Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just to say this. In the last 3 years the President's number for defense has been higher than the Republican number.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the gentleman this question: in the 10-year budget that we have been just discussing as we talked about this tax bill, the Clinton administration has $198 billion more in it for defense than does the Republican budget which starts capping in about 2004 and goes right through the last 10 years. Now I just want the gentleman to know we are always honest with each other. As my colleagues know, the President has increased this budget by 112 billion. The gentleman and I would like to see it be increased more. But we got to be honest here. The budget that my colleagues have got cut is $198 billion below the President. So those guys got a little work to do on their side.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2561, the Defense Appropriations Act. I would like to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha for their excellent work on this bill. And while thanking the Chairman and Ranking Member is customary, I believe that the Committee this year was able, through congressional oversight and additional funding, to begin the process of helping the Department of Defense fix those parts of the Defense budget which are broken. Wherever you stand on the larger issue of defense spending and on particular programs and weapons systems, fixing the Defense budget is good news, and it will improve the national security of this country. This bill begins the process of fixing both long term budget problems, and near term problems identified during the recent conflict in Yugoslavia. The conflict in Kosovo was, in my view, an important triumph for U.S. ideals over the worst kind of repression seen in Europe in decades. But more centrally for the purposes of this bill, it also demonstrated and revealed much about the tremendous capabilities of several U.S. weapons systems including the B-2 bomber, and our deficiencies in other areas like electronic jamming. This bill seeks to emphasize and enhance those capabilities that performed well, and address those areas that revealed weaknesses. H.R. 2561 includes funding for a 15th JSTARS aircraft, which performed magnificently in Kosovo. The Air Force has a requirement for 19 JSTARS, but only budgeted for 13. It increases funding for the EA-6B force, which was extremely effective but was strained to its limits flying continual sorties every day. And it continues the process of weaponizing the most advanced and effective bomber force in the world. The work done by the House of Representatives over the last several years to support the heavy bomber force was dramatically vindicated in this recent conflict. As many of you know, the B-2 was the star of the air campaign over Kosovo, but it was not the only star. JDAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition, was also a tremendous success. This simple weapon costs only about $15,000 a copy to buy. But combined with the radar and accuracy of the B-2, it performed flawlessly, and demolished almost every target it was assigned to destroy. Compared to the over $1 million cost of the CALCM cruise missiles also used in Kosovo, the JDAM was nothing short of a miracle for capability compared to cost. But as many of you know, JDAMs have only recently entered the U.S. arsenal. Boeing delivered the first production model of JDAM to the Air Force on June 24, 1998. The B-2 was still able to use JDAMs flawlessly, however, because Congress had appropriated funding for an early version, GATS/ GAM. Congress accelerated the GATS/GAM program in FY93 by over a year, and it was successfully tested in October of 1996. Without the experience of testing and training with GATS/GAM, we might not have been as successful in the early days of the air campaign in Kosovo, when the B-2 was the only plane that could access the skies over Belgrade, and the only plane that could attack anywhere in bad weather. We must continue to weaponize both the bomber and tac-air forces for conventional all-weather combat. We saw in Kosovo the importance of being able to forward deploy bombers closer to the theater of combat to get sortie rates up. We also saw the importance of in-theater communications. This highlights the need for Link 16 and inflight reprogramming capabilities on all of the bombers. H.R. 2561 fully funds those needs. For this reason, it enjoys my strong support, and I urge all members to vote ``aye.''

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for taking out this special order. I must say, over the years, I have enjoyed working with Steny Hoyer, because I think he is one of the most serious and most reflective Members of this institution. I must tell my colleagues that I am very, very concerned that we are going to repeat a mistake that we made in the 1980s when we passed a major tax cut bill in 1981. We had a defense build-up that only lasted until 1985, midway through the Reagan administration. Then we went for many years cutting defense every single year simply because we did not have the money. Now we are faced with a situation in, let us face it, a post-Cold War era where we realize that we have cut defense now by 37 percent. We are faced with the problem that, with discretionary spending being cut, as it has been over these last several years, that if we have another major tax cut that will take up a lot of discretionary authority, that we will wind up not being able to do for defense what we need to do. Now, one of the great myths in this institution is that the Republicans are for more money for defense. But the facts do not really tell that story. The President's budget request between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2005 is $198 billion higher than the Republicans. Now, I think there is a few Republicans, if they knew that, they might follow the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) and come our way. But the reality is that, if we have another major tax cut, that we are not going to be able to take care of the needs of defense in the future. I worry about this because President Clinton put $112 billion additional money in the defense budget. Even with that, we are still having a major problem with readiness, with training, with replacing the older weapons systems that need to be replaced. So I hope that the Republicans who claim that they want to increase defense will realize that, if they pass these huge, massive tax cuts, that there simply will not be the money in the future to adequately take care of the defense needs of our country. We are faced with decisions this year already in the defense mark-up about whether we can afford certain weapon systems because the Chief of Staff of the Air Force sends over a list of $18 billion in unmet needs that he has. That is one of the services. Also, we are seeing a situation where the Navy and the Air Force, for the first time, are not able to meet recruiting goals. So we have got serious problems. I think the Democratic alternative of having a tax cut with a more targeted tax cut that will not take up as much money in the future is a much sounder policy and will allow us to have the resources necessary in the future to take care of our defense needs. Having gone through this once in the 1980s, I would prefer not to go through it again. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for taking out this special order tonight to give those of us who are concerned about defense a chance to mention these important facts. If my colleagues remember the great story of the fact that, between George Washington and Jimmy Carter, we had a deficit of only about $980 billion, and then, after the tax cut in 1981, we had a $4.5 trillion increase in the debt. Now, even with the good news in the economy, it would still take us 2015 to pay off that entire debt if we were using restraint. I will tell my colleagues in my district, my constituents would say pay off the debt before we do another tax cut and make sure we have got enough money to protect defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Those are the right priorities.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, so there is an effort here to do that. The problem here we have is what happens when there is an impasse? That is why we have got to have the Secretary have some way to negotiate this between the State and the tribe. That is what we are trying to preserve here. What this amendment does is says the States have complete authority that overrides sovereignty and is probably unconstitutional.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. I want to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. I also want to just say that people are saying, why are there not more revenues? The reason there are not more revenues is because we have dramatically reduced the harvest of timber on the Federal timberlands. This Congress has passed the laws that have driven us in that direction. So I say to my conservative friends who want to know where the money is, the money is not there because we have gone from 8 billion board feet down to 2.5 billion board feet. That is why there is no money. It is pretty clear, we have changed the way these forests are being managed. We are managing them more for environmental protection and ecological reasons, and for the fish and the water and everything else, and on a multiple use basis. But believe me, Members may not like what they do in research, but there has been a sea change in the way they harvest timber on the national forest lands. That is why the money is down.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would point out that this year we cut $30,271,000 from the administration's request. We barely allowed a cost of living increase for this important research work. The gentleman from Ohio has given a very comprehensive and accurate description of how this money is used. I would also point out that work is done with our State foresters, also with our universities across this country to deal with all of these research issues that affect the ecosystem, the ecology of these forests. Frankly I think a lot of people would think with an asset of this importance to the country, that maybe we are not doing enough in terms of good scientific research on our national forests. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment so that we can move on and move towards final passage.

Mr. DICKS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order until I have a chance to see the amendment. I have not had a chance to see the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on the Young amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) this. I would rather trust the local forest, because of the way this national financial system has been handled. I have more faith in the people out there to do the right thing with the money that they collect in their forest. That is why I think this program is working and working so successfully.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just wanted to point out we just received a phone call from Mr. Lyons. He said he was prepared to meet with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the chairman and myself tomorrow, if necessary, and also that they are working with OMB to fund a study on the Pacific Northwest Forest Service problem. And the gentleman from Oregon has pointed this out. I think there is a way to solve his problem administratively, and I hope we can move on to a vote on this amendment, and of course a negative vote because it will no longer be necessary.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I was very impressed both this year and last year when the committee took its trip at the work that is being done with the 80 percent of the money that stays in the local area. There is no doubt that if we cut this program off we are going to hurt these areas. Now, I realize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has limited this only to the Forest Service areas. But, believe me, I think this program is working; and I pledge that I will be glad to work with the gentleman. I suggest we invite Mr. Lyons up here and see if we cannot straighten out this thing as it relates to the Forest Service in the gentleman's area, or the BLM in his area. Lets see if we cannot come up with a common pass or something that will satisfy the gentleman. But, Mr. Chairman, to undermine the work that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has put into this program which is helping us reduce the backlog across the country and if we take it off the Forest Service, it will undermine the Park Service. The ironic thing about this, public opinion has been tested, and 83 percent of the people favor it, and most of them say they think the fees are too low. They cannot see why we are not charging more. The gentleman from Oregon is a very senior Member of the House. I urge him to work with us to straighten out the problems that obviously exist in Oregon. And take the gentleman from Ohio at his word, but do not undermine a program that is doing so much positive good for our parks and Forest Service around the country. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that if this amendment passes then it will undermine the other program as well. So I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee. He has done an outstanding job and stayed with this. Let us stay and back him and defeat this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, and we are now in court to see whether we have authority under IGRA for the Secretary to resolve this under the regulations. So I would suggest to the gentleman that the State should not be in a position to just arbitrarily say no.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from New Jersey, what do they do when the State refuses to reach a compact with the tribe? That is the problem we have here. That is why this is a much more complicated issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona for a very fine statement. I think he very succinctly brought this issue to bear. His work on the committee has certainly been important and impressive, and I agree with him. I think we should not interrupt what the courts are doing, and I think we ought to let the authorizers solve this problem. I compliment the gentleman on his statement.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?