Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. We will be glad to accept the amendment. We appreciate your hard work in this effort.

Mr. DICKS. The amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to breach the War Powers Act. However, the proponents hope this language will compel the administration to change our response to the crisis in Libya. I oppose the amendment on two different grounds. First, the language of the amendment cannot possibly deliver what the proponents claim. Second, what the proponents hope to accomplish would harm the efforts of our allies, working against our national interests and benefiting Qadhafi. The language can't deliver on the proponents' promises for two reasons. First, the amendment restricts the use of funds in this bill, but none of the $118.7 billion in the overseas contingency portion of the bill are designated for Libya. Second, the language merely requires compliance with the War Powers Act, but the heart of the proponents' difference with the President is a matter of interpretation about what constitutes compliance. The amendment takes us no closer to a resolution of that difference. I would oppose the amendment even if the language could accomplish what the proponents hope for. To further restrict our role in Libya puts us on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the Arab Spring. It would hinder the efforts of our allies, if not making NATO's mission impossible and prolonging Qadhafi's tenuous hold on power. To address the matter of Libya, I believe that language--similar to the language introduced in the other body by Senators Kerry and McCain, is the appropriate course of action at this time--this language preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time, and it requires regular and detailed reports from the administration to the Congress. Now I must say that I, too, agree that the President would always be better served, as President Bush did and President Clinton, to come to Congress to get approval of the authorization. But to unilaterally overturn an effort that includes NATO, the Arab League, and the United Nations saying that this horrific act would take place against the people of Libya, is just, I think, a big mistake, and it would undermine U.S. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when NATO was established. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support the Pakistani military. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and approximately $1.3 billion is provided through Coalition Support Funds. The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism objectives. In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces, serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a strategic partner, and I agree with the gentleman from California that this has raised serious questions here in the United States about the reliability of one of our partners. And also, there are questions about President Karzai in Afghanistan as well. Now, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It reminds me a great deal, during World War II, of our relationship with the Soviet Union, Russia. That was a difficult relationship, but it was essential at that time. And it is essential at this point. This relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, and the Pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this mission, which we need to do more of on the federally administered tribal areas and in Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban leadership exists. And we need them to let us bring our Special Forces into Pakistan. Now, a complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region. In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the United States to continue positive engagement, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I cannot say for certain. I don't think there is anything in this bill that I know of, any provision that provides funding directly to the ISI. Now, there may be. As the gentleman knows, there are other avenues in the intelligence world. But I don't know of anything specifically in this bill. And the ISI, I have just as much trouble with them as you do. But I don't think that we have anything specifically in the bill that funds them.

Mr. DICKS. No, I don't think there is any prohibition in this bill.

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to accept the amendment, and I too think it's a good amendment and a good idea.

Mr. DICKS. The brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi has caused an international outcry, and the people of Libya have asked for our help. 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 resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.'' The amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with our NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future, and our NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to its formation in 1949. I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, but I would point out that the administration did send up a detailed document that shows the money that has been spent thus far and what will be spent through the end of this fiscal year. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can replace Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. And I would just remind everyone that in 1986 President Reagan authorized a military strike following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activities. At the time, President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi, 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 Ronald Reagan started. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on the Defense Department's plan to ensure adequate mental health services for our servicemembers.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady continue to yield?

Mr. DICKS. I would point out that the chairman of this committee, Mr. Young, and his wife, Beverly, have been some of the strongest advocates for our Wounded Warriors and he has led the fight in our committee to increase the funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. So our committee has been very committed to this. It is one of our highest priorities.

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

Mr. DICKS. The Department of Defense alone is the largest single energy consumer in the world. Its leadership in this arena is critical to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues. Section 526 provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to play a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate change. This provision has spurred development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy jets at supersonic speeds. It's a testament to American ingenuity. Unfortunately, section 526 is under assault by those who disagree with advanced biofuels production. They'd like us to continue our dependence on the fuels of the past. That's the wrong path to take. It's unsustainable and won't lead to the energy security we need. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. The more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is. The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities. Opposition exists for this effort because some believe this additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of enemies list, like during the Nixon administration. They argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. Using the opposition's logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. These provisions are fine as they are written. The information is required to be provided already in law. And the executive order that the amendment would circumvent certainly enhances the quality of that information. Disclosure is good because disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates is good. Disclosure of companies making these disclosures is good. And I just worry that we have a situation here where companies or major entities could make enormous contributions secretly, and that's what we are trying to avoid. And the President's executive order is an attempt to do that. We already know that the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the General Dynamics and the Northrop Grummans all make campaign contributions, and they are all disclosed. What's wrong with disclosure? I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. They don't have any money. The Department of Education can't fund this because the new majority is taking a lot of the money out of the Department of Education that they would use for this purpose, and they don't have the money. That's why the Secretary called us and said--and this is Fort Riley, Kansas, one of your side, a school in the district of a Republican Member--and he said we've got to do something. We didn't say we will do this on a partisan basis. We said, hey, these men and women in these Stryker brigades are over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried about their children in these schools that could go down if we had an earthquake. And we have had all these natural disasters all over this country. And I just say to the gentleman this is the most ridiculous amendment I have heard of yet. And he has had some lulus. And I just hope we can defeat this amendment so the people of this country will know we care about our kids serving in the military and their families.

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

Mr. DICKS. The allocation for the Defense bill has already been reduced by $9 billion. Funding for the research and development title of the bill has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion. Further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed to keep current weapons relevant and needed to develop next generation weapons and technologies required to maintain the U.S. edge in military technologies. The reduction would adversely affect many systems now in development, including the Joint Strike Fighter, where we certainly do not want to fall behind, advanced submarine development, the long-range strike program, missile defense program, further development of precision weapons systems and many others. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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