Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would associate myself with his comments. I do appreciate the gentleman's concern. The money spent in Afghanistan ought to be spent carefully and efficiently and we ought to have an investment made for those expenditures. But I harken back to the last debate we had when we did abandon this country in 1989, and as a result, that region of the world gave us the Taliban and al Qaeda. I don't want to take that type of chance. And simply because we have failed ourselves in this country by a failure to invest in our infrastructure, I do not believe this is the time to fail the Afghan people. I do associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and am opposed to the amendment. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and simply would take a bit of a different tack. I do appreciate the gentleman's outrage over any act of corruption, whether it is in the country of Afghanistan or whether it is in the United States of America. We do have a responsibility to make sure these moneys are spent for the intended purposes. But there is an insinuation that all expenditures in Afghanistan today are subject to corruption. I doubt there is a congressional district in this country that has not had, at some point in time, a public official sent to Federal prison for public corruption. We then find people in our individual districts who are honest, law- abiding and who make the necessary investments. I am certain that the overwhelming number of people in Afghanistan and their government, as with the United States, are of that ilk. Those are the people we ought to assiduously make sure get this money, and for that reason would be opposed to the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this is another in a line of amendments that we have debated here this evening; and I hate to be repetitive, but I am going to be. We and the international community have failed the country of Afghanistan in the last century. Today, in terms of the loss of life, in terms of injury, and in terms of our national treasure, we are paying the price. For over a decade, we have now had a commitment to this country, and we ought to meet that commitment at the end just as we did at the beginning. The gentleman wants to prohibit essentially any new projects from commencing. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that there are a number of very important projects that do need to be undertaken and completed. All of them involve, basically, power systems. I don't think there's anybody in this Chamber who has not at one time or another lost power to their home or their business. It's something we all take for granted as American citizens. If any of you have read the Caro biography on Lyndon Johnson, in the first volume I was most struck by his chapter describing the day in the life of a woman in Texas with no energy and how hot that house was and how hard it was to bring that water to that house and how difficult it was to make sure clothes were cleaned and food was prepared and how exhausted and bent and broken these women were in the State of Texas before rural electrification took place. I think there are a lot of people in the country of Afghanistan today, because they lack power, that they are bent and broken, and potentially are subject to being persuaded that there are other avenues to take in life for a better one, as opposed to the principles that our country espouses. I think particularly for those women who are bent and broken because they have no power in the country of Afghanistan, we ought to give them a fighting chance at the end. We've been fighting in that country for 12 years, let's give them a fighting chance at the end. Let us undertake some new construction to give them that chance. Simply because we have failed in some instances in this country is not, again as I have said before, is a reason that we should fail others. I see the gentleman from California rise, and I am happy to yield to him.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I have used the infrastructure fund in Afghanistan on any number of occasions in my district and in the committee and on this floor as an example of the failure of our country to invest in the infrastructure of the United States of America, and have indicated that we are spending money to invest in the infrastructure of Afghanistan and failing in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that in the coming years we have about $3.6 trillion of economic infrastructure investment we need to make, and a shortfall as far as funding is about $1.6 trillion. But I would note that the gentleman's amendment does not rectify that domestic problem we face because the cut he proposes that I do oppose redirects those funds to the Spending Reduction Account. The fact is as far as a legacy in giving the people of Afghan a chance in the future, I do believe we have to continue with this program. It was requested by the Secretaries of Defense and State in November of 2010 for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations act. At that time, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton said it is needed to support critical infrastructure projects, such as an initiative under way to bring electricity, simple electricity, to Kandahar City, which directly supports counterinsurgency strategy. I would point out to the House that in 1989, the international community--and I think we would have to include our country in that-- abandoned Afghanistan to years of civil war. As a result, this region of the world gave us the Taliban and al Qaeda in the wake of the withdrawal after Soviet incursion of the 1980s. I do not think we should make that mistake again, and we should make an investment. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, as the U.S. draws down forces for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave Afghanistan on positive terms. As we depart, the U.S. should help to repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself to move beyond the past conflict.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would, first of all, not make any representations as to what will happen ultimately in conference; that is unpredictable. But I do compliment the woman for pointing out the valuable role that the Guard serves both as far as our military as well as disaster relief. The fact is that additional resources are needed as far as saving lives and ensuring people's safety. In particular, again, a dual use, if you would, a twofer. The fact is, despite the large amount of money set aside in this bill, there are fiscal constraints. Some of that pressure is evidenced by the lack of funding for the program that you so ardently are addressing. So again, I would think, speaking for myself, I certainly hear your voice.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield myself the balance of my time. As the U.S. draws down forces--and I appreciate the chairman's remarks--for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave Afghanistan on positive terms. We should help repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself and to move beyond the past conflict. And so I am opposed to the means to finance the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggests that we need a new relationship with Pakistan. The gentleman claims--and I'm sorry that the easel just disappeared, but I believe it was about 64 percent of the Pakistan people consider us the enemy. I don't know the origin of that report, but I would take it at face value given the representation of my colleague. My colleague also suggests there's another poll that says 81 percent of the U.S. people do not have a favorable opinion about Pakistan. He did say that we need a new relationship, and I would agree with him. I think relationships are built on communication, and not polls. I think if we governed all of our actions in this Congress based on polls, we would get nothing done. Sometimes we have to suck it up and do things that maybe at first are not politic to do. Sometimes people fight in their families, unfortunately. And hopefully they sit down and communicate and resolve their differences. Sometimes different groups of people have problems and maybe even don't like each other sometimes. But if they talk to each other and they get to know each other, maybe they can resolve their differences. The relationship with Pakistan, I would not deny, has been difficult, but maintaining that relationship is essential. This relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism. And Pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission. The world, I would remind my colleagues, is a very great place. In June of 2012, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan by reopening the ground lines of communication. I regret, with the gentleman, that they were closed for a period of time. This has eased tensions with the U.S. and improved logistical support for our troops. Withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government generally--rifts and difficulties we should be looking to heal, not exacerbate today. Aggravating this divide is very, very counterproductive to the objectives in this region. I would add one further comment. In addition to counterterrorism activity, the fact is Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides ample reason for the U.S. to continue positive engagement. I certainly would appreciate yielding to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) if he wishes it.

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for his remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do not rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but to cast a caution over the expenditure of the proposed funds. The bill contains $4 million, and this is a phenomenal program. I am not in any way suggesting otherwise. But the gentleman's amendment is quadrupling funding in 1 year for this project from $4 million to $20 million. So I would hope that the people that are running this program understand that in a time of great fiscal constraint, they better very carefully, effectively, and wisely spend this additional money that I'm not objecting to, but I am very concerned about quadrupling $4 million that is already in a bill for a very good program. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.