[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5741-H5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 961 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6157.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly resume the chair.

                              {time}  1721


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 5 printed in part A of House Report 115-783 offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Allen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, first I would like to thank Chairwoman Granger 
for her leadership and hard work on this critical legislation.
  Voting for the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act is one 
of the most important votes I take each year, and the great bipartisan 
work that the chairwoman and the ranking member have done to ensure 
that our military is fully funded is truly commendable.
  I rise today to talk about the Allen-Raskin amendment to H.R. 6157. 
This bipartisan amendment allocates $10 million to the defense POW/
Missing Persons Accounting Agency to assist in identifying unclaimed 
remains missing since the Korean conflict.
  As of today, there are almost 7,700 total personnel missing and 
unaccounted for since the Korean conflict.
  One of those still unaccounted for is Private First Class Ivan 
Roberts, a proud native of Georgia's 12th Congressional District.
  On November 5, 1951, Private First Class Roberts and three other men 
from Alpha Company 5th Calvary Regiment went missing during an attack 
to secure a Korean hill complex.
  Although I never had the opportunity to meet Private First Class 
Roberts, I was able to meet his family and loved ones at a recent 
memorial ceremony in his honor, and I know that he was a beloved hero 
and patriot whose family wants peace and closure.
  As you may know, in the recent historic summit between President 
Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un, President Trump asked North Korea 
to return the remains of U.S. servicemembers lost in the Korean war, 
and Kim Jong-un agreed.
  There are currently over 200 missing servicemembers in the process of 
being returned to the United States.
  My colleague and I want to ensure that the defense POW/Missing 
Persons Accounting Agency has the resources it needs to identify the 
remains and carry out this important mission so

[[Page H5742]]

that families can finally find an eternal resting place for their loved 
ones.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Jamie 
Raskin, for joining me in introducing this important amendment, and I 
urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the Allen-Raskin 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the defense POW/MIA Accounting Office 
performs tireless work to track, locate, and recover our fallen heroes, 
and I thank them for their continued efforts.
  Like my colleague, I support this important program. That is why the 
bill includes $10 million above the budget request to accelerate 
efforts to return our fallen heroes home where they belong.
  An additional $10 million will allow the program to continue to be 
successful; therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, again, I would like to thank the chairwoman and 
ranking member for their work on the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act and for approving an additional $10 million above 
the President's budget request to adequately fund this important 
mission. It is important to note that this amendment is offset by 
reducing other accounts.
  Mr. Chair, I urge passage of the Allen-Raskin amendment to ensure 
that the Defense POW/Missing Persons Accounting Agency has the 
resources it needs to identify remains since the Korean conflict.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. McSally

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-783.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $65,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 6157, the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2019, and I appreciate the chairwoman's hard work on this issue and her 
support for our troops.
  My amendment is about the A-10 Warthog.
  Three years ago, when I first came to Congress, I began to fight 
against the Obama administration and their plan to mothball the entire 
A-10 Warthog fleet. This is an airplane I flew and commanded in combat. 
I know a little bit about it.
  We won that fight.
  Since then, the A-10 has been pivotal in schwacking ISIS and 
bolstering European defenses, being ready south of the DMZ, and it has 
now been sent back to Afghanistan.
  Just recently, I visited the 25th Fighter Squadron in Korea, which 
continues to serve on the front lines just south of the DMZ.
  From close air support to combat search and rescue, the Warthog 
continues to do the heavy lifting in saving lives wherever it is 
called.
  Now our fight is to ensure that we minimize any operational impact on 
the A-10 fleet as it carries out these vital missions.
  Of the 281 A-10s in the fleet, 109 of them still need new wing sets 
in order to remain in the air and to fight. I fought for and got 
funding in the fiscal year 2018 bill to start this re-winging again, 
and we are glad to see the Air Force has chosen to include additional 
funding in this year's base request to continue the re-winging.
  In fact, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told the House Armed 
Services Committee publicly for the first time in March, the Air Force 
``expects the A-10 to continue flying until at least 2030.''
  Now that we are all on the same page, we can't afford to lose the A-
10's critical capabilities. We must move as quickly as possible to re-
wing the rest of the fleet in order to mitigate impacts to current 
operations.
  That is why the House and Senate NDAA bills both authorized an 
additional $65 million above the requested amount currently included in 
this appropriations bill, for a total of $144 million for the A-10 re-
winging in fiscal year 2019.
  If we only appropriate the base request currently included in the 
bill, we will only secure enough funding to re-wing somewhere between 
12 and 16 aircraft.
  At that rate, it will just take too long to re-wing the remaining 109 
A-10s. It is just not fast enough.
  These missions are happening now. We are literally flying the wings 
off of these airplanes today, and our enemies won't wait.
  We must accelerate the A-10 re-wing to ensure that we maintain these 
critical missions and capabilities for our troops. My amendment simply 
funds the A-10 wing replacement program to the fully authorized House 
and Senate NDAA level by adding an additional $65 million above the 
request.
  Mr. Chair, I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
but I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Jody B. Hice of Georgia). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add to the $120 
million for A-10 wings that has already been provided, as well as the 
$79 million included in the Air Force budget request. The Air Force has 
indicated to us that the additional funding in this amendment can be 
executed upon contract award, which is expected by the middle of 2019.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I just appreciate the 
chairwoman's support for this amendment and for the critical missions 
of the A-10. I would ask everyone to please support this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would increase funding for the 
Quantum Information Science program within the Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army account by $5 million, and decrease the 
operation and maintenance defense-wide fund by an equal amount.
  This amendment is intended to increase funding for innovative 
research projects within the Army's Quantum Information Science 
program, QIS. This program sits at the intersection of

[[Page H5743]]

quantum, material, computer, and engineering sciences with the 
potential to revolutionize multiple technologies for the Army, 
Department of Defense, and the country as a whole.
  These funds will allow the United States to maintain its vital 
leadership and quantum science. The importance of quantum science to 
our national security cannot be understated. The nation that first 
develops quantum communications technology will be able to completely 
secure networks and possess powerful decoding capabilities.
  Recognizing the promise of this groundbreaking technology, China has 
publicly stated its goal of surpassing the U.S. in quantum computing in 
the next decade and has invested $10 billion to construct a state-of-
the-art quantum research facility.
  Investing in quantum information science will help the U.S. preserve 
itself as a global leader in the 21st century. The U.S. must preserve 
its global leadership in science and technology, and this amendment is 
a step in the right direction.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not 
oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his attempt to 
highlight the importance of this critical research requirement.
  The Army is responsible for studying how a quantum network may 
provide enhanced capabilities for command and control and intelligence 
surveillance and reconnaissance applications. This funding will help 
those efforts.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, and I accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her 
support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $33,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to, first of all, thank the Rules 
Committee for making my amendment in order, as well as Chairwoman 
Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on this very 
important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered this bipartisan amendment with my good friend 
and colleague, Mr. Gallagher, in support of the electromagnetic 
railgun, a technology that has been described as ``revolutionary'' and 
a potential multimission ``game changer'' for long-range land-attack, 
ballistic missile and cruise missile defense, and antisurface warfare.
  In brief, this weapon system uses magnetic fields to launch a guided 
projectile with sufficient kinetic energy to travel significantly 
farther than conventional explosive propellants. Railguns also have 
more lethality at range than traditional gunfire.
  They are considerably more cost effective. Whereas low-cost kinetic 
defenses run around $400,000 per round, surface-to-air interceptors and 
guided hypervelocity projectiles can cost less than 10 percent as much.
  Mr. Chairman, these technologies have matured to a point where they 
can provide military capabilities for the warfighter now for Army, 
Marine Corps, and Navy applications, addressing critical gaps in U.S. 
air defense against growing threats from peer and near peer 
competitors.
  Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that the best mix of air and missile 
defense will consist of complementary kinetic and nonkinetic weapon 
systems, enhancing our capability to defeat larger salvos of air and 
missile threats.
  So railgun has already demonstrated the capability to launch 
projectiles at higher velocity than conventional naval guns, which 
provides extended range, improved response time, and enhanced 
lethality. Appropriating the transition funding for these efforts will 
sincerely help in achieving these objectives for both our ground and 
naval forces.
  For the last several years, this amendment has been passed out of the 
House with bipartisan support in order to give the Department the 
appropriate resources to continue development and integration of this 
extremely promising technology. I hope the House will do the same this 
year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's input, but I 
will remind the gentleman that significant progress has been made on 
directed energy as well. And although the gentleman raises the point 
that there are additional funds for directed energy and, potentially, 
for railguns does not guarantee that the funds are going to be used for 
railgun itself.
  Right now, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have made significant 
progress in directed energy capabilities that have been under R&D in 
the labs for years and are at the point where they are ready to mature 
and be deployed in the hands of the warfighter.
  What this amendment ensures is that the funds actually will go to 
railgun and see that technology, as well, mature so we can more quickly 
get it into the hands of the warfighter, whether it is for the Navy or 
for the Army.
  I would also mention to the gentleman, point out, that our 
adversaries are not standing still on this technology. China is, in 
fact, fielding an electromagnetic railgun as we speak, and the United 
States, in my opinion, could be falling behind in that technology.
  So while I appreciate the gentleman's input, I strongly disagree, and 
I hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting the 
amendment, enhancing support for electromagnetic railgun so that 
America continues to lead in this vital technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close.

[[Page H5744]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues this is a 
bipartisan amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I yield back 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment to provide $30 million for DOD's 
MD5, the National Security Technology Accelerator, within the Office of 
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy.
  The 2018 NDAA authorized support for national security innovation and 
entrepreneurial education programs, including MD5.
  MD5 aims to educate and build a network of innovators and 
entrepreneurs equipped with the expertise to successfully develop, 
commercialize, and apply DOD technology. It is a way of bringing 
American ingenuity and ingenuity and entrepreneurship from Silicon 
Valley to problems faced by the DOD.
  MD5 initiatives educate veterans and other students in technology 
innovation and entrepreneurship and provide a unique pathway for 
veterans to leverage their expertise while learning cutting-edge 
business innovation methodology.
  The program also increases postmilitary opportunities for 
servicemembers and helps them apply their knowledge to new national 
security problems.
  Through MD5, DOD is growing a cadre of entrepreneurs who are adept at 
creative problem solving and the formation of successful ventures that 
deliver economic, national security, and social value.
  Passage of this amendment would mean a $5 million increase from MD5 
fiscal year 2017 and 2018 levels. The funding increase would enable 
them to scale up their entrepreneurial education programs, including 
the highly successful program Hacking for Defense, otherwise known as 
H4D.

                              {time}  1745

  H4D is a course currently taught at 11 universities across the 
country, with many more in the process of coming onboard. It pairs 
student teams with problem sponsors from across the DOD and 
intelligence community to apply Lean Startup methodology developed in 
Silicon Valley to rapidly solve challenging, nonclassified national 
security problems.
  Of the 205 students across the Nation who have already been through 
Hacking for Defense classes, 66 percent plan to continue working on 
their problems after the course is over. Nine companies have been 
formed by H4D alumni, and six of them have received DOD or private 
equity funding to continue working on their projects.
  That is, the DOD and/or private equity have found their attempts at 
solutions for these critical national security problems potentially to 
be viable.
  H4D not only delivers American innovation to problems that the DOD is 
facing, but also inspires smart young innovators, some of whom were 
Active Duty servicemembers or veterans, to apply their talents to 
solving national security problems.
  These experiences serving their country and boosting our national 
security will influence them for the rest of their careers, as well as 
greatly benefit the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the department supports this 
program and will request funds for it in the future budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for accepting this 
amendment. I thank her very much for her work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I also thank the ranking member for his work on this. I 
appreciate it. This is a great opportunity with this amendment to make 
a small investment to support a program that will strengthen our 
national security and the next generation of problem-solvers for the 
DOD, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 11 will 
not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in part A of 
House Report 115-783.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in part A of 
House Report 115-783.


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Soto

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for the 
Peer-Reviewed Gulf War Illness Research Program under the Defense 
Health Program by $1 million and decrease the operation and maintenance 
defense-wide account by an equal amount.
  This amendment is similar to an amendment I offered last year that 
passed this body by voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment again this year.
  This amendment is intended to increase funding for innovative, 
competitively peer-reviewed research to provide a better understanding 
of the pathobiology underlying Gulf war illness, to identify objective 
markers for improved diagnosis, and to develop treatments for the 
complex of Gulf war illness symptoms and their underlying causes.

[[Page H5745]]

  Gulf war illness is estimated to have affected between 175,000 to 
250,000 of the nearly 700,000 troops deployed to the first Gulf war. 
This program is working to make a significant impact on Gulf war 
illness and to improve the health and lives of affected veterans and 
their families.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help 
find a cure for Gulf war illness, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's desire to 
provide additional funding to research illnesses that affect veterans 
of the Gulf war.
  The committee is committed to ensuring that our servicemembers, their 
families, and veterans receive the highest level of medical care 
possible.
  The committee already provides $21 million toward Gulf war illness 
research in the bill. Research includes a close look at how service in 
the Gulf war is linked to illnesses such as chronic fatigue, severe 
muscle pain, persistent headaches, and others.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment 
to provide additional funding in this area, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her 
support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from Florida and have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  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.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern for 
our servicemen and -women. The bill already includes $130 million for 
the Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program.
  Funding for this important program is designed to end breast cancer 
by funding innovative, high-impact research through a partnership of 
scientists and consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I accept his 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 will 
not be offered.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 18 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in part A of 
House Report 115-783.


              Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mitchell). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 20 printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 122, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 154, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Pakistan continues to be an 
unreliable partner in the fight against terrorism.
  For two decades, we have hoped that Pakistan would clear the 
terrorist safe havens along the Afghan border and end its support for 
terrorist groups with American blood on their hands.
  We have paid them $30 billion to do this over the past 16 years, but 
Pakistan still has proven it is not serious about combating terrorism 
outside its borders.
  Despite our efforts, such groups as the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, 
and al-Qaida continue to survive because their leaders live in 
Pakistan.
  Pakistan accepts no responsibility for terrorists in Pakistan. 
Instead, it condemns us for pursuing terrorists living on its soil.
  Pakistan does fight terrorist groups that threaten Pakistan, but does 
not fight those groups that attack its neighbors. In many cases, it 
actually supports those groups.
  The group behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks known as LeT received 
support and instruction by Pakistani intelligence.
  Pakistan extremist views are common in the nation. Pakistan actually 
holds multiple centers of indoctrination that radicalize Pakistani 
youth by the thousands.
  One of these centers has so many terrorist graduates that it has 
earned the name the University of Jihad. So Pakistan is not just 
supporting terrorists; it creates terrorists.
  The fact that we call Pakistan a major non-NATO ally boggles the 
mind. This is nonsense.
  Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism goes back for decades. It has 
proven a safe haven and supported the Haqqani Network since the 1980s, 
allowing the group to become one of the largest killers of U.S. 
soldiers in Afghanistan.
  It has supported terrorist groups of all stripes, including in 
Kashmir in its proxy war with India since 1990. Beginning in the 1990s, 
Pakistan reportedly provided training, intelligence, and material 
support to the Afghan Taliban. Pakistani nuclear scientists even met 
with senior al-Qaida leaders in 1998 to discuss nuclear technology.

                              {time}  1800

  After 9/11, Osama bin Laden and his men fled, guess where. To 
Pakistan, where he was eventually killed 10 years later by the 
Americans.
  Pakistan has moved quickly to revive the Taliban after its defeat and 
has facilitated arms purchases for al-Qaida. Mr. Chair, Pakistan's 
behavior has never changed.
  Just a few weeks ago, the new commander of the coalition forces in 
Afghanistan told Congress, my committee, that Pakistan is the biggest 
obstacle to stabilizing Afghanistan, and the U.N. Ambassador from 
Afghanistan told the U.N. that the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan.
  We have fooled ourselves into thinking Pakistan is a partner. We 
poured billions of dollars into Pakistan hoping and praying they will 
change, but they

[[Page H5746]]

have not. We are continuing to pay them for bad behavior.
  That is why I have introduced amendment No. 20 to the underlying 
bill, to cut $200 million of coalition support that we give Pakistan. 
If it were up to me, I would cut all $700 million, but $200 million is 
a good first step.
  We should not pay Pakistan to betray us, Mr. Chair. They will do it 
for free.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand that I have the right to close.
  The Acting CHAIR. That is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. How much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Granger), chairwoman of the committee.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I share the gentleman's concern and oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I come down here every year on this 
type of amendment.
  When I came to Congress 14 years ago, I went to Afghanistan and I 
went to Iraq. I visited with our troops. Since that time, I have on my 
wall 40 Americans of all races and most branches who have been killed 
in Afghanistan or Iraq.
  When I was there in Afghanistan, I was down on the border with our 
troops and the British troops. They are on the border to protect 
Afghanistan from the terrorists coming in from Pakistan. I don't 
understand why we continue to pay Pakistan money.
  This legislation doesn't cut the whole fund. It cuts $200 million of 
the $700 million fund to get the attention of the Pakistanis so that 
they can't keep playing it.
  I am sure the Pakistanis are glad that I am leaving Congress. I won't 
be back here next year to offer this amendment.
  But really, I have great respect for the chairwoman and the ranking 
member on this issue, but I think that we should not pay Pakistan to 
continue to hate us because they will do it for free. I think we should 
do it to protect our troops that are on the border of Afghanistan and 
Pakistan.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I understand my good friend's 
challenges and his frustration, but I recognize that the area of which 
he is speaking, which I have been to as well, is a frontier area. That 
is an area where terrorists can be harbored.
  But the Pakistani military has, over the years, been fighting against 
terrorism. Pakistanis in Pakistan have, themselves, suffered at the 
hands of terrorists. And if we take this amount of money, the 
engagement and partnership that we have, the response to the United 
States that is important, the collaboration with the forces in 
Afghanistan will be diminished.
  The Pakistani military has shed blood, has lost treasure in the fight 
against terrorism. There are, of course, important improvements that 
they can make, and I believe the funding has the kind of guidelines and 
structures to do so to protect the Pakistani people against terrorism 
as well. They want to live in peace.
  So I would just say that it is important that we keep the engagement 
and the dialogue as well as involvement of the Pakistani military in 
fighting terrorism, and these resources are necessary for it to do so.
  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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in part A of 
House Report 115-783.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of--
       (1) Executive Order 13175 (65 Fed. Reg. 67249; relating to 
     consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal 
     governments); or
       (2) section 1501.2(d)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5747]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House would bar 
the use of funds in contravention of existing Federal requirements for 
meaningful consultation and coordination with Tribal communities 
related to the activities that would impact them.
  I do believe this is a good amendment and ask my colleagues to accept 
it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I 
don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the amendment reaffirms the requirement that 
the Department of Defense have proper consultation in coordination with 
Native American Tribes. This amendment is good government, which is 
supported by current law and several requirements in the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.


           Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in part A of House Report 115-783.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise before you today to offer 
my amendment No. 24 to the fiscal year 2019 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer the information technology contracting 
     and acquisition services or the Senior Leader Communications 
     functions of the Defense Information Systems Agency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 961, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, in the proposed NDAA, the chief 
managing officer of the Department of Defense is to develop a plan no 
later than March 1, 2020, to transition certain functions and services 
from the Defense Information Systems Agency, or DISA, to other elements 
of the DOD.
  My amendment on which I worked closely with my friend and colleague 
from Maryland, Congressman Ruppersberger, prevents funds from executing 
this change. In fact, the administration has objected to this change in 
the NDAA because it would ``weaken the Department's ability to secure 
its cyber networks and inhibit DISA's mission to provide seamless 
communication to warfighters and senior leaders.''
  While our men and women, Mr. Chairman, in uniform focus on defending 
our values abroad, DISA is constantly managing the information network 
that supports our entire defense apparatus and fighting for American 
interests on the global stage.
  DISA's primary mission is to secure our network infrastructure for 
our warfighters and intelligence and security agencies. The question 
regarding DISA's fate has never been asked or answered by this Congress 
nor the Pentagon.
  While I commend the effort to find efficiencies within the Department 
of Defense, it remains unclear what would happen to DISA's missions and 
functions if the measures in the NDAA were executed.
  According to retired Lieutenant General Harry Raduege, who served as 
DISA Director from 2000 to 2005, he said: ``We have looked at 
reorganizing DISA in the past, disestablishing it, but the missions are 
going to have to be performed somewhere.''
  DISA is an agency where numerous other functions from other agencies 
have been folded in over time, and the operations include global 
missions, such as commercial satellite communications, leasing for all 
of the military, secure communications for the White House and other 
senior government and government leaders, support to the Joint Staff, 
and disaster response communications.
  Over the years, many missions and activities that even today are 
relatively unknown have been transferred to DISA because everyone has 
been looking to increase efficiencies and effectiveness.

                              {time}  1815

  By eliminating DISA, Congress may be increasing the costs, manpower 
requirements, and cyber risks that can be better managed via a shared 
services approach currently envisioned by DISA.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chair and the entire committee 
for consideration of the amendment. Let's support our warfighters and 
help them focus on the threats that we face today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mitchell, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
6157), making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________