Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman acknowledging and yielding me time. I rise in support of the amendment. There is no question of the sacrifice being made by our troops. We, as Members of the Congress of the United States, ought to clearly define the purpose of their sacrifice. The authority being used today was written in 2001. The world has fundamentally changed. That act talked about using all necessary and appropriate force against the persons or entity associated with the September 11 attack. I do think it is our responsibility to balance the powers of the executive under the Constitution and have that fulsome debate. If it was adopted tomorrow morning, it would have an effect on funding. On the best day possible, this bill does not become law until October 1. That gives us plenty of time. I appreciate the chair yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I spoke just previously on the past amendment, and I will not repeat myself but will, simply, make two observations. Some of the changes that have occurred over the last 15 years include the U.S. withdrawing its large number of troops and presence in Iraq; although, additional troops are now moving to Iraq. Central Command is working with partner nations to conduct targeted air strikes against ISIL. Then, obviously, we are engaged in other activities around the globe. Circumstances have changed, and we ought to meet our constitutional responsibility. I think the amendment that the gentlewoman has drafted is elegant in the sense that she has picked the same date--that is, April 30--that we have structured the OCO funding in this bill ourselves. If we have enough time between now and April 30, 2017, for a new administration and a new Congress to find moneys to fight the war, we have enough time to have the authority to do the same. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I, again, think that the gentleman overreaches. It is micromanaging, and I am opposed to his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I do rise to join with the chairman in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Florida as well as the gentleman from Michigan. I will be rising in support of two amendments subsequently this morning relative to having a fulsome debate about the use of force internationally. It is past time for Congress to have that debate. There is no question about it. I agree with my colleagues. However, in this instance, because we do have, for all practical purposes, a failed state, international institutions in other countries who are involved with us are trying to address the issue. I have been told innumerable times from representatives of other nations, if we do not lead, they will have no place to follow. So I do not think the amendment should be supported at this point in time, and I do join with my chairman.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of full disclosure, I would indicate to all of my colleagues here that I did have meat at lunch yesterday. I ate meat last night. I appreciate the gentleman's concern about ideological activists attacking the menus at the Department of Defense, but I do trust they will have the intestinal fortitude to resist those particular attacks. I would note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to revise the DOD Food Service Program Manual Number 1338.10 dated December 2, 2014. I would simply note that today in military dining facilities, there are a wide variety of foods to choose from, taking into account religious and personal preferences, even for carnivores. There is no policy under consideration to eliminate meat from the nutritional programs for our military services. It is my understanding that there are vegetarian MREs, there are meat MREs. Interestingly enough, when I had a recent conversation with General Carr, who is the adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard, I asked: What is your biggest problem today? He said: Fitness, diet, and physical fitness. So I think to impose ourselves into a food service program manual-- particularly since the gentleman is a member of a political party that talks about overregulation in this country--is an overreach. The question I would have for my colleagues is: Should we start considering whether we should be using diced tomatoes in our various food service areas or should we do whole tomatoes? Should we, when we serve tuna fish, have chunk white or solid white? I think at this point in time, given the gravity of the issues that we have discussed over the last 3 days relative to our Nation's defense that we are now micromanaging, and for that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and join the chairman in opposition to the amendment that has been offered. There is no question that there were significant fundamental problems with the first iteration of this program. This is a reconstituted program, and I would like to make that clear to my colleagues. Secondly, I want to make it clear that there is no authority under this program to overthrow the Assad regime. And the final point I would make, as the sponsor of the amendment, is to mention support for the Kurds who are already fighting. That is exactly what the reprogram does, and the amendment would cut off funding for the Kurds. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, following up on part of the discussion, we have had 443 people convicted of terrorist-related charges held in U.S. prisons, and as has already been indicated, they are very secure because no one has escaped. I don't think it is necessarily wrong, even if a person is evil, that they have some modicum of legal rights under the United States of America. And you have 63 people being held in Guantanamo today for over 10 years with no trial. I just don't think that is according to the constitutional principles of this country. But what I find upsetting is the prohibition on surveys, assessment, and reviews, the search for knowledge. There may be no better way to deal with the detention issue than keeping Guantanamo open. I would acknowledge that to the gentleman. There may not be a better way. But if we don't search for knowledge and information and the truth, we will never know. What is the harm in asking? I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that a bill and other relevant appropriations acts continue to see attempts to close Guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives. We are debating an appropriations bill, and the committee and this Congress has to pay for things. I think maybe the appropriate discussion ought to be: Who is going to pay for this? It is estimated that we are spending $5 million annually per inmate or 60 times the cost per inmate in a supermaximum Federal prison in the United States of America. But in the end, having talked about cost, this is not a cost issue. This is one question of law. We are a Nation of laws and our military protects this country so that we can continue to be governed by those laws. I, for one, happen to think that the indefinite detention of a human being--any human being--without a trial, in some instances, after more than 10 years, is violative of those laws and our constitutional standards. It is a fundamental principle of this Nation, and we ought to conduct ourselves accordingly. It is also interesting, from my perspective, that there have been a total of over 780 detainees at Guantanamo. The previous administration released more than 500, as far as transfers. We are all tied up in knots because the current administration has, over a period of 7\1/2\ years, transferred 157. Certainly, I also suggest there is a double standard. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I reiterate my opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, there is no question, I think, from anyone in this Chamber that the Members of the United States military and the Department of Defense are the finest human beings on planet Earth. Their primary charge is to keep our country safe and secure. But I also think that we take great pride when they go above and beyond that particular charge that we have given them under the Constitution. And when there is a disaster in the country of Haiti, who do people call on for help but members of the Department of Defense and the United States military. When there is flooding in Bangladesh, who is called upon? Members of the United States Armed Forces to help in a humanitarian crisis. When you have problems and earthquakes in Japan, who do they reach out to? Members of the United States military for humanitarian assistance. We have concerns in Pakistan and tragedies; who reaches out to members in the Armed Forces of the United States for humanitarian assistance but the Government of Pakistan. You have a typhoon in the Philippines, and who is called into action, not militarily, but from a humanitarian and relief standpoint? Members of the United States military repeatedly because we are a humane Nation. What we are talking about with this gentleman's amendment that I strongly oppose is temporarily housing unaccompanied minor children who find themselves in a tragic circumstance in the United States of America. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement is required by law to provide shelter, care, and placement. Because the number of unaccompanied children has spiked in recent years, it is difficult for HHS to find temporary housing for all of them. As long as there is no impact on DOD military activities, the Department should be allowed to identify facilities in the United States to provide the same type of humanitarian assistance to minor children that we do in the Philippines, Pakistan, Japan, Bangladesh, and Haiti. I live in a humane country that reaches out to help people who can't help themselves, and I think we should allow the United States military to do that in the United States of America when it does not impact their military operations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and simply associate myself with the chairman's remarks. I am opposed to the amendment. I do appreciate the seriousness of people's opinion on both sides of this issue. I am an appropriator. I don't have a complete allergic reaction to authorizing in an appropriation bill, but given the seriousness of this issue and the complexity of it, I don't think this is the right venue to make that decision. It should be done in the authorizing process. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and join with the chairman in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I would agree with the gentleman from Kentucky that it is hard at times to measure progress in Afghanistan. However, with the continued presence of 10,000 troops, with the sacrifice, both in terms of life and our treasury, that have been expended over the last decade and a half, I do not believe that it is now time to completely desist, particularly, as the chairman rightfully points out, that this is a profit center for one of our enemies. So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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