Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, if we can add $34 million to the funding, we can get all the testing completed and not have to pay termination costs under the contract. So it seems to me you can make a case that this is the most cost-effective thing to do. That's at least what I understood.

Is that the gentleman's understanding, or should we get the Marine Corps up here to try to explain this, or somebody?

I yield to the gentleman.

I think that's a wise course. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue. Wounded warrior rehabilitation programs that have worked with national and community organizations have provided substantial support for injured members of our Armed Forces to participate in physical activity as an important aspect of their rehabilitation. Research shows that daily physical activity enhances wounded warriors' confidence, achievements, and quality of life. These programs are essential, and I would like to work with my colleague in the upcoming year to ensure that those programs will continue.

Will the gentleman yield?

I really think we've got to solve this problem. This is very unfair, this one program. This is a national program in every sense of the word, and we have either got to get it authorized or do whatever we have to do to make this possible. I look forward to working with you to achieve that.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

We have already had a straight up-or-down vote on the Osprey and resoundingly supported it here in the committee.

On the expeditionary fighting vehicle, there's a decision been made by the Secretary of the Navy to end this program. What we're trying to do is to do it in a way that finishes the research with an additional $34 million and avoids termination liability.

I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman. I've been down there on that southern border. I would just point out, though, that yesterday we killed the National Drug Intelligence Center, which is used by the Justice Department to try and target the people coming across, I mean, this was a Justice Department program, but your side killed it.

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

The gentleman from Nebraska has spoken twice on this issue. Was that by unanimous consent?

I want an answer to my question first.

I yield to the gentleman.

You're such a handsome guy, I thought you spoke twice. I'm sorry.

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

We accept the amendment on our side.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is this for 1 year, or what is the timeframe?

So it is permanent law?

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate it, and I associate myself with your remarks.

Did you mention that the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications is cut out of this as well?

That's rather shocking.

Did you offer the amendment?

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frank amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I, again, support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, since 2008 we have faced the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we are just not emerging from this difficult period. As we have debated the Continuing Resolution in the House this week, I have urged my colleagues to consider the impact that our near term actions will have on unemployment and on our nation's economy, which remains fragile. In this regard I have deep concerns about the magnitude of the cuts contained in the version of the Continuing Resolution that has been drafted by the majority leadership, with little input from the minority.

At this time I am particularly concerned about the impact of this bill on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which this bill would cut by $189 million from President Obama for Fiscal Year 2011. This level of spending will preclude the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, meaning that hedge funds, credit rating agencies, and broker- dealers will continue to operate without regulation, therefore increasing the risk of another fiscal meltdown. It also takes a big step backwards toward the enforcement situation we had before the crisis, leaving the agency with fewer staff to investigate potential misconduct and police securities markets to prevent another financial crisis.

Why is this important? Look at the history: In response to what was clearly an economic crisis in our country in 2007-2009, Congress established a bipartisan Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. In its final report that was issued in January, the Commission concluded that the financial crisis was entirely avoidable. It wrote:

The crisis was a result of human action and inaction . . .

the captains of finance and the public stewards of our

financial system ignored warnings and failed to question,

understand, and manage evolving risks within a system

essential to the well-being of the

American public . . . Widespread failures in financial

regulation and supervision proved devastating to the

stability of the nation's financial markets. The sentries

were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely-

accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets

and the ability of financial institutions to effectively

police themselves.

So what did we do about this ``combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and a lack of transparency'' that the Commission said put our financial system on a collision course with crisis? We passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was intended to enable federal regulators to better understand and manage evolving risks; providing transparency in the financial and derivatives markets; and, maybe most importantly, putting the sentries back on duty and giving them the tools to do their jobs.

This Dodd-Frank legislation charged the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with new responsibility to oversee the financial industry and provide for regulation of the massive derivatives industry.

Now I understand that some members of the Republican caucus who may have opposed Dodd-Frank did not believe that a failure on the part of Federal regulators to enforce the law played a significant role in the financial crisis. It seems that this misguided conclusion has led the new Majority to attempt--through the appropriations process--what it could not accomplish through the regular legislative process: to scale back federal regulation to the pre-crisis level. I cannot imagine a more risky thing to do at this time.

Thus I support the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts, the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, has offered, restoring $131 million of the funding that will go to the SEC in this fiscal year to implement the oversight functions mandated by Dodd- Frank. I believe this amount would allow the agency to carry out its basic functions and start the process implementation so that we will not be risking another calamity like the situation we faced in 2008.

Like many of the amendments proposed to this Continuing Resolution during this debate under such unusual rules, the funding offset is problematic. The Internal Revenue Service's Enforcement division is already taking a massive and unwise cut in this bill and I regret that this amendment would add to that cut. It is difficult to talk seriously about deficit reduction while at the same time ignoring the tens of billions of dollars in taxes that go unpaid every year because of a lack of enforcement. So I believe we have some work to do, as we move forward, to ensure adequate funding for tax enforcement while at the same time we proceed to putting in place the important oversight functions of Dodd-Frank.

I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield? Is the way to make them better by cutting money, for the SEC?

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

Again, I strongly rise in support of the Holt amendment. If you look at history, in the years around 2003 to 2005, this budget was cut.

Vote for the Holt amendment.

Reserving the right to object, I just want to also join the chairman in congratulating the staff. This is the hardest-working staff I have ever seen in my career. The effort that is put in on a bipartisan basis, this is the cohesive and professional staff that I have seen, and I have been up here on the Hill for over 40 years. I just want to say that Jennifer Miller and David Pomerantz worked very hard to put this agreement together. We asked for some additional time. Our Members wanted a chance to express themselves on some of these very important and sensitive issues that are in this legislation.

But it is my judgement that we should not object; we should accept this agreement and proceed forward and finish this legislation.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to commend the gentleman for his outstanding work on this important issue. We want the gentleman to know that we are prepared on our side to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to rise in very strong support. This has been one of the most successful conservation programs. It brings in the private sector. They add two or three times to the contribution here. And I think this is a program that is very worthy and should be supported, and I hope the gentleman's amendment will be accepted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed that the committee zeroed out the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program. I think this has been a great program that has helped the States do plans on how they can use their habitat to protect endangered species. This is the kind of work that is necessary so that we don't get future listings.

I know my friend from Idaho and others are concerned about the Endangered Species Act and the number of listings, and we will talk more about that later, but this was a very important program and one that I as chairman strongly supported and actually created.

So I just want to mention that I hope in conference we can at least maintain some level of funding for this program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment.

First of all, I have been on the committee for a long time, the Interior Appropriations Committee, and I can remember when Sid Yates from Chicago was the chairman, and we had arts funding at about $180 million, then we had new Republican leadership come in in 1994 and 1995 and they cut the endowments in half. What we found out was that when the endowment had less money to give out in grants, the private sector started to give less money for grants and to help these institutions. I applaud the gentleman for being a leader in his local arts community.

Americans for the Arts did a major study 4 or 5 years ago about the economic impact of the arts, and the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct; the arts have exploded across the country. We have given grants now in almost every single congressional district, which has helped the proliferation of arts institutions. Consolidation, it doesn't scare me. I think that, in some areas, it might be a good idea. I've seen in the Puget Sound area, in Seattle, and in Tacoma how much this has meant to the local communities, and this is a relatively small amount of money.

When I was chairman of the committee, I did increase it, but I never increased it by an amount that the Republican ranking member could not also support. So Rocco Landesman said, well, why didn't you just put up the $250 million. We did this on a bipartisan basis. We also have an Arts Caucus in the Congress that operates on a bipartisan basis, and we've had on the floor over the years a multiple of votes, and we've had, you know, 40 or 50 enlightened Republicans who have joined with us and made a good majority in support of these programs.

The humanities is also extremely important in literature and in education and helping our teachers. So I think these are worthy programs. I think the committee made the right decision here. I wish it was still at $167.5 million, but they've reduced it down to about $145 million. I think that's good enough. I think going further than that will really do damage to both of these endowments that have been there since 1965 back in the Johnson administration, and I just think this would be a mistake.

I support what the committee did, and I think we should stay with that number.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member, Mr. Moran. This is a program that was created because the arts institutions in the District of Columbia, many of them do not get any support from the District of Columbia government. And there's no State government. In New York, they get money from the city, from the boroughs, from the State government for their major arts institutions.

This program was a very modest program that helps 23 performing arts institutions which are extremely important, all of which have very solid educational programs that help inner city youth here. We have a very high population of inner city youth in the District of Columbia.

So I just think this has been a proven program. It is very modest. It's been cut in half. Last year I think we had it at about $9.5 million. It has been cut in half. I think we should leave that. I think the committee has made a decision; and to go further would just be, in my mind, punitive.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the Community Service Block Grant program provides grants and other services to States to combat poverty and to increase self-sufficiency. The funding is directed to community organizers in poor neighborhoods. The range of services provided includes emergency services, housing, health care, food and nutrition, economic development, and education.

States award the funds to Community Action Agencies. I've got several of them in my congressional district, which are nonprofit, private and public organizations established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Today, there are approximately 1,000 Community Action Agencies serving the poor in every State.

Now, I know the gentleman from Arizona is basing part of his cut on what is in the President's budget. From my perspective, the President's budget is wrong on this subject. To cut this program in half and then say we're going to have competitive bidding for the other half is going to hurt thousands, if not millions, of poor people in this country. It is not the right thing to do. This is shredding the safety net. Then this last $100 million, because so much of this money has already been spent this year, would take this program down to zero. It would be a disaster. All of these agencies would have to close, and the people who are the poorest people would not have any place to go to get help.

So I just think it's despicable that we have finally gotten down to where we're going to go after the Community Service Block Grant, which helps the poorest people in each of our districts around the country.

It's indefensible, it's just not right, and I hope that the gentleman from Arizona will reconsider this amendment, and I would hope that the committee would reconsider this in conference committee. I don't think the other body should in any way embrace this. This is a bad amendment, a bad cut, and it's going to hurt people, the poorest people in this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

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

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, yielding.

I want to stand here today and tell you that we're all worried about the economy. We're all worried about getting people back to work; we have 9 percent unemployment. But the reality is there are a lot more people who have lost their jobs who have given up looking or are underemployed. This is the most serious economic problem we've faced since the Great Depression.

Now, unfortunately, the choice of the majority is to cut very substantially into programs that are in the domestic accounts and $15 billion from defense. We all understand we have got to get spending under control and we have to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We have to look at this oil subsidy issue, which the oil companies even are embarrassed about.

But what I worry about here is with this approach we are going to hurt the economy. We are going to drive unemployment up. We're going to drive the deficit up. And it is countercyclical. When you cut this much spending, it is going to hurt the fragile recovery, and it's not going to put people back to work.

The other side seems to think that by making these cuts that the private sector is going to say, ``aha'', and invest all kinds of money and create jobs to offset these cuts. As the Democratic majority leader has just said, there are highly regarded studies out there that show that 800,000 jobs will be lost because of this bill. That will have a major negative impact on the economy.

Also, one program that I looked into and I hope we can fix is the voucher program for homeless veterans. This has been a program that's been going on for about 3 or 4 years. Homeless veterans can get a voucher and go through

their public housing authorities and get a place to live. There are almost 30,000 people in this program; and the ones that are in it are doing better--less alcohol, less drugs. They're getting jobs. They're feeling better about themselves. And there is a need, according to General Shinseki, now head of the VA, for another 30,000 of these vouchers.

This money is in the 2012 budget request. It was in the 2010 budget request. The majority decided to terminate this program. I would hope we could reconsider that. The program is working, and we need another 30,000 of these vouchers.

The most recent data indicates that 10,000 of these veterans are from the Iraq and Afghanistan war. These are young people coming back who have served their country, and they deserve to have these vouchers if they need them. And we should restore this program. Again, I think we should vote against the rule, vote against the previous question.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. There is no denying that we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt over the long term. What the majority offers instead in this bill is a one- dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the Federal budget. We believe that at this time we should be putting everything on the table: discretionary spending, entitlements, and taxes. Without a more comprehensive approach to this debt crisis, we cannot effectively change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. Without a more comprehensive budgetary approach, what we would be offering to the American people would be what Alan Simpson has called ``a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon.''

As we address the debt crisis, it is fundamental that we should first do no harm to the fragile economic recovery. Here I am just echoing what many others have said. As the bipartisan Fiscal Commission put it, ``In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the Commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programmatic spending cuts, and waiting until fiscal year 2013 before making large nominal cuts.''

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in his testimony last week to the House Budget Committee said, ``To the extent you can change programs that will have long-term effects on spending and revenues, that will be a more effective and credible program than one that focuses only on the current fiscal year. The right way to do this doesn't put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery.''

As the Democratic leader just said, there is a recent analysis done by the Economic Policy Institute that says a full $100 billion cut to discretionary spending would likely result in job losses on the order of 994,000, using OMB's GDP projections and CBO projections based on current law, and assuming a fiscal multiplier of 1.5 percent.

So this is a very serious matter. We Democrats support dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse. We want to see a program. I personally support President Obama's 5-year freeze on domestic spending, with puts and takes, because it doesn't cut as much in the first year. This is all about timing. And I recognize that my colleagues over on this side of the aisle believe and think that what they're doing is going to have a positive economic effect and that this will somehow create economic activity and lower the deficit, lower unemployment. I hope and pray they're right, because if what I think and most economists--reputable economists--think is true, this will have a negative effect and hurt the economy and hurt the people that are out there who are unemployed.

So I think we need to think about this very, very carefully. And cuts of this magnitude, as the chairman said, have never been done before. We are in uncharted waters. We all recognize that we have to have a plan for the deficit. But the plan has to include entitlements, has to include taxes. Discretionary spending is one-third of the budget. You could cut and cut and cut, and you're still not going to solve the problem.

So, hopefully, we can do what we did in the 1980s with Tip O'Neill and Bob Dole, and that is have a bipartisan approach, like they're doing in the Senate today, where Democrats and Republicans get together and work on all of these issues and come up with a credible plan. That is the way to do this.

And I see my good friend, Mr. Young from Florida. I just want to say that I have enjoyed working with him for over 30 years, and I strongly support the defense part of this bill. The defense part of this bill has been worked out on a bipartisan basis by the Defense Subcommittee. It does make reductions in spending but it does it in a very careful and professional way. And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership over the years on national security issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who is the new ranking member on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee and who was the former chairman and ranking member on Agriculture.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former chairman and now ranking member of the THUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

I yield myself 1 minute.

I would say to the gentleman, here is the problem: There are, I think, about 29,000 of these vouchers out there now. And you are correct; some of them haven't been able to find a place to live yet. Secretary Shinseki, who I talked to personally about this, and Secretary Donovan have said there are 60,000 of these veterans who need this voucher. So there are 30,000 more that we need to do. I was shocked when I saw on the list of terminations that your side decided to terminate this program. I hoped you would reconsider that.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

That is what I was going to ask the gentleman. I would like to work with him on this. So if that's the gentleman's intent, then we will work together and try to get the job done.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the former chairman and now the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who has been the chairman and now the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the

former chair of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, now the ranking member, my good friend, Nita Lowey.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee and a very good friend.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 1\1/3\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has now become the ranking member on Agriculture.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). He has become the new ranking member on Military Construction and VA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the new ranking member of the Commerce-Science-Justice Subcommittee.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The Pentagon does not want to kill this program. I just want to make sure that you understand that, because this is one of the highest priorities for the Marine Corps, the Air Force and Special Operations. Most of the problems you're talking about have been taken care of.

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

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I strongly support the gentleman's position here. We've already cut this account. There's $58 million in the account; a reduction of $89 million, or 60 percent below FY10. And the NIST does very good work. So I support the chairman and in opposition to the Latta amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the amendment on our side too.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, in opposition to this amendment.

The Selective Service is a readiness issue. If we don't have the process all set up, it would take 2 years to restore it. And if we're in a national emergency--that's why we put the Selective Service thing in place--because if we were in a national emergency and we had to get more people and we couldn't do it through the all- volunteer force, we have to have a way to do it.

And so we put this in place several years ago. It was very bipartisan at the time. I can understand the gentleman's skepticism, but this is the first we've heard of this. I think it would be better for the committee to look at this and maybe have a hearing on this and then we can address it again in the 2012 bill.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.