Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

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.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would simply say that these documents are research-oriented and technical updates, and we ought to pursue knowledge. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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. 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.

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

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

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

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