Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for clearing up some of the myths about this program. This is one of the better programs, I believe, the Department of Energy has. It is a program where we are working on these advanced technologies and anyone can participate. So I think it is a tremendous effort. Just this year, the year 2000, marks a major milestone in the PNGV program, the unveiling of the proof of concept vehicles that demonstrate up to 80 miles per gallon fuel economy. Earlier this year, the three auto makers presented their PNGV vehicles at several events, including the Northern American International Auto Show in Detroit and the PNGV 2000 Concept Roll-Out on March 30 in Washington, D.C. All three vehicles, the Ford Prodigy, the General Motors Precept, the DaimlerChrysler ESX-3, feature advanced hybrid propulsion systems, high efficiency diesel engines, and extensive use of lightweight materials. Each vehicle is a significant technological achievement and the auto makers each credited the government contribution to that achievement. It is estimated that industry has spent, on its own, a billion dollars of its own money on these concepts which would not have been invested in the absence of the PNGV program. So I think this program is working. And at a time when energy prices are on the minds of the American people, where in the midwest gas prices are at $2.50, finally doing something with innovative technology to bring on these more efficient cars seems exactly the right thing for the Federal Government to be doing in a partnership with the private sector. I commend this administration for what it has done. And I also want to reiterate, of the $128 million appropriated by the Department's PNGV efforts in fiscal year 1999, less than 3 percent, $3 million was sent to General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. Most of the funds were passed through to subcontractors. The majority of the appropriation, as mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), approximately 63 percent was distributed to the Department of Energy national labs and only a small portion passed through the laboratories to other businesses. About 30 percent of the appropriations supported large automotive suppliers and approximately 7 percent supported small businesses and universities. By technologies, fuel cells rank first with $33 million, or 26 percent of the total. Lightweight materials accounted for $19 million. In comparison, the research efforts aimed solely at compression ignition diesel cycle totalled $6 million. In fiscal year 2004, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler receive less than 1 percent of the appropriation. So this is hardly corporate welfare. What this is is a very smart program between the Department of Energy and the auto makers of this country to try and come forward with advanced technologies with these advanced engines, with the hybrid vehicles, with lighter materials which are crucial to this effort. So I think we should keep this program. I think we should reject the amendment and move on.

Mr. DICKS. I believe we have to vote on this amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman on his remarks here tonight. I have always been against term limits, and I know that others here have learned the hard lessons. But I think that the 6-year limitation on chairmanships is one that sometimes it will be good and sometimes it will be bad. I happen to think in this case this is a very bad one, because I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been a great chairman. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned Sid Yates. I have served on this subcommittee, this is my 24th year; and Sid Yates was a great role model, a great chairman. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has been an outstanding chairman as well. Both of these men have done a great service to our country over the last 30 years. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio tonight on his 6 years as our chairman. As he said, he has not been dealt the best hand when it came to allocations. I can remember the coach out at the Sea Hawks, Chuck Knox, who used to say one has got to play the hand that one is dealt. We have not been dealt a very nice hand, but we have tried our best with the money that we have to do the best job possible. I want to compliment the chairman also for his efforts throughout his career, one, to bring better administration to the agencies over which we have jurisdiction and using the public administration people, using the National Academy of Science, using whatever oversight group we could find, the GAO, and our own investigative team, to look at agencies and try to help them do a better job. I think it was always done in a constructive way, trying to help them improve their management and to save money and so that they could do a better job with the task that they have. I think that is a legacy that will live on. Number two, the chairman has been dogged and I think correct in his efforts to make certain that our existing parks, our existing Forest Service facilities, our BLM facilities all over this country which provide so much recreation to the American people are maintained properly. Sometimes in this institution everybody wants to add new facilities or add new parks and new areas. Somebody has to remember that one has got to take care of the ones we have already got. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) has done a remarkable job, and it is also a legacy issue in terms of his commitment to that and educating our committee and the members of the subcommittee about how important that is. Then of course an initiative that he took on his own with my support and the committee's support was to have this fee-demonstration project. This is another legacy issue which is, I think, being supported all over this country, as people see that when they go to their park a significant amount of the money, 80 percent, will stay there, so that it will help take care of the high-priority maintenance problems, trails, other things that are essential to that particular park. I think this has been kind of a pay-as-you-go formula. Frankly, I do not think the park supervisor, the Forest Service, the BLM would ever get caught up unless we try to do something innovative like this. I think that is another important issue. We will have more time when we get into the bill to get into a deeper discussion of the issues. But tonight we should be congratulating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his outstanding service to the House and to this committee, and I am glad to hear him say he is going to stay on the committee. I look forward to working with him. He has an outstanding staff led by Debbie Weatherly and all the other members of the staff. I want to thank Mike Stevens and Leslie Turner on our side. They all work together so well, so professionally. It makes one very proud as a Member of this institution. I am also very proud to be on the Committee on Appropriations because I believe this committee always works together in a bipartisan way. All the committees that I have ever been on, all the subcommittees, have always functioned that way. I think it is something we all should try to make a role model out of, because it is the way this institution should work when we get something done of importance. When we can work together and deal with these issues, we can get a lot more done for the American people. So I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I am going to miss him in his role as chairman; but I am glad he is going to still be on the committee. We will work on a lot of good things and keep going out and look at these facilities. Another thing that the gentleman from Ohio did is get us back out on the road to see these parks and to see these facilities, see where the problems are, and then come back and start fixing them. That is the way one should do it. Unfortunately, our committee did not do that as much as we should have in years past, but the gentleman from Ohio reinstated that. I think it is a tradition we should maintain in the future. So tomorrow we will discuss the bill. Tonight we thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for his great service. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York. I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the open rule for the Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 which protects what the Committee reported. I want to commend our Chairman, Mr. Regula, on the difficult task he was faced with writing this year's spending bill. Unfortunately, the subcommittee was given an unrealistic allocation and as a consequence, this bill simply falls short in too many areas and I will be forced to oppose it on the floor. I know that it would have been extremely difficult to provide all of the increases requested by the Administration, but I am frustrated that the allocation this bill received was so inadequate. With these levels, we will not even be able to provide fixed costs for all of the agencies within our jurisdiction. We are severely under-funding critical programs within our jurisdiction. When this bill was considered by the full Appropriations Committee, the Administration sent a letter to the Chairman expressing deep concern over not only the spending levels provided in the bill but also several ``riders'' which were added at the last minute. The letter threatened a veto if substantial changes were not made to the bill. Each of these legislative provisions jeopardizes passage of this bill on the floor, and guarantees another confrontation with the White House this fall. These riders deal with complex policy concerns and should be addressed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, not attached to an annual spending bill. I do however appreciate that the Rule provided for this bill will enable Members wishing to offer amendments to these provisions the ability to do so. I am forced to oppose this bill because I do not believe we have adequately funded dozens of important priorities within our jurisdiction, and I oppose the inclusion of these controversial riders. I do however appreciate the bipartisan cooperation and responsible manner with which our Subcommittee works. This bill however did not receive an adequate allocation to start with now faces an even greater hurdle with the inclusion of these riders.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I cannot accept any strikes because the gentleman has not even gotten close to the plate with this amendment. So let us vote it down and move along.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say to my friend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that his amendment is strongly opposed by the Defense Department because they already have the ability to deal with these issues. Let me give my colleagues what they say. This comes over from the comptroller: The Department strongly opposes this provision since it would supersede the current suspension and debarment program established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR; unduly burden the procurement process; and eliminate the Department's flexibility in choosing with whom to do business. The Department agrees that it should not do business with firms or individuals whose conduct is unethical or unlawful. To this end, the suspension and debarment system now in place protects the Government from dealing with unscrupulous contractors. It allows for individual debarment determinations based on factors, such as poor performance or violation of law, and requires due process so that exceptions, often in the form of settlement agreements, may be made when circumstances warrant. The Department recommends that the offenses listed continue to be handled through the current FAR suspension and debarment process. Last year over 800 firms and individuals were suspended or debarred by the DOD. Government-wide there are 5,000 firms and individuals currently suspended or debarred from doing business with the Government. The existing FAR system gives the Department the flexibility to consider mitigating factors and select an appropriate debarment period. Potential mitigating factors include the fact that a firm is the sole source supplier of a product or service, that the offense was committed several years ago, and that the firm has taken steps to prevent a recurrence or has removed the individual responsible for the improper conduct and educated its workforce on ethics and integrity. The FAR debarment process is well established and does not impose undue administrative burdens or absolutely prohibit doing business with critical suppliers. The Department already has the authority to debar individuals and contractors for commission of offenses, such as the ones indicated, as well as for a general lack of business integrity or honesty. Making debarment statutory adds nothing to the authority DOD already has and removes our ability to tailor the appropriate sanctions to individual cases. So not only is this not necessary, the amendment of the gentleman would immediately debar almost all of the defense industry. Now, I know that he does not favor the defense industry, but getting rid of all of it at once, I think, would be overkill.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that this is a high-risk venture. Even the proponents of it recognize that, but I think we need to keep moving this thing. I think what we need to see does the next test work and can the President do anything diplomatically. If not, I hope, frankly, that he pushes this off until the next Presidency. I think it would be much better for the next President to make this decision.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do want to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that I think this is a much closer call on the viability of this program. General Kadish, who is the person who runs this office, says very clearly that this is a high-risk proposition. And we have not done enough testing yet to really make a deployment decision. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I have been looking into this in great detail. And, frankly, I am a bit concerned about the time schedule here for a decision. Apparently, we are going to have an additional test sometime this summer; and after that, the President in August is going to make a decision about whether we go forward with deployment, or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has suggested, he may decide that we do not have enough information and that the criteria that was laid out last year in the bill that talks about costs, risk and what this means to all of our allies and what does it mean to the Russians. I mean, there is a real question here, I believe, about, you know, how much this is going to add to our defense, and whether it is going to set off a chain reaction with the Chinese wanting to increase their weapons, then India, Pakistan. This has got tremendous ramifications that need to be considered. Frankly, the President was trying to work out an agreement with Mr. Putin in his recent trip to the Soviet Union, and he was unsuccessful in getting a limited amendment to the ABM agreement so that we could do our hundred interceptors, but not abrogate the treaty. Now, the problem is we have got money in the military construction bill to start on the X ban radar site in Alaska. In order to start, if we are going to abrogate the treaty or whatever we are going to do with the treaty, we have to notify the Russians in November of this year that we are going to do something that goes outside the agreement. Now, some people have suggested maybe there is a way to finesse that, and that really starting this construction is not really an abrogation, but this gets into very legalistic determinations. So I think the thing to do here is that we should make a point, all of us, with this administration, just as we said on the F-22, Mr. Chairman, that we need more testing. We need to look at the question of can this thing handle the decoys and can it handle these other threats that are presented. I must say, I have always been a strong believer in our triad, our strategic deterrent; and although I am rarely persuaded by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on these matters, I do believe there is a strong case that anybody would be acting suicidally and insanely to try to launch one or two weapons at the United States. I do believe my own judgment is deterrence will continue to work for a reasonable period of time into the future. It is going to take us at least 5 years before we have this system anyway, so let us do it right. Let us get the testing; let us make sure we have got this thing done. We have already spent $60 billion. We are going to spend a lot more; probably we are going to do this. So let us take the time to do it right. I am still going to stay with the committee on this particular amendment, but I did want to say this today because I think the gentleman has a very thoughtful amendment and has approached this in a very constructive way.

Mr. DICKS. No, no, they have tested it already against decoys. They used a balloon. I hope this is not classified. Is this classified? MR. LEWIS of California. Be careful.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The F-22 will give us air superiority into the future for at least the next 30 years. I have been around here long enough to know that, yes, in every one of these programs, there are problems that have to be dealt with, whether it is the radar or wing bump or whatever it is. But we go through a development program for that purpose to make those corrections. Now, the reason air superiority is so important, if one looks at what happened in Iraq and then what happened in Yugoslavia, within a matter of hours, we were able to completely dominate the Earth. Remember the aircraft from Iraq went to Iran. They fled the country because they knew they would all be shot down. Once we have air superiority and once we can control the surface-to- air missiles and their anti-aircraft guns, then we can bring in, not only our stealthy airplanes like the B-2 and the F-117, which are used to go after those fixed targets, but then we can bring in all of the nonstealthy planes, the F-16s, the F-15s, the F-18s Es and Fs and Cs and Ds, and the B-52 and the B-1s. But the Enabler is our ability to gain air superiority rapidly; and that saves American lives, saves money, and that is what the F-22 is all about. I was pleased last year, and I supported our chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in reviewing this program; but I think we still need to have an unquestioned air superiority fighter for the future. As General Ryan says over and over again, ``We do not want a fair fight.'' I believe that once we get through the development that this plane will live up to expectations. We are not going to buy as many of them as some people would like to buy, because of affordability reasons; but we will have enough of them to ensure that in the next 30 years we will have unquestioned superiority in this area, which is crucial to winning wars early, decisively, saving money and saving American lives. Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield for a point of clarification?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the Chairman for his efforts to address the serious problem of toxic waste remaining on the island of Bermuda and submit, on behalf of myself and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for insertion in the Record, two letters to the chairman on this issue, one from the Premier of Bermuda and one from the British Ambassador, as well as a letter the Chairman wrote to the Secretary of the Navy on this topic. Hamilton, Bermuda, May 29, 2000. Hon. Jerry Lewis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that the House Appropriations Committee is now considering report language that would require the U.S. Department of Defense to work with the Governments of Bermuda and the United Kingdom on a resolution of the Bermuda base lands clean-up issue. In this connection, the Navy has on several occasions stated that Bermuda agreed to accept the reversion of the former Navy properties in Bermuda in an ``as is'' condition. I wish to advise you unequivocally that this is not the case. Bermuda has consistently expressed its concern directly to the U.S. Navy about the contaminated condition of the base lands and has never agreed to accept the property in its contaminated state. As Ambassador Meyer reaffirmed during his visit with the Subcommittee recently, the British Embassy has also consistently supported Bermuda's position in this matter. Immediately following notification that the properties would be returned, Bermuda expended more than $1.5 million on three separate environmental assessments of the base lands. The assessments showed that leaks from the Navy's storage tanks had created major free product plumes that are threatening Bermuda's groundwater supplies. The assessment also showed that sludge and raw sewage at the bottom of Bassett's Cave and more than 400 tons of friable asbestos are posing significant health risks to Bermuda's population. Bermuda promptly turned over all such studies to the Navy. On the 14th of December 1994, some eight months before the bases were closed, Bermuda submitted a formal position paper to Captain Tim Bryan, Commanding Officer of the Bermuda Naval Air Station. The paper detailed the environmental problems at the base lands and communicated the view that the U.S. should bear full responsibility for the contamination and environmental problems at the U.S. base lands. In a subsequent position paper dated 17th May 1995, three months before closure, Bermuda formally notified the Navy that it would not accept the U.S. position concerning abandonment of the bases, and that ``the U.S. has moral and political obligation for clean-up''. The Bermuda notification also stated that ``Bermuda has formally advised the U.S. Navy on two occasions that the contamination constitutes an unacceptable imminent risk to citizens, residents and visitors to Bermuda''. You will find attached for ease of reference Bermuda's position papers of 14th December 1994 and 17th May 1995. I hope this information is helpful to you. This matter has now been protracted over nearly five years without a satisfactory resolution. I have attached also two recent articles from Bermuda's newspapers that show just how much this issue continues to be a matter of major concern in Bermuda. We very much hope that your Committee will initiate a process that can lead to a satisfactory resolution of this matter without further delay. As always, we are very grateful for your continuing interest in this issue. Yours sincerely, The Hon. C. Eugene Cox, JP, MP., Acting Premier.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is a good bill. I see the gentleman from California here. I want to say to the gentleman, too, our subcommittee, it is a great subcommittee to be a Member of, there is never any partisan rhetoric to speak of; and we try to focus in on trying to do the best possible job with the resources we have to do the best for defense. I think this year, for example, taking the money and accelerating the two brigades that will be part of the Army's effort to lighten up and be more mobile. That is a great decision on the part of the committee. I hope the Congress will endorse that, and I hope we can get the Senate to go along with it.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I understand his criticisms and critique. We could give a critique on both sides of the aisle, but what the gentleman just said, I think, is the most important thing, and that is, we need to continue to maintain a bipartisan consensus in the House for national defense, for our troops, for taking care of the spare parts problems. I think it is good if we can try to work and build consensus behind national defense. I hear some of the criticism on my side of the aisle, because they are worried about wastefulness. They are worried are we doing enough in terms of testing, national missile defense, have we done enough testing on the F-22. Frankly, as a member of the committee I am concerned about those issues myself. I think we need to be careful as stewards of national security not to always believe everything we are told, I know the gentleman does not fall under this category, by the Pentagon is necessarily totally accurate. I mean, we have to go in and do a good job of oversight and looking at what has actually happened. And that is why I was impressed when the gentleman said he was going out and taking a look to see about spare parts. By the way, our committee has added hundreds of millions of dollars over a sustained period of years on these issues during the Reagan buildup, during this buildup; but I hope we can try to have the rhetoric in a constructive tone, rather than in a tone that kind of gets us into a fight over this issue. There still is a huge consensus in this Congress, at least 325 Members, who are strongly committed and it is very bipartisan. So I just wanted to make those points.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that I think this is a very fine rule that allows the House to work its will on this very important legislation. I think this is an exceptionally good bill. First of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), our ranking Democrat, for their excellent leadership on this particular bill. One of the things that I think stands out in my mind about this bill is the fact that we are moving forward the Army's program to transform Army brigades to a new medium configuration that can be deployed within 96 hours anywhere in the world on a C-130 or, better, on a C-17. I am very pleased that the Army has selected Ft. Lewis, Washington, as the place to do this transformation of two of these brigades. I think the Army is correct to try to have a more deployable force. We saw the problems in Kosovo with the Apaches, first of all the inability to deploy them for some period of time, and then the fact that they were not prepared when they got there to be utilized. I think that is a serious problem for the Army that we must confront. I would only say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), that attack submarines, by the way, were just given a scrub by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They think the fact that we only have 50 is a serious mistake. They think we should have about 68. We will be very fortunate if we can keep 57 attack submarines. Now, I would point out to the gentleman that there is an ASW role for attack submarines. There is a special forces role for attack submarines. There is a very important intelligence role. And they are very crucial in any kind of a war-fighting scenario against any country. Anytime somebody has a ship at sea, an attack submarine is the last thing they want to confront. So I think they still have a very important utilization. One of the things that I worked on, and I see my good friend from Texas and my good friend from California here on the floor, has been the effort to modernize our bomber force. In this whole defense debate, I do believe the one serious mistake we are making is not adequately funding our bomber force. I was particularly proud of the fact that the B-2 bomber was utilized, along with the B-1s and the B-52s, in the war in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Many of us read the report in Newsweek that talked about the difficulty against relocatable targets. Well, I will tell my colleagues this, that the B-2 with the 2,000-pound JDAMs was used against fixed targets and it was extremely accurate and extremely effective. In fact, we are now going to, with the money that is in this bill, put a new bomb rack on the B-2s and we are going to be able to put 80 500-pound JDAMs on each of these planes. And they will all be independently targetable. We will be able to take out 80 separate targets in one sortie. I mean, this is revolutionary. We are also adding capability with Link 16 to give the B-2 not only the ability to go deep underground but also to go against relocatable targets and, with the use of submunitions, to go against advancing armor. This will turn out to be the most impressive, the most important conventional weapon ever developed by the United States or by any military force in the history of mankind. I am proud that the Congress, this House, four times voted with the gentleman from Washington on this particular issue. I think we have been vindicated by those who said it could not fly in the rain. By the way, in Yugoslavia, it was the only plane that did fly in the rain that could drop bombs because we were using the GPS system, which does not rely on laser guidance. So I am very proud of the fact that we continue the modernization of the B-2 with some adds in this particular bill to give it even greater capability. Its mission planning has been improved. We were giving it a multitude of bombs that it can handle. It will be a conventional weapon that I think allows us to make some reductions under START I, under START II, and eventually under a START III agreement in the number of nuclear weapons that we need for deterrent purposes. I think it is much more important to have conventional weapons that we can utilize. It is true that deterrence is based on weapons like the Trident submarine, which I have been a major supporter of. But we are not going to use those weapons. In fact, I hope that we can take the four Tridents that we are downsizing and use them for conventional purposes, to add a conventional capability with Tomahawk to those four Tridents and maybe using two of them for special forces operations. So I think there are many good things.