Ed Royce: “I would make several points. One, in terms of the program that is being laid out in the Washington Post, I think it was…”

“I would make several points. One, in terms of the program that is being laid out in the Washington Post, I think it was this Monday, explaining Pakistan's ambitions with respect to its nuclear buildup, that is clearly not something that can be characterized as a reaction to this new initiative with India. The reason I say that is because a careful reading of that Washington Post report shows that the construction of this very facility site began in the year 2000. The construction of the facility began 6 years ago. I will also point out that the supposition that it could be used for 40 to 50 nuclear bombs a year, the information we have is that is probably two or three. Yet the very existence of the facility itself shows why a fissile cutoff is, frankly, not practical to enforce, to attempt to enforce on India, except through negotiation. And I think, lastly, in conclusion, the attempt to equate Pakistan's efforts, now 6 years old, and tie that and say that that is in response to a deal that we are negotiating with India of less than a year old is clearly not germane to the argument that we have before us today. So I oppose the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The preferential motion was rejected. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Royce The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 109-599.”