Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated that his amendment differs from the previous one just offered and debated. I would suggest it is a difference without a distinction. I would suggest that the solution to the concern that the gentleman has is, if we did not starve and cut and slash and pillage and burn the budget of Health and Human Services every year, maybe they would have the financial resources to house these minor children. We are in a position where the bill that is being debated on the floor has about one-half of all discretionary domestic spending in this country. Obviously, that is where the gentleman has gone. But the fact is if he, in fact, believes that it is Health and Human Services that ought to be addressing a greater amount of the shelter needs, if they had the adequate resources, perhaps they could reach out and do it. In the meantime, again, I continue to live in a humane nation that provides humanitarian relief worldwide. I think we can do the same in the United States for minor unaccompanied children. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's concern for his constituency and his State. We had a markup of another bill earlier today in the Appropriations Committee, and I was very vocal on behalf of the constituents I serve, so I certainly do appreciate that, but I respectfully oppose his amendment. The previous amendment offered literally dealt with our entire globe. Now we have shrunk our concern to several counties in the State of Colorado. I appreciate--because his amendment is covered under the rules--his impulse to attach it to an appropriation bill, because, for better or for worse, the work product of this great committee is about the only one that is going to see the light of day between now and December. Having said that, I do think it is premature. It is a matter of authorization and does not belong in the bill. And, therefore, I am opposed to it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I associate myself with his remarks and I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. There is no question that the relationship with Pakistan has been very difficult, but we ought to also remember that not only are we talking about the issues of terrorism in this country, but that Pakistan is possessed of nuclear weapons and has capabilities. The committee is not ignorant of these facts, and the fact is that under the chairman's leadership, we do have section 9017 that requires the Secretary of Defense, prior to obligating the funds, to certify certain actions. One of those is that Pakistan is cooperating on counterterrorist efforts. They are preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials and expertise, and they are not intervening extra judiciously in political or judicial processes. No one is completely naive here in this Chamber, but it is important that we continue that relationship with great care and oversight. And, again, I do join with the chairman in opposition to the amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I don't know how much more scientific evidence we are going to need before we understand the reality that there is a change in our climate and that we are going to have to accommodate that change. Today, I am not talking about coal or carbon. I am talking about accommodating the change that is taking place today on the planet Earth. We have one individual who is running for President of the United States who claims that this is hogwash and let's bury our heads in the sand. Nevertheless, one of the properties he owns has asked for money to build barriers that are justified because of climate change. In setting aside the raw politics of this position, I would also point out that we have had the Chief of the Pacific Command, Admiral Locklear, come in. I wouldn't suggest his being an ideologue in any way shape or form but someone who was charged with the command of the Pacific Fleet, which we had a conversation about earlier today, and greatly concerned about the adverse consequences these changes have on the United States Navy. We have had a hearing with the Director of National Intelligence, who is charged with the supervision of the 17 intelligence agencies of the United States of America. He testified that extreme weather, climate change, and environmental degradation exacerbate and spark political instability and humanitarian crises. It is imperative that we do not hamstring our military, which is defending our interests in a changing global environment, by adopting this gentleman's amendment. I strongly oppose it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the world's largest fleet command, the United States Pacific Fleet, encompasses 100 million square miles, nearly half the Earth's surface. As our Nation conducts a rebalance in the Asia Pacific arena, it is critical that the Pacific Fleet preserve and increase its force structure, when necessary. Under the current organization and command structure, the Fleet reports directly to the administrative offices of the Chief of Naval Operations and, operationally, to the U.S. Pacific Command. It is my belief that the current command structure ensures more oversight and more accountability, particularly for budgeting and resources, which we as appropriators certainly appreciate. Changing this relationship, I believe, would make that oversight of this committee and the Congress more difficult, and, therefore, I am opposed to it. We have enough problems with oversight at the Department of Defense. We don't need to pile on. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would again point out, as I did in my opening remarks, that the current organization and command structure of the U.S. Pacific Fleet works well. It provides us with the necessary ability to oversight. Despite the gentleman's representations, and I would not suggest he is misrepresenting the facts, I am not aware that our committee was approached by the Chief of Naval Operations for a reorganization of the Pacific Fleet command structure. I am not suggesting they are the fount of all wisdom, but they have not brought that to this committee's attention. I would, therefore, respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the chairman's remarks. I appreciate what the gentleman from Alabama wants to do, but I do oppose his amendment for two reasons primarily. One, obviously, under the circumstances we find ourselves in, he had to find the money for the increase, and it was taken from research and development for the United States Air Force, also vitally needed research and development dollars. And, secondly, dollars do matter, but dollars have to be effectively spent. It is not my personal belief that any additional dollars to this particular account--given the analysis that the committee has done on the budget this year--can be effectively spent. So, again, I join with the chairman in respectful opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Peter Visclosky

Speeches

Manage analytics