[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.
____________________