Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

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

Mr. DICKS. The gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) had an amendment which she is going to withdraw. I want to enter into a very brief colloquy in which she can explain what her amendment attempted to do, and then we are not going to offer it.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I am very sorry that the gentlelady cannot offer her well- thought-out amendments on a technicality, but I will yield 3 minutes to her to explain what her amendments would have done if they had been in order.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Many economists today say that if we had not had stimulus, unemployment would be at 13 percent. I hear so often over on the other side that it didn't work.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. I hear so much talk on the other side that the stimulus program didn't--reputable economists say the unemployment rate would be at 12.5 to 13 percent if we hadn't had the stimulus package. And again, that's why we're so worried about the magnitude of the cuts here having a countercyclical effect. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's work on this. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I was in almost all of the meetings in our caucus. This bill was read provision by provision, sentence by sentence, and we had the staffers there who wrote these provisions under the direction of our chairman at that time. This was carefully considered, and any idea from the gentleman from New Jersey that it wasn't is just an outrageous statement on his part, and he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. DICKS. I rise to ask a question of the Chair. Who has the right to close on this amendment?

Mr. DICKS. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment for the same very reason. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is coming to an end. I agree with the chairman. It makes me cringe that they have spent $3 billion on this, but for an additional $34 million, we can finish the R&D phase of this program. That is what the chairman was talking about. Then we don't have to pay $145 million, as I understand it, in termination costs. I think it is just wise to get the final research done. So I would reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because it would take away our opportunity to get this better agreement that the chairman is talking about. SLAMRAAM is an AIM-9 missile that is ground-based, and this program is coming to an end. It is being terminated as well, and we support that. Again, I think we should reject the gentleman's amendment, but the outcome of what he is talking about will be achieved in the very near future.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

Mr. DICKS. In closing, let me point out that the amendment to impose an across-the-board cut would allow OMB to make the individual funding decisions. We have spent 4 days and nights thoughtfully considering programs and levels. This amendment is not thoughtful and should be defeated.

Mr. DICKS. Jane, we wish you well at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Lee Hamilton did a fantastic job. We know you will too. Amendment No. 336 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank my friend. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DICKS. And you would think that the gentleman from California would be interested in letting the local community come to a decision on this rather than imposing it from Washington, D.C., and overturning what this local group of people have been working on for years. I mean, this is really a bit much.

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

Mr. DICKS. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any action to dis-establish the Joint Forces Command. In FY 2010, Secretary of Defense Gates recommended dis-establishing the Joint Forces Command, and included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. On January 6, 2011, President Obama issued an official memorandum accepting the recommendations of Secretary Gates and of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and approved dis-establishment of Joint Forces Command. The Department of Defense expects to save at least $240 million annually by dis-establishing the command. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations and essential functions. The resources needed to perform these functions will be assigned to other organizations in Hampton Roads and the Navy support activity in Norfolk, Virginia. All told, DOD estimates that about 50 percent of the current level of effort will remain in the Norfolk, Virginia area. We've been through so many rounds of BRAC. I can sympathize with the gentleman from Virginia, and I understand his concerns about this. But, you know, your side is taking the position that we have to reduce spending on some of the most sensitive programs that we have in our government. I happen to have chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee just for a brief time but was a member of the committee for 32 years, and I am now the ranking Democratic member. We went through this budget very, very carefully this year, Mr. Young and I did, and we came up with $15 billion of cuts. We have to give some respect to the Secretary of Defense, who, in fact, was a Republican and serving in this administration. Some of these things I know are painful and it affects your community. I have had that problem over the years myself. But just like the alternate engine, sometimes we have to make these hard decisions. The Secretary of Defense, I think in this case, deserves the benefit of the doubt. I think the Virginia delegation is totally correct in asking for substantiation for what they are doing and why they are doing it. But, you know, Joint Forces Command is--I have been there and visited there. The responsibility is to assign forces to various contingencies. You know, we only have so many forces, so we do look at all the plans there are. There is going to be this fleet or this division or this going here, there and everywhere, depending on what the scenario is. So I think the Chairman, Mike Mullen, and the Joint Chiefs can do that just as well as having a separate command. And, again, I say we have to make some hard decisions. We are cutting the heart out of the domestic programs of this country and defense has to give something up here. If you look at the various commands, this one makes as much sense. And the Secretary of Defense has made the decision. It is supported by the top members of the joint staff and, for that reason, I regretfully have to object and oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I understand there is a school of thought that we should just let nature take its way. But on the west coast of Washington State, we have from time to time had to come out and put in replenishment projects to save cities and save housing. We have done this with the Corps of Engineers very effectively using the best science. In Mississippi, they have a big Army Corps center where they study how to do these things. And, it does cost a little bit of money, but we are saving assets, and billions and billions of dollars. I just think that this is a very unfortunate amendment, and we should, in a bipartisan basis, defeat it and let the Corps do what it has to do to save cities and coastal areas across America.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object. This is for the Members who want to voluntarily enter into this arrangement. Is that correct?

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Speaker.