Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Department of Defense was not spared from cuts. The bill already slashes $15 billion from the President's request for FY11. This amendment would take it down another $18 billion, or $33 billion in total. I am concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman from California go too far and will adversely affect many defense readiness programs. Just as I have said about cuts in other areas, this is not time to take a hatchet to these programs. The amendment would cause DOD to terminate contracts, which will, in turn, force companies to lay off employees. Defense spending cannot, of course, be justified simply by jobs; but at the same time, the prospect of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the recession should be a consideration. In total, the Office of Secretary of Defense has identified 124 major acquisition programs that would be significantly disrupted by approaching the FY10 funding levels. Dropping funding by an additional $18 billion to reach the 3.5 percent reduction would seriously disrupt the readiness and safety of our forces. This is a very bad amendment; and on a bipartisan basis, we should defeat it.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, the Oregon Public Utility Commission has ruled that, from the standpoint of the rate- paying public, the settlement agreement is preferable to relicensing under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, as the agreement caps ratepayer cost at $200 million; whereas, fish passage costs, because these dams are old, could exceed $500 million, plus an additional $200 million for O&M. The amendment would force these costs on the rate-paying public without the benefit of accurate benefits and costs. Being from the Northwest, I want you to know that sometimes, and they are just studying this dam removal, but sometimes by taking out dams you can restore the original habitat and help the salmon recovery, as we are doing on the Elwha Dam project up in Washington State. The reason we did it: Because it was going to cost so much to fix up the dam, that it was actually cheaper to take them out and restore, and this became a major restoration project. So I wouldn't just assume that this is not a positive thing. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. DICKS. By the local community.

Mr. DICKS. And being from Oregon, you realize that it would do a lot potentially for salmon restoration.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. That's the point. It would cost more to fix these dams up. That's the problem we faced on the Elwha. Even though the dams were there, the cost was so high to fix them up that it was better to take them out. Now, this study will just look at this and the local people will wind up getting hurt if you force them to have to do this. So let the local people decide this and let this study go forward. It is a very inexpensive thing, and this community has worked hard and deserves a chance to look at this.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's point. As I have been told, there has been an effort to try and keep 50 percent of the people and the activities in your area in Virginia, and that's one of the most important defense areas the country has. So I think you guys are working hard, and I think that the Department is responding as best they can, but, again, I think we should reject the amendment and let this thing work out as the Department has recommended. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. This amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending any funds--any--for official representation due to a lack of auditable financial statements. Now, I completely agree with the gentleman on the point that we need to get them to do this. I just think this approach is not the way to do it. If authorizers could set a timeframe in statute--and that's the way to do it--without cutting out these funds when they are entertaining people from other countries around the world. I just think it's one of those things that sounds good, but it's going to have unintended consequences. Auditable financial statements have long been a goal of the Department of Defense. The committee has long pressed DOD to improve the quality of its financial management, and will continue that effort in the coming year. However, eliminating official representation funds is not connected to that goal. And limiting these funds would have damaging consequences. The amendment would preclude activities associated with hosting military to military contacts, both domestically and overseas. The activity extends official courtesies to guests of the United States and the Department of Defense, and upholds the prestige and standing of the United States. The amendment would also harm the military services' ability to conduct community relations activities. The amendment hurts DOD's ability to represent itself to foreign Nations and to the communities in which DOD activities are located. And it does so with very little payback. The bill before the House cuts over $15 billion on a bipartisan basis from the Defense Department budget on careful analysis of DOD programs. The approach in this bill yields both a higher payback and does not have the drawback of unintended consequences. Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Secretary Gates has worked out a reduction in the troop force that will occur later in the FYDP. I think under the circumstances with the troops in Afghanistan, we are bringing in troops out of Iraq. And one of the things that is very important about our European bases is we train with the Europeans. We work with the Europeans. When the flights come out of Iraq or Afghanistan with wounded troops, they come back to Landstuhl in Germany where the troops are taken care of in the hospital. There is a long- term relationship with NATO that is very critically important. And just to do this off the back of the hand, I understand the gentleman has some other advisers on this amendment; I wouldn't exactly be touting Donald Rumsfeld myself. But anyway, I hope that we can defeat this amendment and let the Secretary of Defense and the joint chiefs make the decision in bringing down our troop forces. And I really do believe Europe is still important to the United States. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I object. I don't think the gentlelady is addressing the point of order. She is reiterating the argument.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to finish on this amendment?

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 gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Vermont. I yield to the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, our good friend, Mr. Young.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman. I agree that the Yellow Ribbon Program has been a top priority of the subcommittee. We have worked tirelessly to ensure our brave men and women and their families are taken care of when they are serving the Nation. I too will work with the gentleman from Vermont and the gentleman from Florida to ensure the needs of our troops and their families are met. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 495 Offered by Mr. Hall

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, working together on a bipartisan basis for the first time, we cut nearly $15 billion from the Obama budget request in 2011 for defense, and we did it on a very careful basis. This amendment would add another $56 billion to that cut. It would do damage to all of our acquisition programs. It would threaten the people in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to conduct the global war on terrorism. So, again, I hope that on a very strong bipartisan basis we can reject this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong support of the position of our committee in opposition to this amendment, and I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf.

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

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