Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I, first of all, want to thank the gentleman for his very kind comments earlier. This amendment cuts $18.75 million from operations and maintenance Defense-wide to reduce boards and commissions. Well, I think things like the Defense Science Board are very important. We have a number of commissions that are looking into acquisition reform that are trying to help us save money, help us get our acquisition straightened out. So I agree with the gentleman. I think we should strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I want to remind everyone that we are on the Defense appropriations bill. This is the Flake amendment, and we have cut approximately $15 billion from this defense bill. I understand that there is a lot of concern about the other items here, but I just wanted to make that point. I yield to the gentleman from Florida if he has anything he wants to say at this point.

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

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

Mr. DICKS. I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment deletes $60 million from procurement and $502.4 million from research and development. The sum of this funding is for innovative research and procurement from small businesses and unsolicited proposals. And the gentleman from Florida and myself, and the gentleman from California, we've been here a long time. We have seen time after time when weapon systems like Predator and ScanEagle, I mean, there's all kinds of things that have happened because of small businesses. And when we made a decision to cut out earmarks for for-profit companies, one of the things that our committee did on a bipartisan basis, with unanimity on both sides, was to say let's put some more money into this competitive program, the Small Business Innovation and Research Program, which is at NIH, and at a number of agencies, I think DOE has one. This is a way to bring small businesses into the Defense Department on a competitive basis. And they do things that the Department needs to have done. So I rise with my chairman, Mr. Young, in strong opposition to this amendment. This was done to try to help the small business sector still make the contribution in the future for innovative new defense technologies. It's a good program and one that we should support. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. The amendment would remove $415 million total from Navy and Air Force procurement accounts. This funding would reduce the number of V-22 Ospreys from the DOD portion of the bill. The Osprey has proven itself under combat conditions to be safe, effective, survivable, and maintainable and is meeting all operational taskings. I have actually flown on the Osprey and I feel it is a very safe airplane. Today, flight-hours are increasing rapidly and will exceed 100,000 flight-hours in the first quarter of calendar year 2011. Forty- six percent of these hours have been flown in the last 2 years. The first combat deployment was September 2007. From that time to the present, the V-22 has been in the following deployments: three deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, three deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and three Marine Expeditionary Unit deployments. The Marine Corps has procured nearly two-thirds of the required fleet of aircraft, 250 out of a total of 360. The program is currently in the 4th year of a 5-year multiyear procurement, and we only give multiyear procurements on programs that we think are highly stable. This is a proven aircraft, and I urge rejection of this amendment. This is an important program, one that the Special Forces are going to use, and I think we have to be very careful. For the Marine Corps, this is one of their essential programs that they have strongly supported for many, many years, and it would be a devastating blow to them not to finish this procurement. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. The amendment cuts $115.5 million in funding for development of alternative energy. The bill includes funding based in part on the Defense Science Board's February 2008 report on DOD energy strategy. The DSB report made numerous recommendations to improve DOD energy efficiency. In addition, the committee held a formal briefing with officials from the Military Services, the Defense Logistic Agency, and OSD to review energy efficiency and energy technology programs. DOD is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States. In 2006, it spent $13.6 billion to buy 110 million barrels of petroleum fuel--about 300,000 barrels of oil each day--and 3.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. This represents about eight-tenths of 1 percent of total U.S. energy consumption and 78 percent of energy consumption by the Federal Government. In combat operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, moving fuel to deployed forces has proven to be a high-risk operation. Reducing operational fuel demand is the single best means to reduce that risk. However, the Defense Science Board concluded that DOD is not currently equipped to make decision on the most effective way to do so. The DSB recommended increased investment in energy efficient and alternative energy technologies to a level commensurate with their operational and financial value. The Defense Science Board recommended that the Department of Defense invest in basic research to develop new fuel technologies that are too risky for private investments and to partner with private sector fuel users to leverage efforts and share burdens. The bill emphasizes funding these types of initiatives. I strongly urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The amendment would eliminate all funding in the bill for the Afghan Infrastructure Fund--a total of $400 million. Establishing the fund at this level of funding was done at the request of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State in a joint letter to the congressional defense committees in November 2010. The funding was not added to the bill. It was derived by reducing the amount available for the Commanders Emergency Response Program. DOD requested that funding for this account be obtained in this manner. The Departments of Defense and State view this fund as essential to completing large scale infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, such as electrical power generation. Such projects provide the means for economic activity which will help to reduce risk for U.S. troops and help improve security in Afghanistan. I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to say that I share your enthusiasm for Community Health Centers. I've seen them all across my district. They are wonderful. We're going to have to keep fighting for them.

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's usual zeal for finding savings in the budget, but I believe his amendment goes too far to achieve savings without considering the impacts. NDIC plays an important role in analyzing and disseminating information to law enforcement and the intelligence community about the production, trafficking, and consumption of illegal drugs. It produces the annual drug threat assessments, as well as local and regional assessments. DOJ is proposing a reduced funding level for NDIC in 2012, along with the realignment of some of its functions to the Drug Enforcement Administration. We will have to look closely at that proposal to ensure it would not set us back in dealing with the drug threat. But, in any case, one simply cannot eliminate an agency overnight. NDIC performs significant functions that are critical to our law enforcement efforts, and those functions can't be simply shut down and transferred without significant planning. NDIC has been operating under the current CR for several months and has been obligated a significant amount of funding already, so there is no way to cut its funding for the year to zero. In fact, CBO scores the amendment as saving only $16 million in budget authority, not $34 million. I urge my colleagues to defeat this Flake amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I would just say we ought to do it now; it will make it easier. This gives us a bargaining chip with the President and with the Senate. We can make some reductions in defense.

Mr. DICKS. While the Democratic Caucus in the House remains committed to fiscal responsibility, we have two major concerns at this point that should be stated as we consider this resolution at the outset of the 112th Congress. First, we must recognize that the highest priority at this point is to get our economy moving again, supporting initiatives that help create jobs and that continue to bring us out of the recession. Our economy is still fragile, and although unemployment is heading downward, it remains too high. In this regard, I believe we must be concerned about a precipitous and substantial drop in spending if it is going to result in increasing unemployment and increasing the deficit. It is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what is intended on the Republican side. It would truly be counterproductive if we added to the ranks of the unemployed workers in America, reducing revenues coming into the Treasury and requiring additional expenditures for unemployment insurance and welfare. And second, the resolution we are considering today specifically exempts defense--the largest element of our Federal budget--from any reductions. Even though I have always supported a strong national defense, I cannot imagine why we would hold the Pentagon harmless in the attempt to achieve greater fiscal accountability. Even the Republican majority leader this week agreed that defense spending should be on the table, and Secretary Gates himself has proposed a series of reasonable reductions that could be accomplished in his department's budget. In the FY 2011 bill the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chaired with Mr. Young of Florida, adopted last July, included a reduction of $7 billion from the Obama budget request, and the Senate Appropriations Committee had a similar number. I think we can even do more than that. I was glad to see that Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor, and others have all said that defense should be part of the solution. I think we can cut up to $13 billion out of the defense budget without doing any damage to national security.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. First of all, I want to thank David Obey for all the help that he has given me over my entire career. I can remember the first weekend I was going to be on the committee, I called him at home and I said, Do you think I can offer this amendment to change the size and ratio of subcommittees? And he says, They'll never let you do it, but I'll vote for it because it's the right thing to do. That's how I first met David Obey. After 30 years, when I became chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I relied on him greatly for a good 302(b) allocation. Because of that, good 302(b) allocation we were able to do some incredible things. We had been working together on the national parks. We had worked on the fish and wildlife refuges. We had worked on improving the arts and humanities. And the Interior appropriations bill I know was one that David enjoyed immensely because he always was asking me, How's this going? How's that going? And I just want to thank him for everything that he's done in the last few days and over the years. He has been a tremendous leader. He has done great things for this country. Our natural resources are stronger because of David Obey. And I have enjoyed being with he and Joan at Zion and out at Olympic National Park this year. We've had some wonderful experiences. I want to say to my friend, Jerry Lewis, who's done a great job, Jerry and I have been friends. We traveled together. When I became chairman of the Defense Subcommittee after the loss of our great friend, Jack Murtha, Jerry and Jeff went with me on almost every single trip to help me, to be there, and to show support. It made a great difference. I want to say, Jerry, I will always remember it. Hal, I look forward to next year. We'll work together. I hope that we can have a successful year; that we can get these bills passed. You will have my cooperation. Again, Bev and all the staff, those are the people--Paul Juola is here from the Defense Subcommittee. I've never seen people work as hard as the staff of the House Appropriations Committee. They're there every day, night, weekends. It's amazing to me the work that they put in. I just appreciate so much, having been a former staffer myself, how much more professionalism and how much more capability this staff has. David, you and Bev built a great staff, and we hope to keep that staff. Thank you for your help and thank you for your friendship.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today to celebrate the great career of Ike Skelton. He and I were classmates. We came here in 1976--he went on the Armed Services Committee; I went on the Appropriations Committee--and we have always worked together. The issue that I have always enjoyed working with Ike on is the B-2 bomber, the Stealth Bomber. We worked on that. We went out to Missouri many times, to Whiteman. I think that was one of the finest weapons systems that has been developed, and we worked together on converting it to a conventional bomber, which made it a lot more effective, and it has been utilized. I want to also say that Ike has a tremendous concern about the troops. He has got family members who serve in the military, and he has always been an advocate for the troops. I just want to commend him on his outstanding career and on his great service to this country. The fact that this bill is being named after him is totally appropriate. I ask everyone to support the bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Quileute Tribe Tsunami Protection Act. This legislation will provide land to the Quileute Tribe to enable the re-location of many facilities outside the tsunami zone. Many of you may know that the Quileute Tribe is featured in the Twilight series of movies. For people like the Quileutes living along the Pacific coast of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, a tsunami is a very real threat they face every day. The Quileute day care facility, the elder center, Tribal offices and Tribal members' homes are directly in the path of the tsunami that one day will surely come. Getting the Tribe out of danger is of great concern to all of us, and I am very pleased to introduce legislation to help the Tribe move their people and infrastructure out of the danger zone. The Olympic National Park completely surrounds the one-mile-square Quileute Reservation, most of which is threatened either by tsunami or the Quillayute River flood zone. The only way to get the Tribe out of the danger zone is for the Park to transfer higher, safer lands to the Tribe. For many years there has been a dispute between the Park and the Tribe about the northern boundary of the Reservation, and this legislation resolves that dispute to the benefit of the Park, the Tribe and the general public. In addition to protecting the Tribe from tsunami threat, this legislation will permanently preserve public access to some of the most beautiful beaches on the Washington State coast, and will permanently protect as wilderness thousands of acres currently in the Olympic National Park. I want to thank the Quileute Tribe, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis and Olympic National Park Superintendent Karen Gustin for their hard work over many years to resolve this dispute. There must be Congressional approval for this settlement, so I ask my colleagues to consider the present danger to the Tribe and to support this bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your yielding to me, and I really appreciate the leadership that you have provided and the committee has provided. I rise to urge final passage of H.R. 1061, the Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act, which I sponsored. The Hoh Tribe lives right on the Pacific Coast in the Sixth District, which I represent. Their reservation is in a spectacularly beautiful area, but the location leaves the Hohs in constant danger of tsunamis. This legislation would allow the Hoh Tribe to move many structures out of the tsunami impact zone. This legislation passed the House in June. In September the bill was amended then passed in the Senate. This amended version, which is supported by all parties, is what the House is considering today. I urge that we again pass this legislation and allow for the Hoh Tribe to build a safer future uphill from the tsunami danger. H.R. 1061 accomplishes this goal by transferring a small parcel of land in Olympic National Park to the tribe. In addition, the legislation will place into trust this transferred Park Service land, along with other lands recently acquired by the tribe. I really cannot overemphasize the necessity of this legislation for the safety of the Hoh Tribe. The reservation is located where the Hoh River dramatically empties into the Pacific Ocean. As I said earlier, real danger comes with its spectacular beauty. The Pacific Ocean has many extremely active seismic zones, including in Washington State. Earthquakes in the eastern Pacific always cause concern along the Washington coast, as folks are forced to monitor the tsunami situation. The Hoh Tribe is also menaced by severe flooding nearly every year. We have very long winters in the Pacific Northwest, and throughout that season, the Hoh Tribe can experience flooding. These floods have destroyed buildings. A few years ago my office had to call the Washington State National Guard in order to help the tribe place sandbags during a flood emergency. This situation is intensifying as the Pacific and Hoh River erode the very limited land on the 1 square mile reservation. With all of the reservation within a tsunami zone and nearly all of it in a floodplain, the Hoh Tribe has trouble qualifying for assistance. The BIA, FEMA, and HUD are precluded from providing assistance to the tribe due to the reservation's location and its vulnerability to natural disasters. Although the threat always has existed, the desire to move the tribe to safety intensified after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting tsunami which killed more than 200,000 people. The Hoh Tribe developed its own strategy, which I wholeheartedly champion. With its own resources, the tribe bought several nearby parcels of land suitable for development away from the area of most danger. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources also has given the tribe a parcel of logged land in the same area. H.R. 1061 will transfer to the tribe a 37-acre parcel of land currently part of the Olympic National Park. This small parcel would make all of these lands mentioned above contiguous to the existing Reservation. Also, the main road linking the Tribe to U.S. Highway 101 runs through this Park Service parcel. Through years of negotiation, the Tribe, Olympic National Park, and others within the Park Service have come together in support of this legislation, which does include certain restrictions on development, including a ban on gaming. The Park Service also benefits from this legislation. The land is not of great value from an ecological point of view because it has been logged repeatedly. The Park Service has difficulties managing the 37- acre parcel because it is surrounded by non-Federal land. It also allows Olympic National Park to be a ``good neighbor'' and meet its responsibility to respect their non-Federal neighbors and be a positive presence in the area. The neighbors of the Hoh Tribe also support this legislation, including the surrounding local landowners, the Hoh River Trust, and numerous environmental organizations. Elected officials who support this legislation include Governor Gregoire, the local State Senator and Representatives and the Jefferson County Commissioners. It is time for the House to pass H.R. 1061 and send the bill to the President to be signed into law. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for their help with this legislation. I also want to thank Janet Ericson, Staff Director of the Office of Indian Affairs, and Todd Young and Chris Fluhr who work for my home State colleague, Doc Hastings. I also want to commend the Hoh Tribe and Tribal Council, Chairwoman Maria Lopez, and Alexis Berry, the executive director for the hard work. This legislation is a tremendous down payment on a safer future for the Hoh Tribe. I urge passage of the Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding organization located in my district, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF). PSNS & IMF, commanded by Captain Mark Whitney, leads Naval Sea Systems Command in engaging and hiring our nation's veterans and wounded warriors. In Fiscal Year 2010 PSNS & IMF hired 56 Disabled Veterans with a disability of 30 percent or greater, providing them with the opportunity to productively continue to contribute to our nation's security through the critical work of maintaining our Navy. The debt of gratitude the nation owes our veterans is immeasurable, but this is one effort which has had a substantial and meaningful impact towards our responsibilities for these men and women. I submit this letter from Vice Admiral Kevin M. McCoy, Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, as testimony to the leadership and achievements of Captain Whitney and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, October 22, 2010. Congressman Norm Dicks. Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Dicks: During my visit to Bremerton for Armed Forces Day 2010, you had some very encouraging comments about the great work of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) in taking care of our Nation's Veterans and in particular our Wounded Warriors. We also discussed NAVSEA initiatives in support of these very important programs as I had recently returned from the Wounded Warrior Olympics in Colorado. Captain Mark Whitney continues to lead NAVSEA activities in hiring and reaching out to our veterans and wounded warriors. For Fiscal Year 2010, PSNS & IMF has hired 56 Disabled Veterans with 30 percent or greater disability. This past year, they participated in many significant events to hire veterans and wounded warriors. They strengthened their partnership with agencies that support Wounded Warriors by hosting a familiarization visit of the shipyard with Career Counselors, Employment Specialists, and Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors from Warrior Transition Command, Phoenix Battalion, Fort Lewis; Seattle and Bremerton Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation/Education Office. The visit provided information that improved awareness of the career and development opportunities available for Wounded Warriors and Disabled Veterans at naval shipyards. Most recently the shipyard entered into a partnership with the Navy Safe Harbor Program at Bremerton Naval Hospital to provide internship opportunities for active duty service members who are seriously wounded, injured, or ill. This is a terrific opportunity for service members to productively apply their skills and talents and learn additional skills in preparation for transitioning to civilian careers. Their first intern, Lieutenant John Edmonston, checked in on October 1, will work in Combat Systems Division on October 12. I am very proud of the work being done at the shipyard and are adopting the best practices pioneered by Captain Whitney and his team across our entire Wounded Warrior program. I appreciate all you do for our great Nation and the tremendous support you provide to the U.S. Navy. Should you have any questions or desire to discuss NAVSEA efforts to employ and support Veterans, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, K. M. McCoy, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, since my first day in Congress, Impact Aid has always been one of my top priorities. My congressional district in the State of Washington is one of the most heavily impacted by large and vital military installations, including Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport and Submarine Base Bangor, which are either in or near the Sixth Congressional District. Our region proudly hosts thousands of active duty military personnel and their families, who represent a huge economic force in the Pacific Northwest as they contribute substantially to our nation's security. In addition, Washington is also home to 27 federally recognized Native American tribes, many of which I am proud to represent in Congress. With the many advantages of these large federal installations comes the loss of a substantial amount of land from the local tax base, however. Nevertheless, local school districts are still required to provide an education to children who live on these bases and other federally-connected, tax-exempt properties. Nationwide, this adds up to more than 1 million children, imposing more than $1 billion in additional costs to these districts. This is the reason Congress created the Impact Aid program 60 years ago. Although the case in favor of federal Impact Aid payments is clear and compelling, it has frequently been a target for reductions as we have debated the federal budget in Congress. Over the years, cuts to Impact Aid funding have been included in the Presidential budgets submitted to Congress, and occasionally in budget Resolutions considered in the House and Senate. To defend this vital program in the House of Representatives, I joined with a dozen of my Republican and Democratic colleagues in 1995, led by my good friends Chet Edwards and Jim Saxton, to form the House Impact Aid Coalition. Together, we have worked hard to support this program through a number of tough budget years, and I am proud that this program continues to be an important source of funding for nearly 1,500 local education agencies across the country. At the same time we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Impact Aid program, we are beginning another period in which constrained federal budgets will likely threaten to erode the progress we have made, and so the work of our coalition to build support for Impact Aid will be more important than ever. I regret that the Impact Aid Coalition will be losing some of its great champions-- Chairman Edwards, Ike Skelton, Earl Pomeroy, and Patrick Kennedy--all of whom have worked hard for this cause. But in the 112th Congress I am proud that we will still have more than 100 Members who are committed to preserving this program that means so much to children of military families as well as Native American kids. So on the occasion of this 60th anniversary of the Impact Aid Program, I join my colleagues in reflecting on the success we've had in preserving this program, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the years ahead to strengthen it.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, the Senate proposes rescissions totaling nearly $2.2 billion to Department of Defense programs in their amendment to the 2010 Supplemental Appropriation. These rescissions will not harm DoD programs and will not affect the conduct of continuing operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Senate bill proposes rescissions in three categories. First, in section 303, the Senate amendment proposes $1.6 billion in rescissions based on the Department of Defense accounting reports. These rescissions are a reflection of balances that would likely expire at the end of this fiscal year, or be reprogrammed for other efforts. Second, in section 304, the Senate amendment proposes $382.5 million. Of this amount, $260.5 million is from funding appropriated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization. This funding is available for rescission based on contract savings. This section also rescinds $122 million of funding from Marine Corps procurement because the Marine Corps has not been able to spend this money. Third, in section 305, the Senate amendment proposes $203 million. Of this amount, $116 million is derived from an Army procurement program, the Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), which the Department of Defense terminated earlier this year. This section also includes $87 million of funding from Other Procurement, Army due to slower than planned spending rates in Army truck and communications programs. The Senate amendment would not affect contingency operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those funds are provided separately to the Department of Defense, and are given special designation. None of the funds proposed for rescission are those designated for Overseas Contingency Operations. The DoD budget is sufficient to shoulder part of the burden to provide financial relief recommended in this bill. I urge your support for this bill.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. My colleague, Congressman Inslee from Washington State, talked about ocean acidification. This is one of the most serious issues that the planet faces. This legislation also will free up money, make it mandatory, and land and water conservation does preserve the right of the appropriations committee to appropriate that money, but we'll get those dollars that we haven't been getting before. We also have a provision in here for the oceans. So this is a great bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for it today.