Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and the fact that he is focused on working capital that is essentially funded through customer reimbursement, but as I mentioned in an earlier debate, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I voted against the Budget Control Act. I think sequestration is an abhorrent way to run the government. I was disappointed last year when we made every Federal agency in this Nation, including the Department of Defense, wait 7 months until we told them how much money we were going to give them. And then, we told most of the agencies that we're going to give you what we gave you last year. Now we're suffering because of furloughs. And the concern I have here, again, is making distinctions between one Federal employee and another. They're all very important. I don't know what going to work every day as a guard in a maximum security Federal prison must be like, but I don't know that we carve out an exception for them. I don't know what it is like to be a Federal law enforcement official working undercover, putting your life at risk, getting reimbursed, but not being carved out for furlough. We have people at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, doing groundbreaking research as far as people's health and safety; and perhaps they not themselves are risking their lives, but tomorrow, if they were at work, could make a discovery that could improve or prolong someone's life. And I think it's a very difficult proposition to begin to make those distinctions between various Federal employees. I absolutely share the gentleman's concern as to what is happening with the Federal workforce. I have mentioned in committee and on this floor more than once today that I'm appalled that for 4 years we hold Federal employees in so little regard. We have not given any of them a raise in 4 years. But we scurried to the floor because people were going to be inconvenienced at airports because of potential slowdowns at the FAA. Well, Federal employees actually do things for our safety like make sure, when we leave the ground in an airplane, we're safe. So, again, I'm very concerned here. The fact is I do think allowing exceptions for one agency is unfair to others. Allowing exceptions that pit one agency against another wrongly determines the value of the work performed by some government employees vis-a-vis others. We ought to value all of their work collectively, together, and should not be looking for temporary fixes of one dislocation, as great as it is, caused by sequestration. What we ought to be about--and I know the gentleman is about--is to end this madness, if you would, and get back to the business of governing this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I won't prolong the debate because this is either the third or fourth installment, if you would, of this debate, but my response to the current iteration is the same as I have expressed throughout the night. We do have an energy problem in the United States of America, and I agree with former Senator Richard Lugar that it is, first and foremost, a national security interest, given where we get petroleum products. We've been at war in the Middle East. We've been at war in Afghanistan. We have other problems internationally, much of it precipitated because of our dependence on that fuel. This is not the time, I believe, that we ought to in any way, shape, or form retard the largest consumer of energy in this country from examining and helping to create a vibrant market for alternatives to reduce that. So, for those reasons and the reasons discussed earlier in this evening's debate, I would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's approach. I have on more than one occasion in talking about the Department of Defense, my constituency indicated, as the gentleman noted, no one should be immune to cuts; and if you can't find 1 cent out of every dollar at the Department of Defense to save, there is something wrong with the leadership at the Department of Defense. But I rise in reluctant opposition for two reasons: One is I have an inherent objection to across-the-board cuts because I think we ought to make sure we are very targeted as far as our financial decisions. Secondly, given the across-the-board cut that has been referenced of more than $30 billion in the current fiscal year because of sequestration under a bill I voted against, we are talking in this instance about filling a significant arbitrary hole. So again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman, on any number of occasions during his discussion, talked about the uncertainty that we face in this country because of sequestration, and I couldn't agree with him more and would point out that the gentleman voted for the Budget Control Act that created sequestration that has now created the uncertainty that we face, which I find very regrettable. The gentleman, also, in his concluding remarks, indicated that we need to look to save money. I couldn't agree with him more. He also indicated, and I would accept it for the sake of our discussion here on the House floor, that some of these processes take 13 years. I think the gentleman makes my argument. If it takes 13 years, we ought to start today, so that that child who is born later this week has the benefit of these savings we both want before they get to high school. Why wait to save the American taxpayers money by potentially not considering a plan? I think we ought to be thoughtful here, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, as I quoted in my opening remarks, rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past decade, the military has simply grown to be more expensive. Our world has fundamentally changed since the days of the Cold War, and certain aspects of our military's national security strategies have evolved. However, I do not believe that our nuclear weapons have had a corresponding change relative to our consideration as to their deployment in numbers. I do think that Congress has a very important role to play in helping the administration make rational decisions as to the size and composition of the stockpile and of the complex that supports it. In talking about that complex as a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, I will point out that there are significant costs over and above those in this particular bill given the civilian control over the warheads at that particular Department. I also do not have a concern that, in any way, shape, or form, the gentleman is proposing that we unilaterally disarm this Nation. I believe that we certainly have adequate protection, and I support his amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time, and it is my understanding that I have the right to close.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I maintain my opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by pointing out that the Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States of America, and I certainly do believe that we need to move from a carbon-based economy, particularly given some of the countries in the world where we procure carbon products such as petroleum. Many people talk about it as an economic problem, and it is. Many people characterize it as an environmental problem, and it is. We're talking about the national defense today, and I certainly agree with former Senator Richard Lugar from the State of Indiana who has always characterized our dependency on foreign petroleum as a national security issue. This is the perfect bill to have the largest consumer of energy begin to reduce our dependence on these very countries that have cost us so much of our treasure and so many of our lives. This amendment would defund section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. The fact is the argument is made that this hurts our readiness and that's not the case. In July the Department of Defense stated very clearly: 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 need for the future. The gentleman would indicate that there is nearly a 20-fold difference in the price of renewables and the price of petroleum at the pump today. The price of $3-some cents a gallon, unfortunately some jurisdictions $4 a gallon, can be purchased very close to this building. Many of these fuels have to be transported to places like Afghanistan. There's an additional cost that is worked into that 20- fold increase. Additionally, I do not think we need to complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options. We want to give our warfighters as many options as possible when they are in the field to take advantage of. This section also does not prevent the sale of petroleum products, nor does it prevent Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need them. Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up the makers of these types of fuels with long-term contracts when we're trying to wean ourselves from them. So I do think that the amendment should be opposed, and I do so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I did not. I don't want to fail them.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to propose, plan, or execute an additional Base Realignment and Closure round. If the gentleman had simply said today we should not execute that national additional Base Realignment and Closure round, I would not have stood on my feet. But the fact is, he said we shouldn't propose or plan either. He also indicated that because we are today paying, I believe, some hundreds of millions of dollars for the current base closure, we should not consider paying for another one. But the question I would ask, rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleagues, is, don't we have to sometimes make an investment for the future? That is, there are cleanup costs, there are close-up costs, there are demolition costs, and those are short-term costs. But potentially, those are investments year in and year out for decades where this Nation's taxpayers can save money. And where the gentleman says we shouldn't consider another closure and, at this point I'm not aware that there's a proposal pending, what if we could save money by doing that? Should we simply say no? Should we just say no to everything? Is it wrong to consider how we might look at every last base and military facility in this country to save taxpayers money? Essentially, the gentleman's amendment says it's wrong to look at them. It would be wrong to propose to the Congress, that has the authority under article I of the Constitution, to decide whether, then, we execute that proposal. Is it wrong for an administration to look nationwide where we're spending almost $600 billion for a more expensive Department of Defense, but not a larger one, that says we have a plan, and they send it to the Congress? But we can't even do that, so we can't have a discussion. We can't have an open and free debate. We can't even, would not be allowed, under the gentleman's amendment, to say, you know what, you've got a plan, but we can make it better. We could make it more efficient. We could amend it, but we're prohibited from doing that. I think the time for simply saying no, no, no, no, no is gone, and I think the gentleman's amendment is wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. As he mentioned, I do appreciate the passion that the author of this amendment has brought to this. Obviously, there have been problems, and it is incumbent upon this country to make sure that this is an arm's-length and adult relationship that is, in the end, beneficial to our Nation. So I certainly appreciate his objective but am opposed to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?