Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. We accept the amendment too.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DICKS. This amendment would repeal section 8015 of the bill, which in various forms has been included in the bill for the past 14 years. This section requires that, before work is contracted out, the Department of Defense must conduct a formal cost comparison to determine whether privatization would actually save money. The section also provides an exemption to ease contracting with businesses owned by disadvantaged persons, qualified nonprofit entities for disadvantaged persons, or businesses owned by Native Americans. In cases where outsourcing is appropriate, one of the fundamental reasons would be to lower government operating costs. Requiring the DOD to actually conduct this analysis under the A-76 review is reasonable and should be included in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I must say we have done these A-76 reviews across the country, and many times we find that the government entity reorganizes itself and can actually do the work at a lesser cost than the private sector. And the other problem with this whole thing is, once the private sector gets it, the costs go right through the roof. So you need to have an analysis done after contracting out is done to make sure that you're not getting ripped off. So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. I think the A-76 process has been a worthy one. Sometimes the contractor wins, and sometimes the unit of government reorganizes itself, and they compete, and it comes out that the government wins. So I think the A-76 process has worked. I hate to see us get rid of that. Now, the other thing is, I think the Department has to do a better job of accountability, of being able to report how many civilian employees, how many military employees, how many contractors.

Mr. DICKS. The gentlemen's amendment strikes section 8101 from the bill. This section provides that the Defense Department must certify compliance with a fiscal year 2008 law which requires DOD to provide an inventory of its service contracts, review those contracts, and then integrate those results into the budget process before using the OMB Circular A-76 privatization process. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This provision is included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. It requires that DOD exercise responsible stewardship over its contractors by providing an inventory of such contractors, a review of associated contracts, and an explanation of how these contracts are integrated into the budget. The provision requires the Department of Defense to maintain better accountability of the thousands of contractors performing services for the Department every day, and therefore maintain better accountability of funds. Striking this section releases the Department from this responsibility. And I must tell the gentleman from Texas, who is a good friend, that we had a terrific problem getting the Department of Defense to even be able to tell us how many contractors they have. We had this problem in Iraq, we had this problem in Afghanistan, and we are still struggling. Now they give us a quarterly report of how many contractors and how many contract employees there are. I have always believed in the A-76 review process. In fact, I had an amendment probably 25 years ago that said after you do A-76, if you contract out to the private company--if they win the competition between the government unit and the private sector--that you have to keep on analyzing what has happened to the cost. And what we found was, as soon as the thing was contracted out, the prices started to go up until we had an auditing process that looked into it. That process was taken out I think in the nineties. So we didn't have this mechanism to ensure that we were getting the best deal. And there were problems associated with pensions. Could you compare government pensions with private sector pensions? A lot of this was worked out. But the idea of not being accountable, not having these companies, not having the government, the Defense Department know how many service contractors it has and how much. And if we are going to reduce spending, we have got to know that. We have got to understand that. And I hope that we could continue to work on this problem, because the idea that Congress doesn't get the information that is necessary to know how many people we have contracted out to is, I think, ridiculous. And I think Congress has to insist that we get this information.

Mr. DICKS. I yield, of course.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. And I do this very reluctantly, but I'm glad that the sponsor of the amendment has arrived, and we will let her talk about this. Section 8127 limits spending for military bands to $200 million for fiscal year 2012. Now, that is a lot of money and I'm a person who believes in music, believes in our bands. I have been at Fort Lewis out in my part of the country, now Joint Base Lewis-McChord, for many ceremonies. And there's no question about it; the music really does add to the whole event. But we are in a very tough fiscal period here. During the full committee markup, this was agreed to by a voice vote. The amendment parallels similar language included in section 599(c) in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. So we've had the authorization committee look at it, we've had the Appropriations Committee look at it, and I think that we ought to support the position that came out of the full committee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.

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 Pakistani 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 must say that I agree with much of what the gentleman from Texas has just said. The relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult, but maintaining the relationship is essential. This relationship 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. A complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts with their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region, and we must remember that they are also a nuclear power. In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the U.S. to continue to try and engage Pakistan. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of the amendment, and urge that we accept it.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I agree with the gentleman on this particular amendment. I think we should vote it down.

Mr. DICKS. I can completely understand the gentleman's concern here. I want the gentleman to know that I am prepared to work with him on this to see if we can talk to the powers that be over in the Pentagon. Hopefully, they can accept Secretary McHugh's recommendation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hastings amendment. In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The United States' 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 Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising, inspired by the Arab Spring, was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the U.N. action. In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this military action. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation. In this Chamber today, we are considering both the resolution authorizing the continued use of limited U.S. involvement in this effort or our immediate withdrawal from it. While I believe it would have been more appropriate for the President, under the terms of the War Powers Act, to come to Congress earlier, I believe the language offered by Hastings of Florida, similar to the language introduced in the other body by Senators McCain and Kerry, is the appropriate course of action at this time. The language preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time and were not asked for by the rebels. The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr. Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our relationship with NATO allies. And when I hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the House Chamber speaking in favor of abandoning the cause, I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan who attacked Libya with air power and called Qadhafi the ``mad dog of the Middle East.''

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr. Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this action would be unwise, and that it could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future. It would also undermine the worldwide effort to protect the people of Libya. Now in this amendment, there are exceptions: search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning. I asked the majority if they would put in suppression, because you can't conduct these other missions without suppression, and if we don't have the ability to suppress enemy air defenses, the allies will not be able to continue the bombing campaign. So all of these things that the gentleman says he wants to do and have exceptions for will be undermined by not having suppression. Today's F-18 Growlers go in on these missions and they suppress the enemy radars so that the bombing can continue. So I think this is fatally flawed because of the lack of suppression, and I feel that we now have to vote against this because of that fact. I tried to offer this as an amendment, but I was told that they weren't interested. I just hope you understand that you are undermining this mission and you are undermining NATO. This deserves to be defeated.

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. Wouldn't you feel better if we could add, as a fifth item in this list of things, suppression of enemy air defenses? The reason I say that is I think we're going to have a difficult time doing any of these other missions unless we have suppression. I was just over there at Aviano and Sigonella, and we were told by the Navy that the allies do not have enough suppression to be able to continue to do these bombing missions without U.S. help. I think it would help if we could clarify that that is not somehow abandoned.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. It has, once again, been an honor to work with my friend from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, to prepare the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2012. In the longstanding tradition of this committee, the bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis, and I support the bill. I know that Chairman Rogers will be glad to hear that. I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge. Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee exercised its constitutional responsibility to allocate resources to those programs that best support the requirements of our military forces. In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request. While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level, much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts. The bill also provides the funds needed to support U.S. service personnel. Examples of this include the military pay accounts fund at a 1.6 percent raise, consistent with the budget request and the level included in the House-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services authorization bill. The bill also provides $32.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's longstanding efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions. The bill also includes funding increases for several research efforts including peer- reviewed breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer research. The bill fully funds $2.3 billion requested for family programs and adds funding for several initiatives including $250 million to replace schools owned by local education authorities and $40 million for Impact Aid. The bill addresses many of DOD's most pressing investment needs. It funds 10 ships, as requested in the budget, and 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. I would like to have seen more Strike Fighter aircraft because I believe they're doing a much better job on this program. Last year it was in some trouble. This year Admiral Venlet has said repeatedly that they're, in fact, ahead of the training schedule. So I think this is very good news. The bill also adds funding to fill gaps in DOD capabilities. Some examples include the M1A2 System Enhancement Package: $272 million is included to prevent a break in production of tanks. And this is something that our committee agreed with on an overwhelming basis, that shutting down the tank line in Ohio would be a terrible mistake because we'd lose the skilled workers and then we're going to reopen this tank line in 2 or 3 years, and it would just be a waste of money. So we bridged that gap. HMMWV Force Protection: $50 million is added to develop and test and improve armor and other blast protection technologies on the HMMWV. Long Range Strike: $100 million is added to reduce technical risk and schedule risks for this program. We're moving ahead on a replacement for the Trident submarine. The C-17 replacement is included to replace the operational loss of a C-17 aircraft. The committee has steadfastly replaced--when there have been operational losses, we've replaced the equipment. This is another example. Special Operation Command shortfalls: this is one thing we had in our bill in 2011, and this year an increase of $250 million is added to address unfunded requirements identified by the Special Operations Command. National Guard and Reserve equipment: $1.5 billion is included to fund equipment shortfalls in National Guard and Reserve equipment. Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance: $50 million is included above the request to continue to fill gaps in DOD ISR equipment. Israeli missile defense programs: $130 million is added to enhance Israeli missile defense programs including the Arrow missile defense system. Small business innovative research: $50 million is included to continue the committee's efforts for SBIR Phase III transition. Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $20 million is added to continue defense research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Energy efficiency improvements: the bill includes $82 million above the request to field equipment that will reduce the energy footprint of deployed Marine Corps units. The bill also includes $10 million above the request for pilot programs to improve DOD energy efficiency. The bill provides $118.7 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The bill ensures that troops have essential force protection and provides the means for the Afghans to provide their own security. The bill includes $12.8 billion to train Afghanistan's National Security Forces. While the bill provides essential support for our troops, I remain concerned about our Nation's direction in Pakistan and ongoing operations in Afghanistan. There is cause to question the reliability of our partnership with both countries. In the light of recent events, we must reassess the extent of U.S. military involvement and the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world, reexamining whether U.S. national security requires a continued deployment of over 100,000 U.S. service personnel. I welcome President Obama's decision to start the withdrawals, and I also urge a ceasefire and a political settlement. After a careful review of the security situation, I believe it is time to significantly accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces. To accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. By necessity, a political solution in Afghanistan will involve negotiations with Taliban representatives. It will also demand taking into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal divides within Afghanistan. Finally, we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one that occurred at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Even with these cautions in mind, I believe it is time to begin the process of bringing the level of deployed U.S. troops in line with a new assessment of our security interests in the region. I look forward to hearing from General Petraeus and General Odierno. We worked with them on the surge in Iraq, which turned out to be very successful. The military has done a very good job in Helmand and Kandahar and has dominated the Taliban in recent times, which is very positive. We still have a problem on the eastern front between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, though the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was something that all the troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in, the person who led the effort against the United States in one of the most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that has ever occurred to our country. While I have concerns about our Nation's policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I strongly support this bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and it provides the resources needed by our troops. I urge your support for the bill. I also want to thank the staff. I know Chairman Young will join me in this. We have a tremendous staff that works together. They worked together when I was chairman. They're working together now that Chairman Young has--he had been chairman before and has now regained his chairmanship. And the staff has done an extraordinary job. It's a major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all these programs, and I commend them for their good work. I reserve the balance of my time.