Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. And it was lit on fire. And then the Clean Water Act was passed by Congress, and guess who signed it? Richard Milhous Nixon. He signed that bill. He signed the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Policy Act. I mean, in those days there were Republicans who cared about the environment.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, why don't you, as chairman, do you have jurisdiction over this or is this the Commerce Committee?

Mr. DICKS. Which one?

Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, you Republicans are in the majority now. You are the chairman of a major committee. Why don't you have your committee system hold a hearing? We don't--you know, the fact is what you are trying to do in this appropriations bill is so egregious that we have to use an amendment to fix it.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, again, the regulatory process hasn't even been completed. People are still sending in comments, and so to use a blunt tool and put this prohibition in here doesn't allow the process to work to make sure we can clarify the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just for a second, the gentleman may be better off in the long term by letting the process work. And if it does then clarify between navigable and nonnavigable, that would be important to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Let's work together to clarify it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment.

Mr. DICKS. First of all, the President has made a very strong case for our military action in Libya. I think, as Commander in Chief, he has the authority. We had a U.N. resolution, the NATO allies were involved and so was the Arab League. There is another option. The other option is the War Powers Act. And I hope at some point the President will ask for congressional support of his initiative in Libya. The idea that we're going to pull out of this unilaterally and undermine the NATO alliance I think is a terrible mistake. Although I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio, I'm strongly opposed to his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman from Illinois brings up a very important issue, and I too look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft. Cybersecurity may be the most important defense issue that we face in the coming years. The Department of Defense itself is hit 250,000 times per hour, which is unbelievable, but it's true. And so we need to work on this, and I'm glad the gentleman has taken an interest in this important subject.

Mr. DICKS. No. This one won't make the top 10.

Mr. DICKS. We're working the list up, so I will share it with the gentleman down in the gym. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on DOD lung cancer research. We have $10.2 million in the budget this year, and money for other forms of cancer and treatment efforts, in light of the serious problems facing military members. This is a very serious problem, and I am glad that you have called it to our attention, and I look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him on this and other matters in our oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I believe this is an important debate in the House today as we, appropriately, exercise congressional oversight of the use of force and the costs associated with our engagement in Libya. In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. air power and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate, and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this military action. Now if I were advising the President, I would have said send up a resolution and get approval from the House and the Senate. There is no question that would have been the preferred course of action. The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising, inspired by the ``Arab Spring'' movement, was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the United Nations action. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation. When I hear many of my colleagues speak in favor of abandoning this cause, I believe it is important to reflect on the fundamental reason why we are concerned here. This is the same individual, Muammar al Qadhafi, who had been planning terrorist actions against United States citizens and others for decades. This is the same terrorist leader against whom President Ronald Reagan authorized a military strike in 1986--and he didn't ask Congress for approval--following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activity. At that time, President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi as the ``Mad Dog of the Middle East'' who espoused the goal of world revolution. Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that President Reagan started. Now, just to make it clear, the administration, when they sent up their report under the Boehner amendment, I believe, they did list out the military cost for the operation. Daily operations up to June 3 were $313.7 million; munitions, $398.3 million; global lift and sustain, $1.6 million. The subtotal for military operations was $713.6 million. And then the drawdown of DOD supplies, $1.3 million; humanitarian assistance, $1 million; for a total of $715.9 million. Now munitions come out of the munition funds; daily operations come out of O&M funds for the Army and the Navy. The estimate by September 30, 2011, is that daily operations will total $618 million; munitions, $450 million; global lift and sustain, $10 million; for a total of $1.078 billion. Drawdown of DOD supplies would be $25 million and humanitarian assistance of $1 million, for a total of $1.104 billion. I think that is a pretty clear indication. Now, our chairman is absolutely correct. They have not asked for a supplemental here. They are going to use existing funds that we have already appropriated to take care of this operation. And of course we would all like to see this thing resolved as quickly as possible, and a political settlement may be possible. But I think it would be wrong to undermine the President and our country and our involvement with NATO and with the U.N. and with our Arab allies on this subject. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash-Kucinich amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act represent policy questions that are not suited to appropriation bills. Indeed, this amendment does not address any specific program funding matter addressed in the bill now before the House. To the extent that this amendment has any connection to the Department of Defense, I believe that such a policy issue is appropriately addressed within the domain of the House Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.