Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a member of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and thank him very much for offering it.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I agree with everything he has said relative to the value of the program. But I would point out to my colleagues that, in our bill, we include $145 million for directed energy and railgun weapon efforts; and this is an increase of $25 million over last year's level, 2018, of $120 million. I would congratulate the gentleman that this time last year he had an amendment on the floor that was successful in adding $24 million to that program, bringing it up to $120 million. However, we are 8 months into the fiscal year and, to date, the Department has only spent about 20 percent of that money, that is, $24 million. I would also, again, point out, in the underlying bill, we have increased that $120 million to $145 million, so we do, as a committee, understand the potential of the program. However, I think it is not good policy to continue to increase funding for the program without allowing the services time to adequately research and learn from their past investments. Why should we continue to add more funding before the prior year's funding can even be spent or reasonably assessed as far as progress being made? Therefore, with all due respect to the gentleman, I must oppose his amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, again, I would agree with the gentleman as far as the progress our adversaries are making, our shared concern about making sure we make progress. But, again, I would point out there remains, in fiscal year 2018, $96 million of unobligated moneys. There is a recognition by the committee of the value of proceeding with this in a deliberate fashion, which is why we added another $25 million over the existing level, for a balance of 145 million additional dollars. We believe, at this point, that is enough, which is why I do respectfully object and oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Florida and have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House increases funding for the Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program by $5 million. Our colleague Mr. Hastings has worked closely with Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania, as well as Mr. King of New York, each of whom have cosponsored this bipartisan amendment. The need to fund research in order to prevent, treat, and cure breast cancer is vital to both save American lives and also to address important economic and healthcare costs, and I would ask my colleagues to adopt the 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 would certainly agree with the assertion of the gentleman who offered the amendment that the relationship our country has with Pakistan has been difficult, but I am opposed to the amendment because maintaining a relationship, no matter how difficult, is essential. The relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, as difficult as that road has been, and the Pakistanis have allocated part of their forces within their own borders to this mission. Very importantly for our colleagues, I would point out that our bill recognizes the difficulties we face with Pakistan. Section 9016 prohibits the funds to Pakistan if our government believes the government is engaged in unfair activities. Section 9016 requires that the Secretary of Defense, prior to obligating any funds, certify that the Government of Pakistan is: Cooperating on counterterrorism efforts; Not supporting terrorist activities against the U.S. or coalition forces in Afghanistan; Not intervening extrajudicially into political and judicial processes in Pakistan; Dismantling IED networks; Preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials and expertise; Implementing policies to protect judicial independence and due process of law; Issuing visas in a timely manner for U.S. visitors engaged in counterterrorism efforts and assistance programs in Pakistan; and Providing humanitarian organizations access to detainees, internally displaced persons, and other Pakistani civilians affected by the conflict. A complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro-and anti-American rifts within the military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide would be counterproductive, I believe, to the objectives of our Nation in that region of the world. In addition to counterterrorism activities, the fact of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides ample reason for our country to continue a positive engagement. Again, as difficult as it has been, this amendment is an overly broad reaction to what is a legitimate concern. The bill addresses the issue in a thoughtful and deliberate way. We should not be taking any strident approach, and I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand that I have the right to close.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. How much time is remaining?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), chairwoman of the committee.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply acknowledge the seriousness in which the gentleman from Texas has offered his amendment, the concern we share, which, again, I believe is recognized in section 9016 of the bill. Mr. Chair, I ask our colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.