BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would have a restriction, and I would point out, after today's vote, this would now be the fifth restriction relative to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. While the gentleman suggests that it is not a permanent ban, it is a mantra of let's do nothing.
These are human beings, whether we want to admit that or not, and to simply continue, after 13 years, to do nothing is wrong. We are a Nation of laws.
I believe the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material.
Also, we are debating an appropriation bill, and people ought to understand that we are spending $2.7 million annually per inmate at Guantanamo Bay, which is about 35 times more than the cost of an inmate at a supermaximum Federal prison in the United States.
I would also point out that the United States has transferred 620 detainees from Guantanamo since May of 2002, with 532 transfers occurring during the Bush administration and 88 transfers occurring during the Obama administration.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out, relative to the gentleman's suggestion that we need to make sure the laws of the land are followed, that that is exactly what we do in this bill.
Chairman Frelinghuysen had an amendment in the full committee, which I supported and spoke on behalf of, given the recent transfer of Taliban prisoners by the administration, and the fact is, in section 9015 of the bill, as printed and pending, it says:
No more than 15 percent of the funds made available may be obligated until the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional Defense and Intelligence Committees with a detailed spend plan for the funds provided.
Essentially, the chairman's initiative that I supported--and the committee voted for--fences that money off to make sure the law is followed. This amendment is unnecessary.
I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the recognition.
I appreciate the thrust of the gentleman's amendment. I rise in opposition to it, however, because I think it is overly broad.
One of the concerns I have is, if it is adopted, I am concerned about whether or not technical assistance could continue to be given to contractors and subcontractors; and, obviously, given the complexity of the law, it would be helpful for them to have it, and I would not want it to be prohibited.
Additionally, the amendment would appear to interfere with the OFCCP's ability to connect outreach and, again, technical assistance under the current moratorium to help contractors and subcontractors understand their obligations under the law.
So again, I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. I am concerned that, given the broadness of the amendment, it may inhibit the type of information and assistance that these contractors and subcontractors really do need. So, for that reason, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, the gentleman has spoken much about the spiritual role of chaplains in the military. I am very concerned that the impulse here is related to sexual orientation and the limitation in serving as a chaplain in the United States military.
I would tell the gentleman at one time in my life--and I obviously took a bad turn in the road because I got involved in politics--I was in a Roman Catholic seminary. My God is a loving God. My God is a tolerant God. My God passes judgment on the goodness of a person's soul. In this day and in this world, where there is so much hate and violence and anger, I think it is very disappointing that we in public life would try to accentuate that there are differences between us that may cause us not to like each other.
Each of us seeks our God differently. We have different religions, we have different customs, we have different preferences. But it is important to find that chaplain and spiritual guide who meets those needs to help us to find that just and forgiving and kind God.
I think it is wrong to foreclose any avenue for any American, and particularly those who put the uniform of this country on and risk their lives for us and are under incredible stress. To foreclose any avenue of spiritual guidance and relief for them is wrong.
I would simply close by noting that there is a monument--Thomas Jefferson--in Washington D.C.
One of the writings of Jefferson is on the southeast portico. It says:
Laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, institutions must advance to keep pace with those times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
My vote would be a vote to have a tolerant policy in a tolerant country. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, the gentleman talks about the burden. The gentleman talks about the requirement. I would talk about our requirement to ease the burden on the American people as far as our continued dependency on fossil fuel, on overseas options as far as how we secure our carbon, and as I have said a number of times during the debate during the last 2 days, we should never foreclose options for our military. There is a purpose for this requirement and this policy because the Department of Defense is the largest entity on the planet Earth relative to the purchase of fuel, and it is a perfect way to begin to wean ourselves from some of these foreign sources.
Some argue that section 526 harms our military readiness. This is simply not the case. In July, the Department of Defense stated very clearly that the provision has not hindered the Department from purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support military missions, but it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we will need in the future.
The Department, itself, supports section 526, recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, air personnel, and marines are going to need a greater range--more options--of energy sources. In fact, the Department of Defense says that repealing this section could complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in homegrown biofuels.
I do believe that the amendment would damage the developing biofuels sector at the worst possible time for our economy. We need to create jobs, not to eliminate them. It could also send a negative signal to America's advanced biofuels industry and result in adverse impacts in rural development areas and in exports of the world's leading technology. Section 526 doesn't prevent the sale of dirty fuels, nor does it prevent Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to. Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up the makers of different types of carbon fuels with long-term contracts. Developing and bringing advanced, low-carbon biofuels to scale is a critical step in reducing the Nation's dependency on oil.
As someone who is possessed with the largest inland oil refinery in the United States of America in the First Congressional District, we are going to sell a lot of oil, but we ought to look at having a broad matrix, and the Department of Defense is a place to start, so I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comment that we should look around the world and see what is happening.
I look in the Pacific, and I am struck because of the gentleman's concern about the Department of Defense and the commander for the United States Pacific Command's pivoting to Asia. Admiral Samuel Locklear states that the single greatest threat to long-term peace in the Pacific basin is climate change. These threats increase with the demand for energy as temperatures rise but also as natural disasters happen with greater frequency, causing increased operational demands on military forces serving in stability and support roles.
With these disturbing trends documented in the most recent assessments, it would be irresponsible, I believe, to prevent the continued assessment of this real and changing threat.
I would note that no funds shall be used for the research program. What has ever happened in this country where we can't do research? What we do today is: let's not see anything; let's not hear anything; let's not learn anything; let's not research anything. If my parents took that attitude of ``let's do nothing,'' we would still be waiting for the interstate system to be built.
It is time we do something. This attack on research and inquisitiveness and on the seeking of knowledge, whether we agree on all of the facts or not, is very disturbing to me, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the heartfelt arguments and the concern of the gentleman who serves on the committee. We had a discussion of this amendment in committee, and it did fail on a voice vote.
I would agree with the gentleman when he said that the situation in Syria and that part of the world is very complicated, and that there are no good options. I can't argue that point either.
He also stated that there are significant risks if weapons are, if you would, provided, and I could not deny that.
But at some point in time, given the problems we have in that area of the world and the people who have been displaced and who are in those refugee camps, I think we ought to keep what few unpleasant options we have open, to assume a reasonable risk if, at some future point in time during the next year to year and a half, we can work to improve the situation.
So with all due respect and understanding of the gentleman's concerns, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I seek the time because I agree with the assertion of the gentleman, and that is the service that is provided by the military technicians that he is looking to exempt, I agree with every word he said. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that these civilian employees, as a condition of their employment, are a member of the unit in which they work.
My problem is there are other people who are employed by the Federal Government who also do very important work, and I would include everyone who is in the Federal service. I have always taken umbrage, regardless of who was in charge of an administration, at making distinctions between essential or nonessential employees. If you do not have an essential job, I do not know why you are working for anyone.
I find it abhorrent that we lock Federal employees out. I find it abhorrent that we malign Federal employees whoare working very hard. And, again, I agree with the gentleman as far as the value of these military technicians. I made the point when this government was shut down last October and I opposed it that people wanted to ameliorate the discomfort because the Federal Government does nothing for me, and I am also sick of hearing that. My suggestion was, not wanting to shut the government down, well, then, no Federal employee should go to work.
And I happen to use O'Hare International Airport a long time. Maybe people should sit there because FAA employees do very important work to keep us safe when we are at 38,000 feet. I think of all the civilian employees who are doing very important medical work at our hospitals treating those who are wounded and damaged in body and mind because of their service. I think of Federal firefighters who have lost their lives, who have been injured fighting fires. I think of FBI civilian employees who risk their lives every day. I think of those in the Border Patrol who risk their lives every day. I think of civilian employees at the Coast Guard, and obviously I could go on.
So the one concern I have with the gentleman's amendment is we should not be discerning and choosing. We should either be all inclusive or exclusive. And the fact is we would be better spent doing our work, getting our budgets done, and never furloughing any Federal employee again, all of whom are essential.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, essentially, for two reasons.
One, I believe that the gentleman's amendment is moot because we are not a signatory to the convention. The United States Senate has not ratified the treaty so funds could not be expended for it.
Secondly, I do think it sends a very bad signal. The gentleman alludes to the sophistication of mines that are used today compared to say a generation ago. I don't think it is a secret that the United States does use such equipment.
But I would point out, and it is a different program within the bill--and I thank publicly the chairman, as well as the members of the subcommittee and the full committee, for increasing funding for Humanitarian Mine Action Program. It is not a large program, but its mission is of immense value. All too often innocent civilians are victims of explosive remnants of war, not just new sophisticated U.S. equipment. It is only right that we share our expertise with others, and I acknowledge it is a different program.
But the chairman and others have alluded to our visit to Afghanistan, and still remember a picture of two brothers--one didn't have a leg and the other was blind because of a mine. So I don't want to send negative signals internationally. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but, unfortunately, I think it is inferred and, therefore, am opposed to his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this debate will mirror one that took place earlier today.
The fact is I would talk about flexibility. The gentleman talks about the costs involved. I think, when you develop new products, new technologies, there is going to be a cost, as far as that research and development.
I will point out that the comparisons, as far as some of the costs, perhaps do not fully factor into the issue of transportation and how some of those fuels get on those ships and in those airplanes in remote parts of the world.
The gentleman also alluded to the flexibility on foreign soil, where you don't have a gas station handy for some of the energy that those troops may need, so I would also reiterate that the commander for the Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, did state that the greatest threat to long-term peace in the Pacific region is climate change.
I certainly do think that alternative fuels, given the fact that the Department of Defense is the largest consumer on the planet Earth, is worth abiding by, and therefore, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make just a couple of points.
The gentleman noted that the last BRAC in 2005, if I am correct, is not going to save money until 2018. That implies it is going to save money in 2018. The concern I have is we do have to think about the future budgets for the Department of Defense, and sometimes we have to make hard decisions in years like 2014 so that we can begin to accrue savings in the out-years.
I mentioned in my opening statements and more than once over the last couple of days--but I feel compelled to do it again--that I do have a concern about Congress' continued failure to confront our long-term fiscal challenges relative to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense proposed significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, the restructuring of TRICARE, changes in commissaries, the retirement of several weapons programs--the A-10, the Kiowa Warriors, and others--to provide for future flexibility and to meet our national security strategy.
A number of the proposals--I am not saying they all have incredible value--do possess merit, but with few exceptions, these proposals have not gained any traction in Congress. Most have been excluded in language, prohibiting or postponing the start in the most recently passed National Defense Authorization Act. I certainly don't dismiss the results and impacts on many Members' congressional districts, but, again, I don't think we should foreclose any options to consider in order to possibly save money in the out-years.
I would make the observation, although I am not going to vote against the gentleman's amendment, that we have got to stop saying ``no'' to everything. We have got to start saying ``yes'' to some things, but, unfortunately, for the last 2 days, all we have been doing is saying, ``Don't do anything.''
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT