not sensed that myself. I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. We have had a number of amendments in this vein this evening. Again, I would allude back to some of my earlier comments that we have proposals and discussions and consideration taking place, and I don't think it's our duty to stop all of that from happening. The fact is, none of these weapons have ever been used in the United States or elsewhere on the planet Earth. I would hope, as an institution, we would take this much time to consider the asymmetrical threats that have occurred against this country and its citizens and our allies across the country, such as the attack on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the events of 2001. I think about the instability and the strategic challenges we face now in Egypt, in Syria, in Libya, in North Africa; the continuing challenge of Iran, which supports terrorist organizations with regional and global aims; the effort that we are going to have to put into the prioritization of an Asia-Pacific region focus, with a particular emphasis on China and North Korea; and the instantaneous and continual attack by cyber against our Nation and our assets. Again, as far as deliberation and consideration, I don't think we should simply be here all evening saying no, no, no. The President obviously, if there is any further reduction according to a treaty, would have to have that ratified through the United States Senate. So I do oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. As he mentioned, I do appreciate the passion that the author of this amendment has brought to this. Obviously, there have been problems, and it is incumbent upon this country to make sure that this is an arm's-length and adult relationship that is, in the end, beneficial to our Nation. So I certainly appreciate his objective but am opposed to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to block funds for our military to participate in any exercise in which China participates as well. The Chinese President confirmed last month in meetings with President Obama his navy's attendance to participate in the rim of the Pacific, known as RIMPAC, in 2014. An invitation to participate had been extended to China during then-Secretary of Defense Panetta's visit to that country in September of 2012. RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise, where 28 countries and more than 40 ships and submarines work together. In 2012, not all participants were our traditional allies. Russia and India, for example, were participants. I believe the amendment is shortsighted and attempts to place an unneeded stumbling block in the path of a relationship that is tenuous. I would suggest that the Secretary would not have extended the invitation if the Department and the United States Navy did not feel that there would be a benefit to be gained by these exercises with Chinese participation. I refuse to believe, as a Member of the United States Congress, that the Department would take such a position. The United States gains maritime knowledge and renewed relationships with other navies of the world and considers participation in this exercise as crucial to their mission. RIMPAC participation has gained an ever-greater meaning with the Defense Department's rebalance to the Asia Pacific, and I do think that this amendment should not be adopted by the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would, first of all, want to suggest that I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi raising the issue relative to the Guard, as well as my colleague from the State of Florida, the Guard that protects us internationally as far as our military and international threats, as well as takes care of us at home. The gentleman mentioned, given their portion of the country, that it is hurricane season. It is tornado season in the Midwest. It is flood season in the Midwest. It is earthquake season every day in the State of California, and we have wildfires out west. The Guard does terrific work. I am very proud of the fact that, although Indiana has continued to decline relative to other States, and is now only the 16th largest State by population in this great Republic, the Indiana National Guard is the fourth largest Guard unit in the United States of America. And it's not just numerical; it is the quality of the men and women who serve, just as in the States of Mississippi, Florida, and throughout our country. But I would, again, reference back to the observations I've made on all of the furlough amendments that have been made tonight. Everyone who does civilian work, whether it be at the Department of Defense or any other agency of this government, does important work; and we ought not to make that distinction. The gentlemen who have spoken in favor of this did vote for the Budget Control Act that did create sequestration, that did create this problem. I would suggest that what we ought to do is comprehensively begin to solve this problem and not move chairs around on this particular deck. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Section 9114 of the bill specifies the certification required of the Secretary of Defense in order to execute the coalition support funds reimbursement to Pakistan. The Secretary of Defense must certify that Pakistan is cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism operations, not supporting terrorist activities against the U.S. or Afghanistan, taking measures to curb the export of IED materials, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials. As mentioned earlier this evening, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It is a gray world. But maintaining that relationship is essential. It has helped the United States make progress against terrorism. And Pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission. In June of 2012, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan by reopening the ground lines of communications. I certainly regret that previously they had been closed. But this has eased tensions with the U.S. and improved logistical support for our troops. I do think withdrawal of assistance at this time is likely to polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government, generally, and I don't think we need to aggravate a very sensitive relationship that can, in the future, be more productive to the United States. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).