Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment. I certainly would rise in support of it and certainly think it is acceptable to the committee. I would point out to my colleagues though that, if you would, your view has been anticipated. I would draw my colleagues' attention to section 8113 of the underlying legislation, as well as section 9013. So I do not want anyone to think that the committee itself, including the chairman, was inattentive to the points you raise.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chairman in thanking the gentleman for his initiative. He raises a very good point, and I support his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate her yielding. I appreciate her devotion to the issue and to the victims of these crimes and rise in strong support of her position, and I appreciate not only her work but for offering the amendment today.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I certainly appreciate the fact that the gentleman is looking to be very cost effective in avoiding the expenditure of unnecessary funds and strongly support his position. I appreciate his offering the amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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.

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.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I stand for a tolerant Nation, and I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. The fact is the gentlewoman has mentioned this authorization is very dated. The world has changed. It needs to be reconsidered. I deeply appreciate her efforts not just today on the floor, but in committee and over the years to essentially force the issue and to ask this institution to reconsider what the authorities should be going forward. I certainly support her effort.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her service and for her commitment to her constituents, to her country, and to the Ukrainian people. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

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.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would, again, simply assert that the comparison of a gallon of gasoline at a local station compared to getting it to a jet aircraft for the Department of Defense perhaps is not necessarily comparing apples to apples. I renew my objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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