Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I also appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I will work with you on seeing if we can talk to the military to use environmental restoration funds if your amendment doesn't succeed.

Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman that the B-2 bomber has been used also on several of these military operations that we've used, and the B-2 is a stealthy airplane. We only have 20. As a member of the committee, I offered the multiyear purchase agreement so we could buy the B-1s. And we had a unanimous vote, I think, in our committee on that. It was very bipartisan. I agree with the gentleman that we don't have enough bombers. That's why I'm so strongly committed to the next-generation bomber. But as has been pointed out, that's going to be several years away. We tried to add some money this year to accelerate that because we do need a follow-on bomber.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield.

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

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, we only have 20 stealthy bombers. That's what some people don't understand. And the ability to penetrate China or the Soviet Union or wherever we might have to penetrate at some point, North Korea, we would be vulnerable with the B-52s and the B-1s to surface-to-air missiles. So making sure that we get a high-quality stealthy airplane to follow the B-2 is a matter of national importance. I support the amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. DICKS. Before I begin, I want to say that I have great respect for Congressman Cole, who serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He is one of our most thoughtful members. The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures.'' This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with NATO, which is also playing a major role in this. We will undoubtedly require support in the future in our dealings with NATO, and we get support in Afghanistan today. I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the costs of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in the defense and foreign affairs-related committees as well as here on the House floor. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can overthrow Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DICKS. On March 19, 2011, coalition forces launched Operation Odyssey Dawn to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. Operation Odyssey Dawn ended on March 31, 2011, and transitioned to the NATO-led Operation Unified Protector, which continues today. Operation Odyssey Dawn has ceased operations; therefore part of this amendment is no longer relevant. However, the NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and to protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.'' This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future and who have been our partners since 1949. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can defeat Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. First of all, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I thank you, Mr. Berman, for your comments and agree that such programs that support university programs promoting Middle East conferences and task forces on arms control, regional security, and other issues for Arab, Israeli, and other officials are important and beneficial. I hope the Department of Defense funds such programs accordingly, and I will work with the gentleman to ensure that that happens.

Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I, too, agree with the chairman. This is one of those situations where I think we have to step in and take action for our troops. This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DICKS. This amendment follows the Lee amendment and the Garamendi amendment in cutting about $17.1 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operation Fund. I myself feel that we could be reducing our troop levels faster, but I don't think we should take the money out at this point until we have a better understanding of the pace of the withdrawal. Now, we know the President's plan is 10,000 this year and another 23,000 next year. And so there will be some savings in the overseas contingency account as those troops come home. But I think it's too early to make a decision on that. Better left to do it in conference, where we can make a reasoned judgment and talk to the Pentagon and the Congressional Research Service so that we have a better idea of how much savings this will be. I feel that this is premature at this point. The other two amendments were soundly defeated, and I think the same fate will be here. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DICKS. That's even worse. I would doubly oppose the gentleman's amendment on that part of it. So let's defeat this amendment, as we defeated the others. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I agree with the chairman and stand ready to work with the gentleman--and I commend him for the work that he's been doing over the years--to reach out to all regions of the country to bring the best and brightest into the military academies.

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

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman was quite good at making the cases against this amendment, but I will have to reiterate some of the things. First of all, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate schools located on Department of Defense bases that are operated by Local Education Authorities and the Department of Education. Most of these are run by the local authorities. The Army has identified 80 Local Education Authority-operated schools within the continental United States that are inadequate because of poor conditions or a lack of capacity to accommodate the number of students enrolled. Initial funding in the fiscal year 2011 bill will address approximately 13 of these schools. Nearly 42,000 school-aged dependents of U.S. service personnel are enrolled in schools on DOD bases that are owned and operated by either LEAs or the U.S. Department of Education. The recommendation is based on former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's remarks to military spouses at a May 8, 2010, town hall meeting at Fort Riley, Kansas. The Secretary then called me as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last year and said, Norm, we've got to do something about these schools. We have these young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them worried about their children because some of these schools, if there was a hurricane, if there was an earthquake, if there was a lahar from Mount Rainier, these schools could go down. I have walked out there and seen these schools at Joint Base Lewis- McChord. And one of the conditions, if you are going to get money here, is that you must take over the school. The local school districts are going to have to take them over from this point forward. So we will get out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to code and standards and rebuild most of them. This list was developed by the Army, and then the Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps also were involved. The former Secretary indicated that his plan to improve schools requires congressional approval. Caring for the dependents of U.S. service personnel is a vital contributor to military quality of life and represents a prudent investment in our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Let me also say in the military construction bill there was $463 million for schools that are owned by the Department of Defense. Many of these schools are overseas, in other countries; and yet we are putting $463 million into those schools. At the same time, the gentleman from Arizona wants to deny the young people of our country schools that they could go into. There is one in Arizona. The gentleman is running for the other body. I think he would be concerned about the school in Arizona that may not get funded if this amendment passes. And I hope the people of Arizona remember it, because the people of Washington State will certainly remember it. This is a bad amendment. We should defeat it.

Mr. DICKS. I will not yield. I yield back the balance of my time.