Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is a former member of the Defense Subcommittee and now is the ranking Democrat on the Military Construction-VA Subcommittee.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that I enjoy working with.

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to again thank the chairman for his great work and the work of the staff. The President did lay out the rationale for why we got involved in Libya. He said that we were there to help protect the Libyan people. There were two resolutions adopted by the United Nations. And it wasn't just the United Nations. You had the Arab League and NATO involved in this. And, yes, I think the President would have been better advised to have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the Libyan people were going to be slaughtered and the President felt that he had to act. Some of us just got back from a trip. We saw the men and women who handle the equipment, who fly in there, do the jamming, all the different things that are done. They have done a phenomenal job. And now the President has turned the leadership of this over to NATO and they are taking the lead, though the gentleman from New Jersey is quite correct; they cannot do all these things without tankers, without other things, some of the special intelligence and reconnaissance that we have that just isn't out there for anybody else. So I hope that tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. Let's look at this thing; let's talk about it. I think this will be a worthwhile discussion. But remember, there was going to be a no-fly zone, an embargo. We were going to protect the people. I think the President laid out exactly what this was about. We have to look at this in terms of Egypt and the other countries in the area. Thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from Libya, and this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround Libya. Ronald Reagan attacked Libya. I think he called Qadhafi a ``mad dog,'' and I don't remember him coming to Congress before he let the bombers go in there and attack him. So I am one who is very restrained at the use of force, but in this case I think the President had to act, and he had the United Nations, the Arab League, NATO, he had the French and the British demanding action. I think we have to look at the result here, too. I think right now the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding, and I hope they can do it in a timely way. We would all like to see this over as quickly as possible. But remember Kosovo. That took a significant amount of time before that worked out. There were a lot of critics, a lot of critics of President Clinton when he did that, but in the end it turned out very well for everyone. In Libya, I think Qadhafi should be replaced. I wish we were more candid about that, and the President has said that. So I hope we look at this fairly and realize the damage that would be done to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the United States all of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. They would not be able to continue. This would be a worldwide embarrassment to the United States of America, to our great country and to our military. I think we have to look at all of the ramifications of this issue. This is a serious matter and should not be politicized. Senator Jackson from my State used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best politics is no politics. Call it on the merits and do it in the best interests of our country and in the best interests of people serving our military. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I will revise my words and make sure that it will not be an insult to the gentleman. I appreciate him withdrawing his point of order.

Mr. DICKS. It's your amendment, sir. I didn't get up here and offer an amendment that would cut funding.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the Chair and to the author of the amendment, who's a doctor, a medical doctor, remember the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. This amendment, if it is enacted, will deny millions of people getting food. Millions of children's lives have been saved because of this program and I hope the Broun amendment will be defeated.

Mr. DICKS. You don't think your amendment will do harm, sir?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. We've already cut this program by 38 percent below the President's budget request and 31 percent below last year. That is a major cut in this program. To go any further, I think, would be a big mistake. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DICKS. A point of order. I think the gentlelady has already spoken on her amendment.

Mr. DICKS. We never heard that. I object. If you withdraw the amendment, I won't object.

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from California.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out, also at the White House picnic, if you walked far enough down, you could see the garden with fresh vegetables and everything that was being grown. It had a label about what was what. Again, I just don't see what the harm is here if they're taking it out of existing funds. I always thought that the farmers of America were supported on a bipartisan basis in this Congress and that we like to know who our farmers are. So I agree with the gentleman, and I hope we can defeat this ill-considered amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding. With an allocation that cuts $2.9 billion below the current level and $5 billion below the amount requested by the Obama administration for the next fiscal year, the subcommittee has drafted an Agriculture appropriations bill that drastically reduces funding for food programs that serve women, children, and the elderly, and for the Food and Drug Administration, among other drastic cuts. The economy is still struggling, Madam Chairman. Unemployment is still far too high, and people around the country are still hurting. American families need help just to make ends meet. The bill slashes funding for WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, leaving more people to fend for themselves during the worst recession since the Great Depression. While I am pleased that we were able to provide a slight increase for the WIC program in full committee markup with the acceptance of the DeLauro amendment, this bill still drastically underfunds this critical program. This bill reduces funding from $6.73 billion this year, 2011, to $6.5 billion, a cut of more than $650 million below current levels. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the drastic reduction would require us to turn away anywhere from 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. That's a tragedy. Unemployment is still hovering around 9 percent, and the economic recovery has faltered since the new Republican majority took the reins with their illogical ``cut and grow'' strategy. Again, this is no time to be pulling the rug out from underneath the people who can least afford it, Madam Chairman. The cut to the budget of the Food and Drug Administration represents another perfect example of the Republican majority's commitment to shortsighted budgeting. In the aftermath of several nationwide recalls, Democrats in Congress passed a food safety bill that added new and important capability to the FDA, but this bill actually moves us backward in protecting our food supply and medical products. It is 12 percent below the current level and 21 percent below the amount requested by the administration. These cuts will increase the risk of recurring outbreaks of food-borne illness. The FDA would inspect fewer firms that manufacture food and conduct fewer inspections of imported food. This bill also takes a shortsighted approach with respect to our international food aid programs, cutting Food for Peace by $457 million below current levels and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by $19 million, 10 percent below 2011. By slashing funding for these critical overseas programs, we risk exacerbating food insecurity and strife in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world and are essentially undermining our own national security interests. Beyond food programs, there are numerous other programs that take egregious cuts. Notably among those is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC takes a cut of $30 million below current levels and is funded at $136 million below the President's request.

Mr. DICKS. The requested increase for FY 2012 is needed in order to implement the measures put forward in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill and provide oversight and regulation of the options and futures markets that wrought such havoc on our economy just a few years ago. One can't help but notice the efforts in this bill to drastically cut food assistance to the poor while actively undermining any efforts of oversight and regulation of the wealthy on Wall Street. So I urge all Democrats to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. DICKS. The gentleman's amendment would strike the provision in the bill prohibiting the use of project labor agreements on any project funded in this bill. PLAs are a benefit to both employers and unions. They provide uniform wages, benefits, overtime. A PLA sets the terms and conditions of employment for all workers on site, including work conditions and rules. In addition, a PLA prohibits strikes and work stoppages. A PLA provides a single collective bargaining unit which allows for easier management of a project. Executive order 13502 only encourages executive agencies to consider the use of project labor agreements. There is no requirement to use a PLA. It should be up to the agency and project manager if the use of a PLA is appropriate for their particular project. And I was pleased that the chairman, Mr. Culberson, read the language and it says ``may,'' not ``shall.'' Two weeks ago during the consideration of the FY 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, an amendment was offered to prohibit the Department from allowing project labor agreements, and it was defeated. We should support the option on the use of PLAs. I urge the adoption of the LaTourette amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I completely agree with him. I don't think there's any evidence that except for some of the people like the Wall Street Journal who say this, I don't see any evidence of it; and as the gentleman says, if there was evidence, Congress would not approve of project labor agreements. So I, again, rise in strong support of the LaTourette amendment and urge that it be adopted. I yield back the balance of my time.

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